I'm not talking about the political aspects of being a Democrat, or the causes and beliefs of the party as a whole. For the most part, those are pretty clear. I'm wondering more about the nature of the typical Democrat. And it's MSNBC host Keith Olbermann that provoked these musings, for a couple of reasons.
First, he tweeted something last weekend, in response to Jon Stewart's choice to include clips of Olbermann alongside clips of Fox stalwarts like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, during a video montage shown at the Rally to Restore Sanity. Olbermann felt that it was a case of false equivalency for Stewart to have aligned him with the mouth-frothers at Fox, and after a few tweets to that effect, he ended on this note: "Whatever the losses are on Tuesday, will they be because Liberals were too LOUD or because they were too timid?"
Then, in today's news, the story broke that Keith Olbermann had contributed to the campaigns of a few Democrats in the run-up to the midterm elections. While none of his contributions were over the allowable limit and all were properly disclosed, they were in apparent violation of the code of ethics at NBC, which precludes its news employees from creating any possible "conflict of interest" by directly supporting political campaigns or organizations. Again, there were early attempts to both defend and dismiss the behavior on Twitter following the story, although they have so far been made on behalf of Olbermann by his fans and supporters and not by Olbermann himself. Tweeted responses to the story include, "It's not like Olbermann pretended to be unbiased or a news journalist", and, "You mean he's a liberal?"
Part of the reaction many will have when criticizing Olbermann will be a charge of hypocrisy. After all, it is Olbermann's show, Countdown, where several recent and ongoing stories have focused on the contributions made to the Republican Governors Association and the Chamber of Commerce by News Corp, the parent company of Fox News. Pointing out how a rival cable network has been unethical with their political contributions may now seem like the pot calling the kettle black, in the minds of some critics.
I'm sure the argument that will be put forth by Olbermann's supporters - and perhaps, ultimately, by Olbermann himself - will go something like this: A few small contributions made legally by a private citizen aren't the same as million-dollar donations made on behalf of a corporation. Olbermann wasn't using his program to raise funds or to solicit other contributions, as Fox's Sean Hannity had done for Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich last month. And, so what if Olbermann gave money to Democrats? At least MSNBC doesn't pretend to call itself "fair and balanced" while simultaneously feeding the right-wing's political machine, as does Fox News.
And I get all of that, just as I got why Olbermann and his fans might have been a bit riled by seeing clips from Countdown included in Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity video montage. The cries of "false equivalency" that surfaced then may well pop up again now.
Still, I feel that the calling out of Keith Olbermann is not "false equivalency" at all. Full disclosure here: I am also a fan of Keith Olbermann. I am a regular Countdown viewer, and I enjoy and appreciate a lot of what he does on his show. Having said that, however, I think it's time to tie in the recent public nudges he's received with the results of this week's elections and the nature of Democrats as a group.
It seems to me that Democrats, on average, are a decent bunch of folks. I shouldn't generalize, of course; there are ignorant and narrow-minded Dems just as there are decent, thoughtful conservatives, and no one person is representative of either party as a whole. But I spend a lot of time with Democrats, and they do tend to have a certain way about them.
They tend to be inquisitive, and will look for information so that they may understand a question before they answer it. The knee-jerk responses are fewer and farther between among my liberal friends, because they are usually more info-based than doctrine-based. With most of them, there is acknowledgment of grey area, of doubt, on many topics they discuss, and when they have those doubts they find out more facts until they feel comfortable with their position on a subject.
They are not, generally, "me first" people. They are sympathetic to the needs of others, and are as responsive as their circumstances allow them to be. They are willing to spend time, money and effort when they can to help when help is needed. They also understand the need for communities and governments to play a role in America's well-being, and if that means we need to pay taxes in order to build roads, pay teachers' salaries or give deserving students grants for college, they're OK with that.
Nor are they "America - love it or leave it" people. They do love America, fiercely, but realize that for all its strengths, it has many weaknesses and areas that need to be improved. They point these out not to bash this country, but to try and garner support for the improvements that need to be made, so that we may be an even better nation. They realize that American exceptionalism, the buzz-phrase dear to the hearts of many on the right, is a bad idea for any nation that wants to have a strong future to look forward to, and not just the remnants of a glorious past to look back on.
Democrats are usually tolerant, and do not fear or persecute those who have a different skin color/religion/sexual orientation, etc. They can live and let live, and they can recognize the difference between behaviors that might be a problem because they actually affect others (like hate crimes against minorities or homosexuals), and behaviors that really don't matter to anyone but the person themselves (like gay marriage).
Another trait that is shared by most Democrats I know personally is the tendency to play fair. I realize that, on the bigger scale of national politics, there are definitely Democratic politicians who are crooked and corrupt too. But in my own circle of Democratic acquaintances, there is a natural inclination to abide by the rules, and to work within the system. Even when they want to change the system, they try to do it from within, not through advocating "second-amendment remedies", as suggested by Sharron Angle. Democrats don't think they are above the rules, and they are outraged when others act as if they are.
And this is where we come back to Keith Olbermann. When he was called out by Jon Stewart for the insults he used in occasional rants on Countdown, it was because Democrats know that's not the right way to carry on. False equivalency didn't apply; insults are insults, regardless of their frequency or severity compared to those thrown around by the hosts on Fox. Lowering the discussion to that level isn't productive, no matter which side does it, and Stewart was correct to make that observation. And if Olbermann's campaign contributions did, in fact, happen in violation of NBC's ethics policies, then it doesn't matter if his donations were smaller and less significant than the ones News Corp. made to the right. His actions may have been legal, and he may have had a right to make those contributions, but he did flout the rules of his workplace. Additionally, in terms of looking bad ethically, he has given some fresh ammunition to his enemies.
Finally, let's consider Olbermann's query about whether the left will suffer more by being too loud or too timid. His concern about the timidity of the left seems perfectly valid when you look at the way most left-leaning folks I know tend to act. Their inquisitiveness and open-mindedness looks like lack of conviction when compared to the black-and-white world the right occupies. Their willingness to support their community and their government can be construed as naive. Their acknowledgment of America's flaws allows some to call them self-loathing apologists. And their tolerance and sense of fair play are no match for the ruthless way that right-wing groups often exploit the rules and the fears of others in order to further grow their control and influence.
So, yes, we Democrats (and liberal Dems in particular) do have a lot of inherent characteristics that may contribute to our perceived timidity. And to people like Keith Olbermann, this is a liability that will forever hold us back when opponents threaten our political landscape, as was the case this past Tuesday. I can't help but wonder, though, if in trying to level the playing field with the right, we'd have to abandon some (or all) of the principles we currently use to govern our own behavior. And if so, would it be worth it?
The fact of the matter is, we Democrats aren't as effective politically as the GOP may be, due to our tendencies as a party in general. I mean, we've all heard it said that the meek shall inherit the earth, but I'm pretty sure that when it comes to politics, that's pretty much bullshit. President Obama displays all the tendencies I named above, and his leadership abilities have been criticized and questioned by both sides. He may be a one-term president as a result. So, is it useful to hold on to our liberal ways if it means that, in so doing, we're resigning ourselves to a government dominated by the GOP?
I can't speak for everyone who supports the Democratic party. I'd like to think that, just as in Star Wars, the powers of good can and will triumph over the dark side of the force, though we may lose a forearm and a whole pile of X-wing fighters before that happens. For myself, I don't think I'd be able to sleep knowing that our side won, but only because we were total scumbags in our pursuit of power. If there's a way to overcome right-wing scumbaggery without being actual scumbags ourselves, I'm all for it. But that's a magic formula we don't seem to have discovered just yet. Hopefully people like President Obama - yes, and Keith Olbermann too - will play a role in helping to guide us closer to that answer before the next election cycle begins.
0 comments:
Post a Comment