A long time ago, at a rally far, far away...

"I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler."

So read the sign that Jon Stewart brandished from his Daily Show desk, on the day he announced the Rally to Restore Sanity. It struck a real chord with moderates and liberals everywhere, because we all recognized that, as comical as it was, it truly needed to be said. Someone needed to point out that you can disagree without demonizing, and that rabid extremism on both sides had made progress nearly impossible in this country.

Flash forward about 7 weeks. I glance over the comments section of an article I'm reading online, and I see some pretty harsh stuff. "Complete dumbass"..."lying lackey"..."unparalleled douchebag"..."he should rot for this"..."Nazi stormtrooper".

The ridiculous thing is that these comments were all made by liberals, on a left-leaning blog. What could get the left to forget about the lessons of the Rally for Sanity so quickly? Well, all these insults (and many more) were directed at Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, because he had suspended Keith Olbermann from hosting Countdown.

The saga of Keith Olbermann has had the left in a blind panic for days. With the announcement by MSNBC that he will return to his post on Countdown tomorrow night, liberals everywhere can finally unclench their asscheeks, wipe the spittle from their faces and calm down. I have to wonder, though, why they were so bent out of shape in the first place.

As I noted in an earlier post, I get why people feel that Olbermann should have been allowed to donate to the candidates of his choice without fear of punishment. However, the fact remained that NBC News did have a policy that expressly prohibited its employees from making such donations, and Olbermann did violate that policy. The policy seems unfair, in light of the many well-documented instances of both direct and indirect support provided to Republican politicians by the Fox News crew. At this point in time, it seems sensible for NBC News to allow its anchors, whose political loyalties are already abundantly clear, to spend their private money on campaigns and candidates they support. Still, the rule was in place and Olbermann broke it, so he got what amounts to a time-out, and now he may resume normal operations. This all seemed fairly reasonable to me. Even Rachel Maddow seemed to strike this same tone when she discussed Olbermann's suspension on her own MSNBC show.

According to the vast majority of liberal America, however, the 2-night suspension of Keith Olbermann was a major injustice, and it required an immediate and deafening response on Olbermann's behalf. Twitter was ablaze following the announcement that Olbermann was suspended; most tweets decried the move and promised boycotts, petitions and continued pressure on MSNBC to "Free Keith!". Phil Griffin was called every name under the sun and instantly became the left's Public Enemy #1. And liberals started exchanging information about how to protest by canceling your cable, and which sponsors to write to, and what Griffin's email address was.

I watched all of this with a combination of bemusement and mild concern. Why, I wondered, were my fellow left-wingers so enraged? Why the Chicken Little routine? Didn't they see that this was not exactly the coming of Armageddon for our side?

I feel that Keith Olbermann, as well as all other NBC News employees, should have the freedom to contribute legally to political campaigns without it being a violation of their contract. I think it made sense for viewers and fans to express their support and to let NBC know that they wanted Olbermann back. Beyond that, I thought it was more or less obvious that neither MSNBC nor Keith Olbermann wanted the suspension to go on for too long, and that the histrionics many liberals displayed were unnecessary. I know about the tensions between Griffin and Olbermann, but I didn't really believe that Griffin would let the centerpiece show in his prime-time lineup wither and die. Still, some worried that this suspension COULD BE THE FINAL STRAW that would SEND OLBERMANN OVER THE EDGE, and then WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO COUNTDOWN, and WHAT WOULD WE ALL DO???

See, this is the sort of stuff that can make me a bit uncomfortable. I am a liberal, and have been for pretty much my entire adult life, even though "liberal" has recently become a dirty word for so many people in this country. I do not consider myself an extremist, however, and I feel this is why I was so out of step with other liberals on the whole Olbermann thing.

I never felt that it was necessary to go all torches and pitchforks on Phil Griffin. That guy is not Olbermann's staunchest supporter, not by a long shot, but he does know on which side his bread is buttered. If for no other reason than pure selfishness, the dude was not going to permanently axe Olbermann, because if he did it would be the end of MSNBC as we know it, and he didn't want that when all's said and done.

Still, people on the left had no problem whatsoever in dumping on Griffin, and going immediately into full panic mode. They started throwing out the hyperbole, the insults, and the moral indignation that, more often than not, comes from the mob on the right and not from the left. It was kinda icky.

I love Keith's show. I believe he is a vital voice for the left, and that he is one of only a handful of people on television right now who are both brave and intelligent enough to get the progressives' case out there before the American public in a clear and passionate manner.

However, I was not about to blindly freak out in his defense when he got suspended, nor did I assume that it would really change things too much if I did. I knew the punishment was going to be short-lived, a token of sorts to let the public know that even though its prime-time hosts are obviously liberals, MSNBC is still trying to maintain some official semblance of impartiality. Now that the exile has ended, I am hoping the drama has ended as well, so liberals can go back to being liberals and return to more left-wing pursuits, like being reasonable and not hurling insults at people when they disagree with them.

A long time ago, at a rally far, far away...

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right

Over the past week, I've been asking myself what it means to be a Democrat.

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.

What's "wrong" about the left is what's right