Criticism of Candidates Is Not a Personal Attack on Supporters

 by D. Cupples |   Progressive bloggers have often unified over issues like war, health care, FISA, the economy, contractor fraud....  These days, many progressive bloggers are bitterly divided over the Democratic presidential race.

Whether a month from now or five, the primaries will conclude.  And we'll need to re-unify over  substantive issues, because unity makes our collective voice audible.

I'm not proposing that we join hands and agree on a candidate.  Pigs would sooner navigate the friendly skies.

I'm not even proposing that we go easier on our candidate's opponent, be it Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

What I am proposing is this: when emotions flare, why not take a deep breath and remember that criticism of our candidate is not a personal insult against us.  Critics of our candidate are not calling our mamas "ugly."

If a blogger or commenter hurls insults, why not either engage civilly or not at all?  REturning the insult would only escalate the nastiness.   

I don't take such insults personally, because the insulter doesn't even know me.  It's like the mom who remains un-fazed when her three-year-old who screams "I hate you" because mom said "No" in the grocer's cereal aisle.

We've seen this before.  After 9/11, Limbaugh fans pointed and howled vituperations at anyone who dared question George Bush -- sort of like those creatures from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

A close family member yelled and hung up on me for criticizing Bush, though we're not part of the Bush family.

It was jarring, until I recognized where it came from: severe and undue emotional investment in politicians.

I have been challenged by bloggers who don't like what I write about their candidate -- but for the most part civilly.  And I've responded the same way.   

Isn't that what the blogosphere is about -- the ultimate in sifting through the "marketplace of ideas"?

I haven't yet converted any bloggers to my candidate, and they haven't yet converted me. 

But we're still conversing, which means that when we get a new president and Congress in January 2009, we'll have no trouble re-unifying over substantive issues and making politicians think twice before pushing public policy that doesn't serve the public.

Via Memeorandum, Erica Jong has an interesting piece at HuffPo on how the Democratic party is "shooting itself in the foot."

Other BN-Politics Posts:

* Wall Streeters Become Welfare Clients (Again)

* It's not a Recession until they Announce it

* The High Cost of Private Contractors

* Jon Stewart on Iraq War Anniversary

* Krugman Gives Historical Perspective on Economic Woes

* Bad News About Americans' Life Expectancy 

.

Comments

[MissMeliss]

I was listening to NPR a few weeks ago while taking a bath (it's a thing) and there was an audio essay about a woman who found herself literally crying about her state's primary, because as a Latina she wanted to be able to support Obama, and as a woman she wanted to be able to support Clinton, and she felt conflicted over that choice, but they're all politicians in the end, and while, as most dems will, I'll likely end up voting for whichever finally gets the nod...I kind of also resent having to make the choice in my own state's primary.

To put up with bashing because of it? I'm lucky, I guess, because my circle of friends (save for one) doesn't DO that.

[D. Cupples]

My circle of friends doesn't bash either. It's just a group of die-hard supporters, sort of like the ones who were into Ron Paul months back.