According to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, the blogosphere is not much better than a "digital lynch mob" filled with "raw hatred." Cohen is reacting to the more than 3,500 e-mails he received in response to his May 4 column which had the audacity to express his opinion - namely, that Stephen Colbert's White House Correspondents' Association Dinner speech was not funny. In response, Cohen was treated to what he delicately refers to as "a bucket of raw, untreated and disease-laden verbal sewage right in the face."
Cohen makes a broader argument, that this anger is coming from the "Democratic left," the "antiwar wing of the Democratic Party [that] helped elect Richard Nixon" back in 1968 and 1972. Today, according to Cohen, "The hatred is back," this time directed at George W. Bush and others who "endorsed a war to rid Iraq of what it did not have." The anger towards Bush et al is understandable, according to Cohen, at least to a point. However, Cohen writes:
Now...that gullibility is being matched by war critics who are so hyped on their own sanctimony that they will obliterate distinctions, punishing their friends for apostasy and, by so doing, aiding their enemies. If that's going to be the case, then Iraq is a war its critics will lose twice -- once because they couldn't stop it and once more at the polls.
Of course, the right-wing blogosphere just LOVES this stuff. Here's right-winger Michelle Malkin, frothing at the mouth as usual about evil lefties:
Newsflash, Richard: They're still throwing rocks. And hurling paint. And Molotov cocktails. And lucky for you, they save their worst invective not for squishy elite liberals, but for minority conservatives.
Now here's right-winger Austin Bay, frothing even more than Malkin (if that's possible):
Richard Cohen, greet the KosKidz. They claim they are the new core of your contemporary Democratic Party.[...]
...These unhinged leftish kooks have been spewing this bile for years+óGé¼GÇ£ since roughly 1968. Arguably the bile has fossilized+óGé¼GÇ£ but Cohen is just now noticing it.
[...]
The American left is where the American far right was in the 1950s+óGé¼GÇ£ besotted with anger, boiling in conspiracy theories. There is a difference, however. +óGé¼+ôOpinion leaders+óGé¼-¥ like Cohen have let the hard left take a large bite out of their own liberal +óGé¼+ômainstream.+óGé¼-¥ Cohen has just now discovered it, because his email box got jammed with garbage. It is a step toward enlightenment, however hesitant a step.
Finally, here's "georgia10" on the Democratic blog, Daily Kos:
The whole "angry left" myth is a copout, an escape-hatch for those who are confronted by fact and choose to respond by attacking the messenger rather than the message. It's a cowardly tactic that originated on the radical right (see Malkin and the "moonbats"); lately, we have seen its use on the rise in the traditional media. It is, indeed, a pathetic diversionary tactic. Instead of addressing the substance of the critique, those who use the easy-out "angry left" defense avoid addressing the true issue at hand.
My opinion? First, I finally got around this morning to watching Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Not only do I think that Colbert was very funny, I think he was very courageous to do what he did, speaking truth directly to President Bush and not showing an ounce of fear. Bravo, Stephen Colbert!
Second, I believe that Richard Cohen has a perfect right to think something is funny or "unfunny," as he calls it. To each his own. No skin off my back, even if I disagree with Cohen. Hell, I never liked "Seinfeld" either, even though millions of Americans thought the show was hilarious. Well, I never did...so sue me! Again, to each his own.
Third, the response to Richard Cohen seems a bit out of proportion to what he actually wrote. Frankly, I couldn't give a flying you-know-what if Cohen thinks Stephen Colbert was funny or not at that dinner. Apparently, though, several thousand people saw the situation differently, and felt the need to tell Richard Cohen in no uncertain terms how they felt. My view: what Cohen wrote about Colbert was not threatening, was not offensive, and certainly did not merit streams of profanity from thousands of readers. I guess I just don't "get it" why people would feel the need to write to Cohen in that way. In my opinion, outrage should be saved for the truly outrageous, like what Republicans do every day to our environment, to our freedoms, to our country's reputation around the world.
Fourth, I believe that the nature of the internet - faceless, instantaneous - removes numerous social constraints againt the type of nastiness Cohen has been subjected to. Would these people have expressed the sentiments they did to Cohen if they had confronted him in person? I doubt it. Or, what if they had had to actually write a letter by hand, stick it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, and plop it in the mailbox? In that case, I doubt they would have bothered. Too much trouble, too slow, no instantaneous gratification. Bo-ring.
Finally, although I certainly don't think Cohen deserve what he got in this case, I also don't agree with his characterization of the entire blogosphere as a "digital lynch mob." I also wouldn't draw broad conclusions about the Democratic left wing from this incident. True, Cohen was subjected to some serious nastiness in this case. But does that mean that, as Cohen, Michelle Malkin and Austin Bay argue, that nastiness is emblematic of anti-war, "unhinged leftist kooks" and "KosKidz?" Uh, I don't think so. Sure, there are crazies everywhere, but if I were Michelle Malkin or Austin Bay, I'd start by looking at my own side of the political spectrum first. On that side, Michell and Austin would find:
*people who refute evolution as "just a theory"
*people who deny global warming
*people who want to turn America into a theocracy
*people who justify torture
*people who justify homophobia and racism
*people who never met a war they didn't like
*people who believe the President should be all powerful
*people who make excuses for an out-of-control budget deficit
*people who tolerate a Republican "culture of corruption"
*people who call for some sort of jihad against "liberal activist judges."
And on and on.
Oh, and go check out the right-wing blather at Little Green Footballs, Hugh Hewitt, Power Line, etc.
In the end, there's plenty of nastiness to go around in this wonderful world of ours, and that of course includes the blogosphere. But let's not draw broad conclusions where they aren't warranted.
First of all, what the hell is wrong with questioning an administration, and being angry at the answers received? Remember the whole "dissent IS patriotic thing? BECAUSE IT IS, dammit.
Secondly, who the hell is anyone to decide what "side" I sit on? I may have some liberal views; well, I have some conservative ones too, but once you have one liberal view, that is all that matters to people.
Too bad for Cohen. It sure is more fun to laugh than complain.
But more to the point. It's rude (and more) for a president to steal an election, deprive people of voting rights, enable Enron to steal from us, ratchet back our Constitution. It's rude (and more)to hijack two other branches of government and render them worthless by virtue of 750 signing letters. It's rude (and more) to play fast and lose with our economy. (And He better not tell me how great its' done for the past five years of generally little growth the stock market --and the plunge began before 9-11). It's rude (and more) to ignore warnings of a terrorist threat and then take away our freedoms because he was asleep at the switch. It's rude(and more) to deprive Americans and Iraqis of their lives, livelihoods, and the right to live their lives by waging a war based on ficiton. It's rude (and more) to take government money collected form everday Americans and give it to the rich. It's rude to deny Americans jobs, medical care, and the ability to aford decent housing. Hegemony is rude (and more). Ettiquette is nice. I believe in it. But it's way too late to make nice with those who do the above. Cohen would lick their boots and smile. And Colbert's presentation was more polite than the rude (and more) so-called leadership of this country deserved. Personally, I wouldn't attend anything where GBW was present. It would give me acid reflux. But I have to hand it to Colbert. His "rudeness" was so controlled. I don't know how he stood so near GWB without, well, without reflux. Cohen talks to us of being "rude." Is he kidding? The Bush administration invented rude (and so mcuh more). Why aren't their more Americans being "rude" about their country being hijacked.
Ya gotta a love his ploy, though. He knows that so many Dems care so much about being polite that they won't say what needs to be said or dig deep when the going gets tough. Too many will just fold up because (oooh) we don't want to look rude. So, sorry , Cohen. It didn't work. We won't give up. It's not rude to demand honesty, integrity, and fairness from those who purport to represent. It's not rude to take Cohen sternly to task for his spineless complicity with White House Talking Points Patrol. And frankly, Cohen is rude (and so much more).
I'd submit that the real reason Cohen is smarting over Colbert's appearance is that Colbert actually skewered the media as much as Bush. And that violates some 11th Commandment Cohen seems to think exists. The upstart, Colbert, just wasn't deferent enough to his supposed superiors in the so-called "real" media.
Lefties in the 60s and 70s were too often out of control (e.g., spitting on Vietnam Vets) and as a result, lost a lot of formerly good Democrats -- like Jim Webb, who is only now coming home.
The pro-immigration demonstrators last month set a better example when they stayed on message and placed themselves -- quite touchingly -- in a sea of American flags. How we present ourselves matters, and it's where the Republicans, especially since Reagan, have been cleaning our clock.
We need to deliver our message forcefully, clearly, unapologetically -- but also thoughtfully, and with dignity and respect for ourselves and others.
I'm certain that most of them were phrased "forcefully, clearly, unapologetically -- but also thoughtfully, and with dignity and respect for ourselves and others."