Political Speech - Free Speech - What Speech?
Update: Katha Pollitt discusses this subject at TPM Cafe.
In the past week or so, a number of diaries have appeared on dKos with regard to acceptable political speech with numerous viewpoints as to what is acceptable or desirable. At the outset, let me say that I am a Progressive. I am open to having my understanding/opinion change with a good and logical argument. We all form our opinions on what we know, both empirically and through reading. When we encounter someone whose experience is either broader or more specialized, we can change our opinions based on new information. I am also a Progressive that tries not to use intemperate language. Why? Partly because that is not my style. Partly because, 55 years later, I remember something my 8th grade teacher said and find that I agree with her.
Miss Farrell said: "Bad language is a sign of a poor vocabulary."
In the 8th grade, we just thought she was square, but I find as I get older that I interpret her saying to mean that curse words, blue language, and ad hominem attack words do not equal a sound argument.
It is truly not my style to use bad language in conversation, but that does not mean that I never use it. Bang my thumb with a hammer (dh and I are not the most coordinated of home repair buffs), and you better believe that strong language comes out of my mouth. But a hammer is not something you can argue with nor can it be offended. :-)
dKos is not just a political site, it is a partisan site that advocates for Democratic Party politics and, while there are Democrats from the full spectrum of the party, the predominant opinion is progressive. Because it is a site for people of a particular persuasion, the fact that people use bad language doesn't really matter that much, especially since quite a few people use aliases like "hells kitchen" to protect their identity.
The recent attack on John Edwards' blogger employees, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, brought out the arguments in full force. I seem to be on both sides of the fence here. Marcotte's post, in particular, was problematical for many people who are Independent or Democratic, but not necessarily liberal or progressive. The problem here is that the audience for Pandagon is purely progressive, and progressives don't have a problem with what she writes. But you take the post out of the progressive environment, and you begin to have problems. As a person who frequently speaks in allegory (I have more time to fix things when I write), I can tell you that there are a lot of people that don't get symbolism, and definitely don't get satire. I have upset so many people in my lifetime from speaking symbolically and having people take me literally. I have not paid the price publicly as Marcotte and McEwen have, but I've had a lot of people confused, hurt, insulted because of that communication style which is natural to me.
Further, when it comes to defending the two bloggers, I think that there is a problem.
Why? it's a question of audience. If all you want to do is curse out Donohue, fire away. But I submit, that Donohue and his minions here are not the audience. It is the ordinary people who aren't necessarily progressive who have needs that are only likely to be met by a progressive Democratic Party who are the audience.
I'm 67 and a progressive. From various political polls that I've read, I know that while I have company in this age group, I am also in the minority with this age group. I also know this empirically. About half the people I know, my own age and older - and sometimes even younger - are difficult to communicate with on progressive issues. I myself use much toned-down language with them, take more time, and must have more patience with them, than with much younger people. Although the people I'm talking about are reasonably well educated and mentally fit, their world view and social norms were developed in a much different time,
dKos has wonderful diaries every day by people who are experts in a variety of fields who present information that is crucial for voters to know about. But I cannot direct them to the dKos site because it is a partisan site and because the terms of discussion are "no holds barred." It's ok for me. Even though my communications style is vastly different, I'm not shocked or personally upset by the way people express themselves. But many of the people I am talking about would not be able to get past the language and attitudes that are expressed.
"Tough luck," you might say. Or as someone commented in one diary, "we come here to duke it out, ya know." And this is true insofar as the site is what it is. The primary audience at dKos and other sites like it are, it seems to me, young to early middle age progressives.
The issue is when you go beyond these environments, trying to reach potential voters and convincing them that your cause is right for them. Then you must consider the audience. They are who they are, and you're not going to convince them with bad language.
To turn this country around, we need to reach as many voters as we can. Middle age and older citizens tend to be more conservative than younger voters, but they do vote. Do you want them to vote for the progressive Democratic platform or for someone else?
The above said, I have to say that I hoped for a stronger statement from Edwards about the attacks on Marcotte and McEwan. Especially after the threats from Donohue's followers started. Tim Ryan's speech in the House excoriating the Republican's accusations that Dems are "unpatriotic" is a role model for how we respond. The other method is the one called for by Marcotte herself, to report Donohue's attack to the IRS.Using stern language and sound reasoning, we should call people out for what they say and do , and use every legal avenue to stop malicious behavior.