I’ve been almost exclusively a lurker on the site since 2003. I read all the front page posts pretty much every day and I usually take a look at a fair number of Recommended diaries. I’ve always found the site provocative and I like to stay informed about what the progressive big thinkers are talking about and where the progressive movement is headed. I’ve never been much of a joiner though and, quite frankly, I’m not all that smart -- usually someone else is better able to articulate the things I think so I almost never comment or post diaries. Am I part of the dkos community? I like to think so. Though I think a fair argument could be made that if you don’t participate – if no one will miss you when you’re gone – you’re not a member.
I just took a quick look at my profile to see what my eight-year legacy would be if this post ends up getting me banned. In all that time I’ve posted a grand total of 30 comments and 1 diary; no followers; hmm… not too impressive. My UID number is 11493 so that’s kinda cool. At least I recognized something really cool was going on here pretty early.
Maybe that's enough to get you to make the jump.
Interestingly enough, although I’ve never really participated, I’ve always been strangely compelled by the site meta. The internal flame wars and pie fights and spin-off sites and warring factions are all good fun. But I’ve always been most interested in discussions about what exactly the site is. What the philosophical foundation of the site should be.
Several years ago I read a diary by a guy who had a pretty big following and was banned (I think for conspiracy theory). A friend of his posted his GBCW missive where he basically laid out some pretty compelling arguments about how dailykos became more than some dude’s soapbox. He argued that it was bigger than Markos and that Markos had done a wonderful thing in creating it but he basically had a moral imperative to turn it over to the Progressive community as a whole. Markos always argues back, “hey, it’s a big internet; go start your own blog if you don’t like my rules.” This guy was basically saying though that dailykos has become (by timing, luck, yes hard work, but a bunch of other factors) acknowledged as THE place for progressives - not just to progressives themselves but to the larger political universe. You simply can’t get the sheer magnitude of audience and group-source progressive awesomeness anywhere else. And that this meant kos could no longer hide behind the “hey, it’s my sandbox; if you don’t like it, take your toys and go home” line. I remember at the first yearlykos convention when Markos made his speech where he very humbly declared, “I just built a website.” It was an acknowledgement that the site had become way bigger than the man who built it. I also think appointing the ever-patient, fair, gracious Meteor Blades as the moderator was also a wise acknowledgement that the guy who can be, by his own admission a bit of a hot-head is not the guy who should be in charge of moderation on the site.
Ok, enough stalling, on to my potentially bannable tilting at the great-orange-satan windmill.
I’ve always been a little put off by the animosity towards any discussion of third party on dailykos. But I’ve been more annoyed by Markos’ own inconsistency and hypocrisy on the matter. In his recent post Markos says with regard to automatic bannable offenses (in the same league as making racist comments):
If you advocate for third party? Zap! This is a Democratic site. Advocating primaries is okay. Advocating third party is not.
Really? Is this a Democratic site? I have to say it sure doesn’t feel like that to me. We have the DNC for true partisan, Democrats-for-Democrats-sake Democrats. It feels to me and I think it’s viewed by the larger world that the site actually isthe largest progressive community blog in the United States
Or maybe it’s a place that advocates for “more and better Democrats, not necessarily in that order” but what ever it is, “This site is CERTAINLY NOT for all Democrats. Joe Lieberman learned that.”
Which brings me to my point. Really a question for Markos: Let’s go to bizarro world for a few minutes and suppose that Joe Lieberman eked out a win in the 2006 democratic primary but Ned Lamont was leading slightly in all the state-wide polls. What if it was clear that Ned Lamont running as the Lamont-for-Connecticut Party candidate really could beat the Democratic Party candidate, Joe Lieberman, if only he could get a little bit of extra money and boots on the ground from somewhere… some non-traditional democratic source of fundraising… some truly grass-roots organization… maybe the netroots? Maybe even Dailykos. Let's even throw in for fun that Lamont swore on a stack of bibles on television that he would caucus with the Dems once elected. Markos appeared in a commercial for Ned Lamont the Democratic candidate. Was he advocating for the candidate or for the party? (Remember that the Republican that year was at the “some dude” totally-irrelevant status level. Polling showed there was NO chance that splitting the vote would yield a Republican senator from Connecticut.) It was either Lieberman or Lamont in the general election for that race. Does it really matter who had a D after their name and who didn't? Would Markos have campaigned for Lieberman had all that been case? Would he have sat it out? More importantly, regardless of what his own actions were, would he blame any Democrat or any progressive or any user on dailykos.com who decided to support Lamont under those circumstances.
Circumstances are everything (and to be fair, kos recognizes this) which is why the only way for him to moderate the site is to say, yes, I'm consistently inconsistent. I get the whole
I'll define "bannable dickishness" the way you define pornography or irony -- you know it when you see it.thing, I really do. But the antagonism to anyone who even talks about third parties just dumbs down the discussion.
Times change. People evolve. Parties evolve. The Republican Party didn't exist in 1850. The Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt looks nothing like the Republican Party of Eisenhower which looks nothing like the Republican Party of today. The Democratic party of 1865 looked more like the Republican Party of today.
Given the choice would you vote for Zell Miller (D) or Lincoln Chafee (R)? Joe Lieberman (D) or Abraham Lincoln (R)?
Let's go back to bizarro world again. The Democratic Party has been drifting right for the last 20 or 30 years. Democratic nominees for president are getting more and more conservative. Let's pretend that for you -- for all the issues that you consider important -- 20 years from now the Democratic Party nominates your political equivalent of George W. Bush for president. And the Republican Party nominates your political equivalent of Dick Cheney for president. What would you do? Yes, someone could make an argument that, "hey, you only have two choices; Cheney is waaay worse the Bush." But really, don't you at some point say, "Fuck it. Neither."
Everyone has their breaking point. You only get one vote. Platitudes aside, one vote actually is pretty meaningless. And if you aren't going to go out and knock on doors and actually campaign on someone's behalf -- if ALL you're going to do is vote -- your one vote really is kinda worthless. It's even more meaningless if you don't live in a swing state. Can you blame someone for wanting to do at least something with their meaningless vote when they feel completely marginalized by their choice of candidates?
There are times when a person decides when it makes sense to work within the establishment and to try to change it for the better. And there are times when a person decides it makes sense to work from outside the establishment to try to change it for the better. A lot of good progressives teeter on that line. Wish them well when they leave. Welcome them back when they return.
Ok. If I get banned, I suppose no one will really miss me and things won't change all that much. I'll still read the site everyday, but I suppose I will feel less a part of the community just knowing my moniker doesn't exist anymore.
Whatever the case, remember: the lurkers are watching!