“…does that make any sense at all? We can’t even agree about what to call ourselves,” quips renowned progressive blogger Digby, speaking of what she calls “the netroots” to a netroots crowd that seems (counterintuitively, given her previous claim) to have little problem knowing exactly who she’s talking about.
– But of course, none of what Digby argues (progressive bloggers have a wide variety of interests!) addresses the force of the “Stalinist” charge, anyway — which, to be fair, is really only hyperbolic shorthand for the orchestrated hive mind that progressive bloggers have themselves lauded and encouraged to the point where a “unified message” is so important that those liberals or “progressives” who break ranks are vilified, marginalized, or even excommunicated.
For the greater good of The Movement.
Too, many “progressives” (some disguising themselves as “conservative libertarans” or “true conservatives”) have taken to openly calling for the dehumanizing of their political opponents, the justification being that debating “evil” legitimizes it — a position which wouldn’t strike me as so fundamentally illiberal if the “evil” in question wasn’t being defined down to “those who happen to disagree with progressive policy positions and political philosophy.”
Because from that dangerous step, it is a very short rationalization to the kind of tinpot Machiavellianism that courts (sub rosa) coordinated propaganda campaigns (eg., the Townhouse email list, through which the progressive hierarchy sought to control both the content of the progressive narrative and its trickle down dissemination) and justifications for lying or misleading in the service of greater “Truths” — a position at one time openly advocated by Glenn Greenwald(s) and his supporters, some of whom, remarkably, are not even Greenwald himself. [for Greenwald's (unsurprising) take on Digby's speech, see here]
And taken all together — marginalization of the group’s apostates; enforcement of a unified message; dehumanization of political opponents; coordinated and secretive top-down propaganda campaigns; and a willingness to eschew or obscure facts in favor of crafting and defending a narrative that services a larger “Truth” (defined and presided over, conveniently, by those presuming to know best just what information is important or necessary and what information, if released unspun or improperly finessed, would only hurt the Cause, and so should be studiously ignored or undercut) — this is precisely the kind of Movement that smacks of totalitarianism.
Digby, however, prefers to call this “political passion” and notes, self-servingly, that “being vitriolic seems the only sane response” to a country that stubbornly refuses to fall in line with the progressive vision.
So while “Stalinist” may be a bit strong — we should probably save that for a time when the mass purging starts in earnest, if it ever does — the ingredients for an illiberal, ends-justify-the-means “people’s uprising” are certainly in place, with “the people” here being carefully taught how to think, what to say, when to say it, and who to say it to by a self-selected intellectual elite who, using bullying tactics and threats of labeling those who disagree with them either heretical or subhuman (”obscene,” “vile,” etc.), are in the business (with the help of a sympathetic media,* willing judicial activists, and an academic establishment that grants gravitas to “progressive” policy by way of often politically motivated “social science”) of turning what should be, from the standpoint of a representative democracy, a debatable political agenda into what they hope appears, by way of normalization through education and media, as the social status quo.
Contingency and solidarity. Manufacturing Consent.
All that’s missing is the necessary irony — in this case, the inability of such political zealots to regard their tactics with the dispassion necessary to see them for what they are: an attack on individualism and democracy, and on the founding precepts of a country they claim they are attempting to “take back.”
(h/t Dan Collins)
*Digby, incidentally, argues — astonishingly, I might add — that the media’s conservative bent has been part of the problem for progressivism (she cites as proof their complicity in the “witchhunt” over Bill Clinton’s transgressions, a courtesy I’m not certain she would apply to Scooter Libby; and she agitates for a mob rule paradigm when she elevates “the will of the people” over the rule of law); fortunately, the “conservative” media, it seems, can be bullied as easily as Harry Reid, if their coverage of Iraq, stem cell research, global warming, et al. is any indication. So at least the progressives have that going for them, at least.
Comment by Dan Collins on 6/21 @ 9:44 am #
Nice of you to hat tip me, Jeff, when all I did was remark on the number of chins Digby has–because I’m superficial.
Comment by BJTexs on 6/21 @ 9:47 am #
Ah, a subject after me own heart.
Speaking of which, Think Progress is trumpeting a new report that conservative talk radio is dominating the airways and the government needs to step in "in the public interest" and even the playing field. Oddly, they are not supporting the Fairness Doctrine as the leveler, instead pushing for more gender and racial diversity in media ownership.
Is that Stalinist enough for you? Excellent post, Jeff.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 6/21 @ 9:55 am #
What fascinates me is that fellow Americans who disagree with them are beyond approach, irreconcialably evil.
But people who send children to blow themselves up on busses full of commuters? We can work everything out if we just talk hard enough.
Comment by JD on 6/21 @ 9:56 am #
What bugs me the most about them is the complete bastardization of the language that they utilize. Privileges have become rights, and rights have become privileges.
Disagree with them about same sex marriage? Homophobe. Bigot. Disagree with them about the war? Chickenhawk. Warmonger. Disagree with them about affirmative action? Racist. Winning is losing. We support the troops but not the war. The list is practically endless.
The self proclaimed positions of moral superiority, based on their degree of “caring” is another tactic that drives me batty.
Couple that with an inability to make an honest argument, generally marked by savage beatings of defenseless strawmen, and arguing against positions that they have given to you, rather than the ones espoused, creates a perfect storm of their attempts to control the narrative.
Comment by Sue on 6/21 @ 9:57 am #
Amen Jeff!! It is my opinion that there is about a 19-26% group of "Americans" who fit the profile, and another 22-26% who are simply too profound to "understand" what they are being brainwashed with. The next decade or two will surely be something to watch, my only hope is that I live long enough to see which way the wind is really blowing…….
Comment by Veeshir on 6/21 @ 9:57 am #
Now don’t get me wrong, that’s a great essay. But…… I’m a little disappointed. You used like what? About 8 periods? 9? Pretty much about one per paragraph (with two in the one paragraph that didn’t even have a sentence).
I have faith in you though, I think you could have gotten away with only one period at the end with few, sarcastic, exclamation points in the body. I mean, how is the nutroots going to criticize you if you don’t use meta-run-on-sentences instead of just ordinary run-on-sentences? Are you expecting them to attack your essay on its merits?
That’s just rude.
Comment by Dan Collins on 6/21 @ 9:59 am #
I don’t deserve a hat tip, as I merely remarked on Digby’s remarkable chin collection, but thanks, Jeff.
Comment by Dan Collins on 6/21 @ 9:59 am #
Oh. There are the comments.
Comment by Veeshir on 6/21 @ 10:01 am #
Oh, and this essay adds some insight into why the phenomenon you wrote about is so.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 6/21 @ 10:02 am #
Today’s reality-challenged reactionary left are a bunch of fascist thugs, a collection of intellectual and moral pygmies.
Comment by timb on 6/21 @ 10:18 am #
Can one be reactionary and be on the left? How can one be reactionary and progressive? Reactionary by definition means resistant to change and progressive means favors change. Further, as dictionary.com shows reactionary is defined by being "right."
Make a realistic ad hominem attack; you know, like Jeff tried to do.
By the way, Dan, really classy. Remind me how beautiful righties are the next time i see Guiliani
Comment by wishbone on 6/21 @ 10:20 am #
Hmmm—gender and racial diversity in media ownership.Said leadership apparently will not be interested in ratings and profits.Which illustrates the flawed, silly, and ultimately empty message the lefties peddle. Of course, I’m a little confused on the particulars of the message–it tends to get a little lost coming around the bend of the massive irony pile that Rob Crawford points out in #3 above.
Comment by B Moe on 6/21 @ 10:26 am #
I would like to see some detailed recounting of this alternate-history they all seem to want to get back to. It sounds like a fun read, if nothing else.
Comment by Rick on 6/21 @ 10:32 am #
And important Action Alerts. Don’t forget the important Action Alerts.
Cordially…
Comment by wishbone on 6/21 @ 10:37 am #
B Moe, listen to anything Jimmah the C says or read anything that he writes.
Comment by BJTexs on 6/21 @ 10:43 am #
Of course, first having liberally dosed yourself with alchohol and/or psychotropic drugs before engaging in said perilous exercise. Just make sure you have a "moonbat yanker" buddy to pull you out if you go too deep.
SAFETY FIRST!!
Comment by Enrak on 6/21 @ 10:44 am #
Great post Jeff.
God bless the complete lack of irony Digby managed when she stated, "and no one cares…if you’re a stay-at-home dad blogger".
Sure they don’t.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 6/21 @ 10:51 am #
The most amusing part of the whole shabby situation is that these narrow-minded enforcers of port-side orthodoxy view themselves as defenders of free speech even as they excoriate those who are the least bit heterodox. One of our favorite snuggle-puppy Stalinists encourages her commenters to "Blaspheme!" though those who speak blasphemy of her idols are summarily jettisoned.
As Huey Newton said, when fascism comes to America, it’ll be called anti-fascism.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 6/21 @ 10:52 am #
Doh! That’s Huey Long!! Christ…
Comment by Nanonymous on 6/21 @ 10:59 am #
She’s right - they really aren’t Stalinists; to be a Stalinist you need to seize power, and use the bureaucratic party apparat to systematically marginalize and then physically destroy your enemies, your allies, your less loyal followers, your more loyal followers, and then your acolytes. That would be Stalinist.
They’re still just Leninists.
And man, let me just add, Digby makes Molly Ivins look like Cindy Crawford.
Comment by Jeff G. on 6/21 @ 11:00 am #
My therapist says I swallowed a lot of aggression. Along with a lot of pizzas.
Comment by T-web on 6/21 @ 11:00 am #
I think one of the best single pieces of proof of this phenomenon can be found as Kos’ place. The comment section comes complete with an automated “troll rating” tool, where those who disagree with the party line can be easily identified and cast out if they get too bothersome. From what I’ve seen, the site’s commenter often use this on fellow libs who argue points, like “we shouldn’t celebrate the death of Jerry Falwell,” or “the Duke lacrosse players suffered unjustly.”
It’s a major aspect of the Kos Kulture. I jut did a comment search over there for the term “troll rate.” It came up an astounding 1848 times over the past two weeks in the comments alone. Perhaps that number could help Digby understand what we’re talking about
Comment by Nanonymous on 6/21 @ 11:01 am #
There are worse things to swallow. Insert your own Monica Lewinsky joke here.
Comment by Nanonymous on 6/21 @ 11:05 am #
Is it possible to troll a website where you’re in general agreement with the host?
Because I’m feeling kinda troll-like, that’s why I asked.
Comment by Phil K. on 6/21 @ 11:09 am #
Please keep the words" insert" and "Monica Lewinsky" far, far away from each other. It’s lunch time.
Comment by JD on 6/21 @ 11:11 am #
The only way that they can do that is with a complete lack of self awareness and introspection.
Comment by JD on 6/21 @ 11:18 am #
Digby and Oliver Willis should never, and I mean NEVER, mate.
Comment by TheGeezer on 6/21 @ 11:26 am #
They’re still just Leninists.
Well, I like to think of them as virtual Stalinists, since in the port side of the blogosphere - especially KOS - virtual banishment to the gulag and virtual assassination is possible. The alternate reality of the intertubes bestows real-feel upon the powerbrokers of bloggroupthink. The politburo sends an assassin to poke a screwdriver into the brain of noncompliant, analogous Trotskys who dare think differently, even if by accident.
And man, let me just add, Digby makes Molly Ivins look like Cindy Crawford.
Whoops, there goes another mind’s eye…
Comment by Nanonymous on 6/21 @ 11:51 am #
Ah, see - but you’ve identified something important about the modern Left, Geezer - their fundamental impotence. See, virtual excommunication really isn’t an ice ax in the head. It’s just being ignored - sort of like the silent treatment at the lunch table. It doesn’t equate to real violence. That’s one reason among many why there will never be a real revolution in the United States - there’s a lot more sheep than goats on that side of the fence.
I mean, c’mon, their standard of military service is, well, Kos.
Comment by Nanonymous on 6/21 @ 11:55 am #
"Digby and Oliver Willis should never, and I mean NEVER, mate."
I’m guessing that issue doesn’t come up very often for either of them.
Comment by Nanonymous on 6/21 @ 11:58 am #
And I should clarify - I don’t dislike Kos because he’s the sort of whiny little man who hangs out with gay guys, hoping to meet women by covering his anger with a veneer of self-righteous sensitivity.
No, I dislike him because he was an MLRS crewman. As any real artilleryman will tell you, better a sister in a brothel than a brother on MLRS.
Comment by JD on 6/21 @ 12:29 pm #
They can only claim a “conservative” media when they define conservative as anyone to the right of Che and Fidel. This allows clowns like GiGi to claim to be a conservative libertarian, and the left to actually claim that the media is biased against them.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 6/21 @ 12:44 pm #
I stopped listening right after she cited Al Gore’s assault on reason.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 6/21 @ 12:46 pm #
Yeah, that gave me a chuckle, too.
Comment by Robin Roberts on 6/21 @ 1:01 pm #
I was recently in Europe for a couple of weeks, and was in the Norman city of Caen during the G8 summit. Just outside my hotel one afternoon was a group of anarchists protesting the G8 summit - surrounded by 100 gendarmes in riot gear. Their signs were amusingly incoherent - "Stop the G8" was one in english, accompanied by similarly vague and incoherent sentiments in French. I asked some sympathizers who wisely were avoiding the gendarmes attention what specific issues the protesters were advocating. All I got was a blank look - because like so many of the Left today, these had no idea what they were for. But loudly and violently were against something.
Comment by McGehee on 6/21 @ 1:25 pm #
Why am I not surprised they’re pushing, once again, this trope of a "conservative" media?
Comment by daleyrocks on 6/21 @ 1:26 pm #
Dan - Chins? I was thinking more like a goiter with ridges. I’m pretty sure one of those things is also an Adam’s Apple, but I didn’t want to zoom in for a close up.
Comment by nnivea on 6/21 @ 1:30 pm #
"Dan - Chins? I was thinking more like a goiter with ridges. I’m pretty sure one of those things is also an Adam’s Apple, but I didn’t want to zoom in for a close up."
Merciful father! I bet tears roll down the back of her head!
Comment by daleyrocks on 6/21 @ 1:48 pm #
nnivea - I don’t see the tears down the back of the head bit. The eyes, nose and mouth seem to be properly placed although somewhat odd. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Comment by timb on 6/21 @ 1:57 pm #
Robin Roberts, has Monty taken Caen yet?
Sorry, channeled The Longest Day for a minute there….
Comment by JD on 6/21 @ 2:19 pm #
Nanonymous - Actually I was saying that Digby and O-Dub should never mate with each other. Their offspring would be about the size of an adolescent elk at birth. Since sterilization is not possible, and stupidity is not painful, we can only hope that they do not choose each other to mate with.
Comment by syn on 6/21 @ 2:23 pm #
The other day, Dennis Miller on his radio show remarked on groupthink PC speech , I’m paraphrasing a tad, that he ’never imaged Big Brother would come from liberals.’
Come to think of it many of the movies I’ve seen about this same topic imagined for the audience that Big Brother is characterized as a tightly-bonded exclusive group of brazen gray-haired, sometimes bald, uptight, filthy rich white men in suits who, due to societal restrictions caused by Religion, are acting out on their God-inflicted closeted gayness by bring down the wrath of Kahn to all who do not heed the will of The Collective.
Comment by McGehee on 6/21 @ 2:54 pm #
That’s what the liberals wanted him to think, with their revisionist reading of Orwell — who was after all talking about Stalin, whom contemporary liberals practically worshipped.
Comment by kelly on 6/21 @ 3:14 pm #
Practically?
Comment by Farmer Joe on 6/21 @ 3:30 pm #
Is it really necessary to constantly make appeals to the physical appearance of those with whom we disagree? Surely there’s enough in the ideological realm to make fun of without having to make comments about Digby’s weight. I’m not trying to be a scold. It’s just that this is something has always bugged me about the blogosphere. And I’ll admit I’ve done it too.
Comment by VRWC drone on 6/21 @ 3:34 pm #
Not to worry… Oliver is saving himself for Jessica Alba, don’tcha know?
Comment by Major John on 6/21 @ 4:31 pm #
Heh, good one….BTW, nope, he’s still preparing. Carefully and cautiously.
Comment by JayC on 6/21 @ 4:45 pm #
And taken all together  …  this is precisely the kind of
Movement that smacks of totalitarianism.The only thing Stalin had that these people don’t have is guns and vodka.
Comment by Prefountain on 6/21 @ 5:21 pm #
Digby is fat!!lolololol! And Oliver Willis is also fat!!
Comment by happyfeet on 6/21 @ 5:44 pm #
What’s important is that you try to burn off more calories than you consume.
Comment by a_d_o_n_a_i on 6/21 @ 7:29 pm #
What’s important is that you try to burn off more calories than you consume.
THAT’SW what it is all about? Hell.
Comment by shine on 6/21 @ 8:13 pm #
An email list? Machiavellian? oh man. Why would anyone want to dehumanize this sort of thinking? Humanity is the only way to understand it!
Comment by Christine in a Time of Phantoms on 6/21 @ 9:45 pm #
Which is why they aren’t even good Leninists. How are you gonna have a Revolution if guns are bad? Which is why our present Civil War will never heat up.
Comment by Good Lt. on 6/21 @ 11:42 pm #
Digby is fat!!lolololol! And Oliver Willis is also fat!!Oliver Willis IS fat. And so is Digby. (Crosssing fingers HTML works…)
Comment by Good Lt. on 6/21 @ 11:43 pm #
Dang.
Comment by Good Lt. on 6/21 @ 11:45 pm #
Leftists are dumb
Testing
Comment by LagunaDave on 6/22 @ 12:03 am #
The difference is that Leninists, Stalinists, Nazis, Maoists, etc were only successful thanks to the leadership of hardened realists.
In this case, Scientology seems like a more apt comparison…
Comment by Sean M. on 6/22 @ 3:20 am #
I found it telling that, just after she denied that she was a Stalinist, she referred to her home as the "People’s Republic of Santa Monica," as if that was a joke. Oh, I get it now. She’s a Maoist. Maybe that means a few less dead farmers.
Comment by B Moe on 6/22 @ 5:12 am #
The nutroots themselves don’t have guns, and they don’t want you to have them. They don’t seem to have any problem with the government being armed, and this is why they have such a lust to control it. They may find guns distasteful, but they have no problem hiring those that don’t to do their dirty work.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 6/22 @ 7:08 am #
She’s a Maoist. Maybe that means a few less dead farmers.
Um, no. Mao managed to reap a bumper crop of farmers.
I think that likening the netroots to Maoists, Leninists or Stalinists trivializes what Mao, Lenin and Stalin were all about, which is basically that any means are appropriate if the end is ideologically defensible. Mao was a bit more complicated, but that’s a side discussion that can eat up an entire thread. Anyway, such comparisons tend to not have much of an impact with me because they’re wildly inaccurate. The netroots have enough faults that can be accurately described without resorting to Godwinizing. Or criticizing heft, complexion, etc. It’s the kind of thing we ridicule them for.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 6/22 @ 7:32 am #
OTOH some sort of observation about Michael Moore’s rotundity might be in order were he to have made Supersize Me.
Pingback by Organized Labor utopianism vs. (Neo) Populist Socialism... on 6/22 @ 10:59 am #
[...] if so, can we just write it off to “political passion”? Or is there indeed (pace Digby’s smug protestations to the contrary) a tendency among the [...]
Comment by mishu on 6/22 @ 3:30 pm #
Maybe they are Che-ists. All t-shirt and no effectiveness.