Increasingly, I have begun to feel intimidated or wary about writing my thoughts and doubts about these issues, lest I be set upon by a pack of Defenders of the Kos. It is this sense of intimidation that spurs me to write this, among other reasons: when I start censoring myself because I'm afraid I'll be punished with disapproval,
anyone's disapproval, I know I'm allowing others' opinions to matter too much to me. I shouldn't be deciding what to say and not to say online based on any anticipated reaction.
I know Markos Moulitsas personally. I consider him, if not a friend, certainly a warm acquaintance. And NOTHING I am saying here is REMOTELY accusatory of him. I AM, however, accusing many who would "defend" him, of being overzealous to the point of rabidity.
Some may remember back in the day, when the "Cult of MSOC" would follow me around, loudly defending me to my detractors, ganging up on anyone who had anything negative or critical to say about me, burying them in troll ratings. Some may remember still how I PLED with those people not to troll rate on my behalf, because it did nothing to help me. It did, in fact, make my row more difficult to hoe, because in addition to all the OTHER crap thrown at me, I also had to deal with accusations of having a... Cult of MSOC.
God forbid, I ever reach the sort of heights Markos has reached, and people behave this way in some sort of attempt to "defend" me. It's appalling, it's embarrassing and it's just plain wrongheaded.
Look, I have my opinions about the Big Boys of Blogging: for the most part, I think they're doing the best they can, and that their motives are benign. Some of them are more into the money and power thing, and that's fine -- it's their business, it's their thing. It's not mine... but then, of course, saying that is like turning down a Cadillac when no one's even offering me a used Rabbit, you know?
Who the hell knows WHAT I'd do if faced with the chance to make a pile of dough by keeping my mouth shut and/or speaking words not necessarily my own. NOT that I think that's what's happening with the BBB. Frankly, I think they've lucked into a happy coincidence, in that they happen to agree with the very elements of the political community that have hooked up with them.
However, there have been some dissonant chords here and there. The example that comes to mind: The Paul Hackett Affair.
I was bowled over when Markos mentioned Paul Hackett in his keynote speech at YKos as an example of the power of the "netroots" -- not least because when Rahm Emanuel et al threw Hackett under the bus, Markos almost immediately declared that while he was loath to say it, Brown stood a far better chance at winning than did Hackett -- mostly because Brown had the support of the powers that be in the Democratic Party.
Markos's explanation for switching allegiances from Hackett to Brown seemed, frankly, a strange rationale, being that Hackett could have been the ultimate test case for the "Crashing the Gates" experiment. Still, it wasn't altogether shocking that Markos decide to support Brown's candidacy, given that his friend Jerome once consulted for Brown (just as it isn't surprising that Markos now gives Mark warner the benefit of the doubt, given Jerome's position with the Warner campaign; why people profess shock at this is beyond me - if one of my best friends worked for a pol, I'd be inclined to look with different eyes at said pol), especially once it was clear Hackett was to be thoroughly abandoned by the party "leadership." But I'll be clear: it was shocking. And, I still believe, the wrong decision. I read Crashing the Gates, you see. And abandoning Hackett, signing on with the candidate anointed by the DLC, seemed in complete contradiction to the ideas and ideals behind Markos's book.
But in this case, it might be a good idea for Hackett to stand down.
It pains me to say that. I think Hackett would be a far more exciting candidate -- Iraq War vet versus career politician. Outsider versus insider. New blood versus old timer. Straight talker versus the same ol'. And Hackett would offer a perspective not currently available in the Senate.
. . .
If Hackett was the only game in town, the Ohio Dem establishment (as lame as it might be) would rally behind him. In a contested primary, they'll be working against Hackett.
Finally, Hackett hasn't proven an ability to raise money. And no, the $500,000 the netroots raised for him doesn't count, because he'll need $15 million to finance a Senate race. And that would require traditional fundraising, with the kind of donor base the generate the big bucks. Again, if Hackett was the only game in town traditional Democratic donors would open up. With Brown in the game, old loyalties will come to the fore. Brown can raise the money. And he has run and won statewide before.
. . .
So why not let them fight it out in the primary? It would definitely generate a great deal of media attention and help each hone their campaign message and technique in preparation for what will be a brutal general election.
Well, because Hackett would start at a huge disadvantage (money, name ID, ground operation) vis a vis Brown that I fear it wouldn't be much of a contest.
I wanted to scream -- THIS IS YOUR CHANCE! It's a primary, for chrissakes -- isn't this why we HAVE primaries? Why not take this opportunity to test the power of the "netroots?" Why not throw our collective blogospheric weight behind the UNANOINTED one, and have a contest of wills and power between the "Establishment"/DLC -- and US? Let's fucking put our money where our keyboards are, let's have a REAL CONTEST, a goddamned true blue PRIMARY!
But it was not to be. For whatever reasons he had, Markos opted to bow to the Establishment and go down without a fight. And it wasn't my place then nor is it now to tell Markos what to do -- though I said then and I'll reiterate now, what I think he OUGHT to have done. But it ain't my sceptre, folks. In the grand blogospheric scheme of things, I'm a mere courtier.
So what does this Hackett business have to do with the post that inspired this essay of mine? Well, that depends on your point of view, I suppose -- and mine is that all these issues are interrelated. The consultancies, the Jerome Armstrong "scandal," the TNR kerfuffle -- all these things are cropping up because the power of the blogosphere is undeniable and will NOT go away. So what we see is a bizarre confluence of simultaneous attempts to assimilate the blogs (vis a vis Mark Warner and his "courting" us at YKos) and destroy -- or at least significantly reduce -- their influence and power (vis a vis TNR, scandals, accusations and the appearance of impropriety).
It's not going to go away. The questions will continue to be asked. And, in my view, the worst possible approach is to respond to the questions with the kind of ludicrous defensiveness and childish displays in the aforementioned diary (at one point people were adding scatological and absurdly offensive tags to the diary itself).
This is what happens when you crash the gates. All of a sudden, you're not just a pajama-clad kid in his parents' basement; once you've demonstrated your power and influence, people start demanding accountability and transparency. They want to know, for instance, that you aren't pushing a candidate MERELY because you (or your friends) have been paid by that candidate to do so. It LOOKS bad if you haven't made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that this isn't the case.
(And by "made it crystal clear," I do not mean issuing denials or statements. I mean putting the evidence and the proof of your "innocence" out on the table, so that further speculation is irrelevant. We are no longer on the outside, where merely issuing a denial of an accusation is going to cut it. That's the difference between being outside the gates and inside them.)
There have been a couple of highly dubious, but tenacious, mini-scandals floating around the Internets for the past several weeks, relating to Jerome Armstrong and, by extension, Markos Moulitsas. One has to do with a certain SEC ruling and Armstrong.
The closest thing I've found to the whole story about Jerome and the SEC is a diary by Steven D:
Specifically, he was charged with promoting the purchase of Bluepoint shares in various internet chat rooms and forums without disclosing the fact that he had been compensated for touting Bluepoint as a good investment (it was claimed he received shares in 3 other companies from the other defendants at below market prices).
. . .
In his one page answer to the SEC complaint, Jerome denied all the allegations made against him.
. . .
On August 29, 2003, Jerome essentially caved in. He entered into a consent agreement whereby he agreed not to contest the allegations of stock touting, and agreed to a permanent injunction that would ban him from ever touting stocks in the future. He also agreed not to make any public statements denying any of the allegations the SEC had made against him in the complaint, except as required when giving testimony under oath.
That last paragraph explains why Jerome has not said anything in reply to the swirling scandal online about this 3 year old issue. Unfortunately for Jerome and, by extension, Markos, even the allegation of this sort of behaviour bodes ill; especially given the schematic is virtually identical -- pushing a product (client) while being paid to do it, and PERHAPS not fully disclosing the fact that you have a financial stake in it.
For Jerome, it will take a long time building credibility to make it go away. Wishing will not make it so; attacking the credibility and motive of anyone who brings it up will not make it go away. At this time, Jerome is a paid consultant; Markos is not. However, they are friends, and it will take a concerted effort to AVOID the appearance of impropriety on Markos's part, especially. The accusations are PROBABLY baseless (I know I don't believe them); but the fact remains that if someone wants to plant seeds of doubt, to stir up rumours, it isn't that hard to do with this situation. I've seen it repeatedly -- and not just at the right wing smear sites.
The fact that there are few FEC regulations regarding internet fundraising, political consultancy and blogging may well turn out to be an Achilles's heel for those of us who operate at ANY level of political blogging, regardless of ideology.
Which brings me back to the diary that inspired this: do people actually think that loudly and viciously attacking the questioners will make the questions go away? Is DKos supposed to remain a Doubt Free Bubble, where the big bad world and its realities are to be ignored when they do not fit a certain Fairy Tale outlook we wish to maintain about our "home?"
Here is how I approach such circumstances: I reverse the ideology of the main players. How would I react if this involved a right wing cast of characters? If I cannot apply the same standards to myself as I do to them, then I have a big problem, because I HATE hypocrisy. HATE it.
I'm no saint. My personal behaviour in many circumstances, not only in the past but right now, as we speak, has often been reprehensible. For example: I'm often guilty of the hypocrisy I loathe. But when I am confronted with it, I do my level best to correct the situation. If I am guilty of applying a double standard, I want to alter my course.
So what's my point? I am not demanding accountability of Markos or Jerome or anyone else in this bizarre reality into which we in the blogosphere have stumbled, though I think I may have made a good case for the NEED of that accountability, strictly in terms of credibility.
So what do I want, why am I writing this?
I want to be able to open up someone's well-written diary that brings up issues which make me uncomfortable, makes others uncomfortable -- and read a levelheaded discussion thereof; perhaps passionate but still rational. I want to be able to declare myself a full-fledged member of the community of Daily Kos without having to QUALIFY that declaration.
I want to stop cringing in embarrassment -- for DKos, for myself --every time I read a discussion of a hot button topic where the diarist falls into the minority opinion.
I don't know if it's simply a case of inevitability, being that the site has grown so large as to make this an irreversible trend.
I hope not.
Bumper Stickers & MORE
