Francis Holland has an interesting post accusing the DailyKos community of misogyny [1] with regards to Sen. Clinton’s campaign and I am crossposting my reply here. As always, I think Holland forms a provocative and lucid argument which is worth the read. Moreover, he gets no argument from me that the anti-Hillary rhetoric at DKos certainly borders on irrational for a woman (and occasionally women in general) who has carried so much water for the Democratic Party. But I think the explanation is far less sinister than he would have us believe and, "four legs good, two legs bad" and all that, it really doesn't surprise me that DKos reacted as they did to his accusation.
In my own "humble yet insistent" opinion:
*In the aftermath of "Crashing the Gate [2]," the bulk of the DKos community has been suffering a form of establishment greed as they delude themselves that they and they alone are the voice of the “new†Democratic Party.
*DKos is under the throes of group-think. Boasting a vociferous and sharply critical crowd, one must have an incredibly thick-skin to offer a minority opinion. Even experienced bloggers have found themselves torn to shreds - by those supposedly on the same team - for no discernible reason other than having the temerity to disagree with the torch & pitchfork crowd.
*The Mark-os-amatons see themselves as President and CEO of the netroots, a position they zealously protect. I can't count how many times I have encountered vicious diary/comment criticism based wholly on the basis that somebody (MSM, RNC, etc.) might just see it. This may be precisely how a political party closes ranks around a unified position, but by disallowing the influx of new ideas and opinions, DKos has virtually ensured the death of its own evolutionary process.
All this being said, I disagree with Holland’s premise that the DKos community (and by implication, anyone declining to support Hillary) are guilty of misogyny. People who do engage in commenting (or who write diaries themselves) form a vociferous minority of around 1% of the whole. I think it is fairly obvious that they are deeply unhappy, nay - angry, at the state of affairs over the last six years and are doing what they can to effect a reformation.
From my perspective, this group is terrified of continued Republican hegemony (something with which many of us can agree), but almost equally scared of the Democratic establishment who have enabled this. Hillary Clinton is in name, action, rhetoric, and record the quintessential embodiment of this establishment. Whether or not these are rational criteria upon which to oppose her candidacy is a matter of personal opinion. Nevertheless, they certainly seem to satisfy Holland’s demands for an alternative explanation to misogyny.
[3]
Links:
[1] http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-misogyny-at-dailykos.html
[2] http://www.booksite.com/texis/scripts/oop/click_ord/showdetail.html?sid=3401&isbn=1931498997&music=&buyable=0&assoc_id=&spring=
[3] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fthehindsightfactor.com%2Fa_response_to_mysogyny_at_dailykos&linkname=A%20Response%20to%20%22Misogyny%20at%20DailyKos%22
[4] http://francislholland.blogspot.com/2007/04/anger-and-disgust-at-white-male_25.html
Comments
Re: A Response to "Misogyny at DailyKos"
Hi, thanks for reviewing my article, and for agreeing with many points.
You said, "I think it is fairly obvious that they are deeply unhappy, nay - angry, at the state of affairs over the last six years and are doing what they can to effect a reformation."
I agree with that but while about 70% of Democrats are seeking change that includes ending the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency and vice presidency, too many people at DailyKos seem to want to change the status quo by electing the 44th all-white all-male president/vice-presidential ticket.
Sometimes they seem to have profound lack of imagination for people who call themselves "progressives." In a country where less than 35% of the populace is from the white-male demographic, all of the most popular presidential candidates there are white males, including some white males who have NEVER, EVER been elected to any office anywhere at all, like Wesley Clark. It follows that they have never run a successful political campaign on the national, state or even local level. And yet, for some reason (like white skin and a penis) they look like more probable candidates than women and Blacks who have won and been in the US Senate.
How many times have you heard someone at DailyKos propose a Democratic presidential ticket with even one woman anywhere on the ticket, as president or vice president. I'm not talking about hypotheticals, but I'm talking about someone saying, "I'm going to work for Ms. X? I donated to Ms. X. It's ironic that although 53% of America is women, the most "progressive" people in the country can't think of even one woman for whom they would actually act to mount a "Draft Pelosi" campaign, but the have "Draft Clark" and "Draft Gore" and "Draft . . . EVERY SINGLE DRAFT movement has a white male's name involved! Are white men so rare in politics that we need to draft them? [4]
From what I can see, there is no liberal sense of justice at DailyKos. The South African Apartheid System wherein the white 25% of the population ruled South Africa while the Black 75% were excluded from political representation seems to be a formula with which most at DailyKos have no problem whatsoever. Their annual meeting is all white, their membership is virtually all white . . .
Meanwhile the supposedly status quo part of the Democratic Party is the part that wants to elect the first woman or Black person instead of perpetuating the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency. In my article, [4]Anger and Disgust at White Male Leadership Fuel Contributions and Polling of Clinton, Obama [4] , I argue that most Democrats are so sick and tired of the status quo, including the 43-term white male monopoly of the presidency, that 70% of Democrats are saying they are going to vote for Clinton or Obama - someone other than the white male leadership status quo. At DailyKos, they want to change the status quo by reaffirming the white male minority monopoly of the presidency. As far as I'm concerned, DailyKos is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. (Kos DID vote for Bush in 1992 afterall.)
Francis L. Holland
Re: A Response to "Misogyny at DailyKos"
Francis, thanks for taking the time to respond! As usual, I agree with virtually everything you say. The rank and file at DailyKos are singularly obsessed with winning, and seem to exhibit little regard for anything else. I'd even go a step further and say that their obsession lies with breaking their own dismal track record for endorsment (I forget who told me this, but I think only 4 out of 25 candidates they've supported have gotten into office). This seems to explain why they lock on to a cadidate they feel has the best chance of winning which, in their own narrow, elitist viewpoint, is without fail another white male.
BTW, interesting - I wasn't aware Kos voted for Bush in '92. Â