CSotD: An exercise in perspective
Skip to comments
Nick Anderson lays out the fairest commentary on the Democratic primary process that I've seen in recent weeks.
It's a mess, and it's a self-inflicted mess. He avoids the cliche of the "circular firing squad," which — lame lack of originality aside — matters because there is no other purported target as in that metaphor: They're deliberately shooting at each other.
And, while I'm not a great fan of "They all do it" defenses, in this case, it's fair to say that, yes, there is provocation coming from both sides and understandable frustration, even if what happens as a result is indefensible.
Fair commentary needs to consider the difference between "explaining" and "defending" bad actions, which apply in far more cases than this one.
There is no defense for bad actions, but it is not out of line to say that, when people feel they are being shut out of the system, they don't always respond meekly.
Nor is it out of line, for instance, to note that, while 200 people were throwing stones and setting fires in the street, another 20,000 were protesting peacefully.
It doesn't justify the actions of the 200. It simply differentiates them from the 20,000, in case anyone sought to lump them together and discredit the entire movement.
Sanders has taken flak for explaining the bad actions of some followers by noting their frustration.
But, given how often – starting the night of the New Hampshire Primary — he has called upon his supporters to behave decently and remember that the goal is to put a Democrat in the White House, I think it's a harsh judgment to accuse him of "defending" them.
Given the number of cartoons that accuse Sanders of fomenting the abusive behavior, I like Steve Sack's more reasonable take, in which Bernie himself is shown as a flower, while his followers are depicted as noxious weeds.
I wish it didn't suggest that the toxic offshoots are more of a factor than they are. But a garden of flowers with a few weeds poking up among them would hardly carry the message, and I'm not going to press the point too firmly.
Cartoons depicting him as leading this bad behavior are as lazy and unfair as cartoons claiming he has promised "free" things. (And who started the "unicorn" thing? Some influential commentator, or just a late night comic? Because that memo sure got around!)
And cartoons suggesting that the "Bernie Bots" and "Bernie Bros" are a major part of his entourage are unhelpful and unfair, for a couple of reasons.
To start with, they assume that the loudest and most persistent voices on the Internet reflect the numerical balance in the real world. I don't think you should have to be online very long to overcome that impression.
I've heard from cartoonists appalled at the pushback they get from Sanders loyalists, and I'm sympathetic. But I expect a better sense of perspective from professional commentators.
"Don't read the comments" is not simply a cliche but a true piece of wisdom, and I would note that, at cartoon sites, whether the syndicates' or those of individual newspapers, most comments are the readers talking to each other. Put a cartoon up on Facebook, however, and the comments are more directed at the cartoonist personally.
You should know that. If you gather 5,000 "friends," some of them will be jerks, and if you leave comments open even to non-friends, you can't expect them all to raise their pinkies when they sip their tea.
And, for that matter, you need to differentiate a bit: I've been mocked on the Internet for my small and inadequate penis and have been called "sweetheart" and have otherwise been vicioiusly dissed by people whom I don't classify as "Clinton supporters" so much as "psychotic assholes." (Which you will note is a non-sexist term.)
I don't take them seriously, nor do I believe they are a large number of her base.
Do I believe there are misogynistic, hate-spewing imbeciles who oppose Clinton because she is a woman? Sure, absolutely.
I also believe there were racist, hate-spewing imbeciles who opposed Obama because he was African-American. And they weren't cited as a factor because they were just a bunch of imbeciles. And he was elected twice, so there ya go.
Nobody cited them as a factor and nobody claimed either that the McCain or Romney campaigns were behind them, or that Obama's own campaign was setting them out to discredit his opposition.
Although, this time around, there is the whole David Brock thing, the specifics of which we may have to wait years to figure out. His PAC is spending huge amounts of money to do to Bernie on Hillary's behalf what Brock did to Anita Hill on Clarence Thomas's behalf.
Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.
This is not some paranoid rambling about the Trilateral Commission or black helicopters, and I don't know how many Internet trolls are being paid to spew their venom by Brock's well-funded PAC. But he sure did "correct the record" about that nutty, slutty law professor, didn't he?
I haven't heard a disclaimer, either "explaining" or "defending" Brock or his helpful support.
I think we need to hear that.
Surely, if one candidate is responsible for the knuckle-dragging, anti-social morons in his extended entourage, that sauce ought to do equally well for both goose and gander.
DISCLOSURE: In addition to being skeptical about the numbers and influence of Bernie Bots, I am also skeptical about Planned Parenthood's sale of baby parts, the threat of New Black Panther Party voter intimidation, sexual assault by transgenders in public bathrooms, widespread voter fraud due to lack of driver's licenses, and ACORN's eagerness to provide logistical support for pimps.
Not skeptical about today's On the Fastrack
Comments 2
Comments are closed.