Thoughts on a vanished essay

I was reading an essay by TocqueDeville , “Yes, Enough With the Daily Kos Nonsense,” declaring that Docudharma should replace DailyKos as the hub of blogosphere progressivism.  (Sorry if I have to over-rely on memory here, but gee, it’s gone.)  I thought it the usual bold proclamation, so reining in my naturally surly and cantankerous nature, I started constructively commenting to nail down what TocqueDeville’s point in the dispute actually was.  What did Docudharma stand for that Kos didn’t?

MomCat, in the meantime, was stating that the essay was highly inappropriate.  It was fanning a flame war, and making it harder on the folks from Docudharma who were still posting at Daily Kos.

Shortly after I started commenting, the essay disappeared.  My first response was, “what the hell?”  Then I pondered it some more and thought, well, the essay adds nothing to anything, substantively, and if it interferes with good people pursuing a Docudharma tactic, well, we aren’t facing a bold proclamation shortage.  Moderation (MomCat?) was absolutely right to pull it.

Then I thought, “what tactic?”

The implication is that the Docudharma contingent on Kos stands for something, even if not with perfect unity.  I certainly believe that to be the case.

I don’t mean to be simplistic about it, but I’m just trying to open the door one teeny crack wider.  There are real social divisions in this country.  Fundamental differences of opinion.  Always have been, always will be.  That’s okay.  So if there is a fundamental difference between Kos and Docudharma, it is likely the case that these divisions exist WITHIN both sites as well, in one form or another.

The question then, to make the conversation meaningful, is what is the hegemonic position at Kos, what is the hegemonic position at DD?  (This perhaps falsely, presupposes that people can be largely grouped between 2 positions.)  For my purposes, hegemony means not only the loudest or most frequent position, but the position that sets the terms of the discussion itself.  For instance, if electing more Democrats is the bottom line, that controls the range of discussion.

My point is not to add fuel to a flame war.  Exactly the opposite.  If we could clarify the issues (and a vague declaration that they are a bunch of low-life sellouts while we embody proletarian virtue is not what I had in mind), then we could work out what the differences were IN PRACTICE, and then pursue our aims in the realm of practice.  Flame wars are in fact the alternative to this.  Flame wars are easy.  But I care less about Kos than I care about us.

Kos has it easy, what they think is the high ground.  Just cheerlead the Dems.  Ours, as opposition, is the more difficult.  What is the practical alternative to just cheerleading the Dems?  What are we trying to accomplish there?  I have thoughts.  You, gentle reader, certainly have thoughts.  But what are OUR thoughts?  Or is the word “OUR” not even in play?