A Review of the "Partisan War Syndrome" authored by David Sirota.

[LittleClarkie]

Reviewed by lil ol' me.

If you would be so kind as to read my review and let me know what you think. Here's the beginning bit, with the rest, as well as a link to the original article, continuing here:
http://littleclarkie.blogspot.com/2005/10/review-of-partisan-war-syndrome-by.html

-----------------------

"He almost gets it right. Sorta. Well, not really, but there are some interesting bits in this article that got me to thinking. I had hoped, when I printed out this article last night to read at Starbucks this morning, that it would be about the incessant wars between Clarkie Dems, Deaniac Dems, Kerrycrat Dems and the like.

I don't think we have time for such things at this point. We have a party to build, grassroots to grow and stuff like that there. Not to mention the primaries are so "2003."

I will personally defend any Democrat who needs it on the political message boards and blog spots I frequent. Or anyone else for that matter when they are being unfairly smeared by partisans. I'm proud of most of our Dems, even Biden and Hillary on occasion (I know, shocking. But every once in a while...) Once in a blue moon even Joe Lieberman does something to get a cyber cookie from me.

Zell can go to hell, however.

Be that as it may, candidate wars turned out not to be what this article was about. Dang. I'm not completely sure exactly what the point of the article was, exactly. Here's an excerpt describing the Partisan War Syndrome as a "disease":

Certainly, this disease can be difficult to detect. The mainstream media regularly portrays the so-called Democratic base as a highly ideological, "liberal" or "progressive" monolith, supposedly pressing an insulated, spineless D.C. Democratic establishment to move to the "left." This portrayal creates the image that there really is a cohesive, powerful ideological force on the left, one that is committed to convictions and issues before party-much like there is on the right. This image is reinforced by the mainstream media's constant characterization of Internet blogs and the "netroots" as an extension of this monolith-as if a medium automatically equals an ideology.

As proof that such a monolith exists, the media writes stories about this or that Democratic politician-no matter how conservative he or she is - pandering to or courting the "left" by once in a while taking a mundane Democratic Party position and then blogging about it. We also see an entire counter-industry to this mythical monolith in the form of organizations like the Democratic Leadership Council, which raise corporate money, put out reports attacking the supposedly all-powerful "left," and commission polls to discredit what, in reality, is a straw man."

Okay, this bit appears to be a rant about the Conservative press distorting even the most Republican-lite Democrat as a bastion of liberalism and the left. Okay. Fair enough. I've seen that. Hillary comes to mind, actually.

Here's a bit more:

This blunting of the left's ideological edge is a result of three unfortunate circumstances. First, conservatives spent the better part of three decades vilifying the major tenets of the left's core ideology, succeeding to the point where "liberal" is now considered a slur. Second, the media seized on these stereotypes and amplified them - both because there was little being done to refute them, and because they fit so cleanly into the increasingly primitive and binary political narrative being told on television.

And third is Partisan War Syndrome - the misconception even in supposedly "progressive" circles that substance is irrelevant when it comes to both electoral success and, far more damaging, to actually building a serious, long-lasting political movement. This is the syndrome resulting from the shellshock of the partisan wars that marked the Clinton presidency. It is an affliction that hollowed out much of the Democratic base's economic and national security convictions in favor of an orthodoxy that says partisan concerns and cults of personality should be the only priorities because they are supposedly the only factors that win elections. It is a disease that subverts substance for "image" and has marked the last decade of Democrats' repeated failures at the ballot box.

Okay, I'm still with him here. He seems to be saying both that the Left isn't answering the echo chamber of the Right, so that the Right can fill that chamber with any amount of garbage with no fear of contradiction, which is true. He also seems to be saying that the Left is more interested in finding someone who can get elected than finding someone who presents the ideals of the Democratic Party. I've seen that as well, from Deaniacs and Kerrycrats and Clarkies and Bayh folks and Warner folks, etc, etc. "We need a Southern Governor!"

Continues at link -- right at the part where David goes off the mark.
-----------------------


I'm kind of new to the blogging "thang" so if you'd like to have a look at the rest of it as well, I'd be much obliged. Constructive criticism greatly appreciated. The link to the whole enchilada is below my sig picture, or right here:
http://littleclarkie.blogspot.com/

Thanks.

[Nickster]

1. Good job. It's spelled Sirota though.

[LittleClarkie]

2. Oops. Fixed. Thanks. And me a proofreader too.

Oh, the shame of it :cry:

Fixed it on the blog as well. Thanks again.

[librechik]

3. ack--that para makes my teeth grind

Sirota is usually a much better writer. That snippet is overburdened with ornate latinisms to the point of incomprehensibility. No wonder you said "seems to be saying."

Sigh. One longs for the greater perspective that being 10 or 15 years older would give Sirota. Guess I'll have to write my own book someday.

[LittleClarkie]

4. I hit the 4 paragraph mark right there, but there's a bit about

progressives genuflecting at the mention of Hillary that sends me into apoplexy a bit later in the review. I mean, good GOD, what is this guy smoking!?