"Progressive" ideas and behaviors should no more be immune to criticism than conservative ones, although the goal and nature of criticism of progressive people and ideas is to make our community stronger and better, so that our Democratic Party electoral prospects can be maximized.

There is a self-fulfilling prophecy about the "unanimity" and trends of opinion in the "progressive" blogosphere:  The more progressive Democrats are expelled for expressing disgreement, the more unanimous, homogenous and unrepresentative will be the community that remains.  DailyKos Straw Polls Unrepresentative If enough Democratic progressives are expelled, then absolute agreement on all issues might be achieved, but only among a community all of whose members could fit comfortably in a large wooden row boat.

That increasingly small community will be be increasingly homogenous and insular, limited by its own terms, and consisting of, and representing, progressively fewer and fewer members of the Democratic Party and the American public.  There simply are not enough progressives in America to continually grow membership while continually purging members.  

Is the goal of progressives to become elite and insular and, if so, what effect will this have on progressives' practical ability and moral authority to foment societal change?

And so I have publicly responded as follows to the responsible people at Culture Kitchen and Daily Gotham concerning their warning that they are considering pulling my writing from their virtual shelves and censoring my opinions:

Dear Liza, David, Michael and Culture Kitchen Readers:

I have carefully read Mole333's essay of today on "Community Dynamics and Standards" at Culture Kitchen and Daily Gotham , and I hope the following will be mostly responsive if not completely satisfactory.  I certainly regret any unnecessary discomfort or unpleasant I may have caused by my recent manner of advocacy.  

Thank you for publicly stating your reasons for considering banning me from the Culture Kitchen and Daily Gotham blogs.  I believe that all blogs should give their readers and posters the respect of making transparent decisions about the pruning of public discourse, rather than practice the secret abortions of public opinion that have become all too common in the blogosphere.

I believe you have already done your duty to Markos and everyone in the "progressive" and Democratic communities by stating unequivocally that my opinion are my own and that you do not necessarily endorse anything I say simply by virtue of it being posted at Culture Kitchen.  Since people often take opposition positions in their advocacy, e.g. theist and atheist, you obviously cannot be said to endorse everything that is posted at Culture Kitchen.  The mere fact of allowing someone to post an opinion does not mean that you endorse or agree with it.  I think you have made this perfectly clear.

If the progressive blogosphere is NOT the place to criticize and rail against Markos and DailyKos, then what IS the place?  Should we go directly to the mainstream media with our criticisms, airing our dirty progressive laundry in public?  Should we publish our disagreements among Democrats in the Kos Attacks Dem Contender in WaPost  , as Markos did when he attacked Hillary Clinton last year?  Or should we address issues first among ourselves on the Left, no matter how uncomfortable it may be?  When Markos expelled me from DailyKos, he effectively compelled me to take my issues with him to a wider audience.

I agree with you that correspondence that is intended to be private should remain private.  However, I also strongly hold that any demands that a writer refrain from writing about a certain subject and threats to ban (censor) a writer should be made in public, except in the rare cases where public notice would risk libel or invasion of the privacy of a private individual.  

With respect to anything that is published in a blog, it seems to me that anything that is published for public viewing anywhere can be reasonably reprinted anywhere else.  The value added of the Internet is that it effectively makes "one cloth" out of all of the pieces published on the Internet, through linking of pages as well as through citation and quotes.  Once we publish something, we have no control over how it may be used or when or where.  

So, once you publish an opinion or information at Culture Kitchen or Daily Gotham, that publication can never be private again and its uses are really beyond all of our control.  If you say at Daily Gotham that you oppose racism and I re-publish that opinion at the Francis L. Holland Blog, in a new context, that in now way implies that you have endorsed me or my blog, except to the extent that your actual words say that you have.  However, it is inevitable that if you post against racism others will repeat your ideas in many forums.  And the fact that I announce that an idea is "Cross-posted at Culture Kitchen" no more implies an endorsement by you than a library endorses a book by including that book among the stacks.  

However, when a library removes all of the books of a certain author from the stacks, that DOES have a very important meaning - CENSORSHIP.  "Banning" at a blog is the digital equivalent of censorship - or book burning - at a brick and mortar library, because the intention is the same:  To prevent the public from accessing and considering all of the views available on a particular subject.  

Transparency is crucial to the free flow and exchange of ideas.  When you privately order me to desist from criticizing a public figure like Markos Moulitsas, or a public blog like DailyKos, you are engaging in censorship of information that is crucial to the public's right to know.  When you consider censoring such information, the public has a right to know what information and opinions are being intentionally restricted and withheld, and they have a right to know why.

Markos Moulitsas is "chairman" of a political force - DailyKos - that is attempting to change our society in fundamental ways, including influencing the choice of our next president.  Kos Attacks Dem Contender in WaPost  The public has a need and a right to have more information about Markos and DailyKos to decide whether he and his blog have the moral authority, standing and judgment to push the Democratic Party in the directions that they propose.  This is an urgent public policy matter that is far more important than any individual's friendship or association with Markos or others at DailyKos.  We are speaking about the direction of a nation and its foreign policy, and so  institutional and personal loyalties (and animosities) need to be subsumed to the larger good.

Nor does the perceived "rudeness" of a particular author justify censorship of some or all of that author's opinions, short of pervasive vulgarity or the use of invidious epithets based immutable physical characteristics.  The appropriate response to someone whom you or others perceive to be rude is to ignore or challenge that person - not to ban that person's ideas from public consideration.  

And yet the latter response - authoritarianism - is all-too-common at blogs of the Left and the Right.  Some of us may be constitutionally or situationally incapable of presenting our opinions in a deferential way, but that does not mean that society can safely ignore our opinions without negative consequences devolving from that policy.  Everyone has a right to speak at the risk of being ignored or challenged.

Markos believes he knows who should be elected President in 2008 (and who should not) and he will undoubtedly endorse a candidate in the primaries, arguing that he represents the "netroots".  I disagree that he represents the netroots based on the homogenous nature of DailyKos demographics.  I also believe that an understanding of Markos history, motives and institutional behavior is relevant to the public's judgment of the weight that Markos endorsement should be given.  

Markos consistently criticizes whomever he chooses to criticize, including Democratic politicians and other progressives, and in terms that are frequently harsh and uncharitable.  For anyone to try to  squelch criticism of Markos, his blog and his views is unjust and repugnant.  It perpetuates the monopoly of information and opinion by an "old boys' network."  

The more anyone endeavors to prevent others from challenging Markos' opinions throughout the blogosphere, the more certain is the revolt against the authoritarian and totalitarian impulses manifested in any such attempted control.

Too often "progressive" blog publishers feel a need and moral obligation to consider whether the views of Democratic Party blog participants remain worthy of consideration by the public.  I submit to you that that is a fundamental misconception about the role of a progressive blog publisher.  A blog should leave to public the role of sorting out what is true and what is false, not by censoring views and information, but by forcefully and publicly refuting erroneous views and information.  If I unfairly criticize Markos, then let his supporters and bystanders say so publicly, offering other information and perspectives so that everyone can be better informed.  Both criticism and praise will increase publication of Markos' ideas, but no one has a right to have their ideas, advocacy and public behavior go unchallenged.  Not even Markos Moulitsas.

Too often, the "progressive" blogosphere is like a theatrical playhouse where the owners and even the audience may disconnect the lights at any moment if they dislike the content of the play.  Far be it from "progressives" to simply walk out on a play themselves, leaving those who do NOT walk out to continue enjoying the festivities.  Once progressives decide that a play has no value, they act on a strong need to assure that no one sees the play.  "Banning" which is the digital equivalent of burning a book while forbidding the author to write another one for this audience.

With all respect to the owners of progressive blogs, in the competitive marketplace of "progressive" ideas, the best ideas should win the competition - not merely the ideas favored by those who own the means of production.   http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/6/9023/ 89169#commenttop

Certainly, we should not argue ideas and points merely to make others angry or uncomfortable.  Yet, ideas that come to be generally accepted (the end of apartheid, the roundness of the Earth) often do start out as ideas with which many people strongly disagree.

Markos Salavadoran heritage is no reason in itself for feeling ambivalent about criticism of Markos.  With his half-Greek and half-Salvadoran heritage, and based on photographs of him, Markos is, in my opinion, is what is called a "white Hispanic" in the US Census.  

Hispanics may be of any race. The terms
"Hispanic" and "Latino" are used interchange-
ably in this report.  US Census 2000  

Markos deserves the respect due to any human being regardless of his skin-color.  But, because his skin is white and neither his name nor his language betray him, he is only considered a minority in America if he self-identifies as such and chooses to be considered a member of a minority group.  In my opinion, Marcos cannot be reasonably characterized as a "Latino advocate" or "Hispanic advocate" because he rarely mentions participation in or on behalf of these communities in his blogging.  

Moreover, the pronounced near-totallack of Latino participation at DailyKos leads me to suspect his commitment to these communities.  I note that bilingual blogging is frowned upon at DailyKos - a fact that has been raised and that continues to limit access of progressive views to progressive Latino eyes and ears.

Markos says of his early interest in politics,

"When I was 9, I forced my parents to get subscriptions to both Chicago papers."  Berkely Daily Planet

Implicit in Markos statement is the fact that there were no Spanish-language or Black newspapers in Chicago which Markos felt compelled to read.  Berkely Daily Planet

As a result of the American context, I am personally torn about issues involving skin-color and ethnicity.  Like many Black and other minority people, although I value many white people personally, I hate and struggle daily against the white supremacy paradigm, particularly against the white male monopoly of the presidency of the United States.  I and people like me have for too long been demeaned and restricted by white supremacy prejudices and prejudiced behaviors, and I cannot desist from struggling against such behavior no matter where they originate, whether within minority communities and persons or majority communities and persons.  The fact that Markos Moulitsas has Latino forbears ought no more shield him from criticism than the fact that I have brown skin should shield me from criticism.  Although the advancement of individual members of sociological minority groups often leads to new opportunities for all, yet Justice Clarence Thomas has proven to all of us that ideas and political behavior are determinative factors weighing each person's contribution.

I leave you with this question:  If I ought not criticize Markos in the progressive blogosphere, where SHOULD I criticize him?  Or is he above criticism?  

If you would order me not to criticize Markos at Daily Gotham and Culture Kitchen, please do so formally and publicly.  When I continue to criticize Markos, please censor me publicly, to allow the public to see and understand the exact degree to which Markos Moulitsas, and perhaps all progressives, are above criticism.

Cross-posted at the Francis L. Holland Blog.

francislholland@yahoo.com

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com