How Hate-Bloggers Harm Their Cause
by JoyThere's a regular hullabaloo going on in the blogosphere over Amanda Marcotte's recently departed day job as "Blogmaster" for the John Edwards presidential campaign. It's truly a 3-ring circus (one of my specialties), and exposes some issues that are endemic to the blogosphere but are total cyanide for any serious politician.
For those unfamiliar with the situation, the Edwards campaign hired two liberal bloggers to lead their outreach to the online community - Marcotte, who blogs at Pandagon, and Melissa McEwan, who blogs at her site Shakespear's Sister and holds the title of 'Netroots Coordinator' for the campaign.
William Donohue, president of The Catholic League, demanded last week that Edwards fire the two women, citing some inflammatory Catholic-bashing and potty-mouthed anti-religious rants they had written. Donohue's statement can be accessed in this news release. The NYT covers the story here, and Media Matters has a critical background of the league and Donohue here if you're interested.
Edwards apologized, but refused to fire his blogmaster and coordinator just because Donohue complained. Which may have been the right thing to do. Marcotte resigned yesterday anyway, realizing that her presence would continue to be a lightning rod of controversy for Edwards' campaign. Which was the right thing for her to do, and I expect that McEwan will soon follow suit.
In the new on-line world politicians are to be commended for recognizing that blogs can be a very powerful and effective tool for getting their message out and enlisting support. To this end there was a gathering in Washington, D.C. early last month of campaign staffs and bloggers seeking jobs with campaigns. The gathering was promoted by liberal political blogs. I don't know for sure, but suspect both Marcotte and McEwan got their jobs by this means. Which also means John Edwards probably didn't personally hire them - his campaign staff did.
I am a little disappointed that whoever did do the hiring didn't realize going in that whoever they hired from the blogosphere to carry their banner needed to be acceptable to the broad base the candidate needs to appeal to in order to get elected. Which means they should have vetted applicants' blog history carefully. Politics in the real world isn't like spewing hate-filled bigotry on one's private blog, or even on some certifiably 'liberal' uber-blog that preaches exclusively to the like-minded choir. Edwards can't associate himself with the Evangelical Atheist crowd if he hopes to have a prayer in November of '08.
John Edwards is not a religion-hater, and he's not a trash-talking jerk. He's a very bright, accomplished, articulate young man with a lovely family and some genuinely populist policies (even if he's a bit over-ambitious). I don't expect that he knew these staffers' opinionated backgrounds. I know most here probably care nothing for the somewhat-funny shennanigans going on in the more-than-several Democratic campaigns this early in the game. I just wanted to comment about how one's words and deeds do tend to come back and haunt future ambitions, sometimes doing more damage to the cause one claims to support and defend than any target of one's hateful words could ever do.
If you'd be sorry down the road for causing real harm to someone or something you claim to support, then don't say hurtful things. Opinions can be expressed without the hate or the cheap insults. Perhaps Marcotte and McEwan have learned this valuable lesson. I don't expect PZ et al. ever will, since this kind of harm to others is part and parcel of their New Atheist "strategy."
I do not expect any political campaign to ever hire PZ or any member of the EA hate gang as spokespersons for any legitimate political candidate's campaign. Nor do I ever expect any of them to hold the reins of political power they so strongly desire. Yet there are political operatives here who could learn something useful from all this. I have been saying for a long time that the sort of corruption PZ and the 'New Atheist' haters represent is potentially far more harmful to science than anyone who believes life may be intelligently designed.
If your job is to defend science, it couldn't hurt to take a little time to examine the situation reflected by the fact that most science bloggers spew anti-religious hate-speech way more often than they present actual science to the reading public. It draws participation, and participation equates to high ratings - PZ's blog has been the #1 'science' blog for two years running, though he seldom discusses science. This sort of garbage doesn't support or defend science to the public. Rather, it does as much damage to what it claims to defend as Marcotte and McEwan have done to John Edwards' chances of ever being President of the United States.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I agree with you completely on this Joy, although I suspect PZ doesn't actually care all that much about science, just as I suspect many of the new atheist crowd don't actually care all that much about science except in that it is a useful instrument for bashing religion. I'm sure if they did actually care more about it the contents of their blogs would reflect this more. Though what is says about "science" that an anti-religion blog is the "#1 Science blog" is an open question. I went over to PZ's blog the other day and noted what you just commented on about it not being very much about science. I was actually a little surprised.
Ironically it would seem that PZ's blog (plus PT and others I suspect) woulc actually make excellent evidence for the "evolution == religious atheism" claim next time there is a court case. After all if the "#1 Science blog" is really an anti-religious tirade + evolution blog, then that would seem to point in that direction wouldn't it.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 14, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Joy. I'm just a little bit bothered that William Donohue gets to be president of the Catholic League and nobody complains about it. His hate speech isn't exactly doing wonders for the image of his religion, either.
Comment by Bilbo — February 14, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
thesciphishow:
I was going to comment to Matzke in the Marcus Ross thread about this very thing when he gave a bogus excuse for arguing 'against' the views of Dawkins et al. during the Kitzmiller trial. Decided to write this blog instead.
The real reason probably has way more to do with wanting to divert attention from the connection. And, as this blog points out, when someone finally does bring a case against a public school system for required mastery of dumbed-down NDS pablum *as* pre-indoctrination in atheism, the record of so-called 'science' blogs that exist to promote and defend the evolution = atheism meme will be admissible evidence.
Then the real harm done will be entirely evident, and they'll have no one but themselves to blame.
Comment by Joy — February 14, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I guess we shouldn't tell them then
Comment by thesciphishow — February 14, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Bilbo:
Well, it's not like Edwards lost a potential supporter in Donohue, or that he'd even care what that particular wingnut faction thinks about his candidacy. The problem is that his hired bloggers were legitimate targets, and that lends Donohue more power than he deserves.
Wingnuts are a dime a dozen, lurking in the shadows of every interest faction big enough to cast shadows. Religions, political parties, scientific disciplines, etc. I've often thought they're stealth agents provocateur whose job is to prevent anything good that might come from the activities of the broader group. Hatred is not an admirable value. You'd think most Christians would know this without having to be reminded so often.
Of course, you'd think most scientists would know better than to give folks like PZ [et al.] free reign to sink that endeavor too. Go figure.
Comment by Joy — February 14, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Yes, civility has survival value. You would think that Darwinists, of all people, would realize that.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — February 14, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Is acusing people of hate speach a form of hate speech?
His hate speech isn't exactly doing wonders for the image of his religion, either.
I thought the whole point of the blog was that we should watch our hate speech because it can be harmful to the cause.
Wingnuts are a dime a dozen
And we are already calling people wingnuts:
Is this the time to look in the proverbial mirror? Ad hominems are never good form, and never end up helping the cause.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — February 14, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
This is peripheral to the point being made, but am I the only person who doesn't include "potty-mouth" in their regular vocabulary? I hadn't heard anyone say "potty-mouth" since I was in the third grade or so, but the word seems to have stuck to this particular story. Was there a memo that went out or something, or do people really say "potty-mouth"; I just don't know any of them? I don't think I've ever heard it used to refer to adults until now.
Comment by grendelkhan — February 14, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
February 14th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
endoplasmicMessenger asks:
endo,
Don't let Joy's message confuse you. She's all for ad hominems, as her own behavior on TT amply demonstrates. She's only advising against them if they're likely to backfire later. Note the "if" in her admonition:
P.S. Grendelkhan — I think "potty-mouth" is more offensive, in a Ned Flanders-ish kind of way, than the
utterances it refers to. Darn it to heck.
Comment by keiths — February 14, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 10:09 am
endoplasmicMessenger:
Is accusing a thief of thievery a form of theft? I'm dizzy from the connotations this circular reasoning conjures.
Actually, the term "wingnut" has standard associations beyond the hardware store, relating to the radical fringe elements of various groups. Particularly political and/or religious groups.
It's most often used to describe factions like the Weatherman faction of the SDS back in the day, the genuine theocrats of the dominionist fringe, the hard-socialist faction of the liberal spectrum, the hard-right wing of the Republican party, the millionaire pundits who spew hate on radio and television, etc.
Of course, one could use the term to describe certain members of one's extended family too. So it could be a term of endearment. §;o)
grendelkhan:
When describing the sort of garbage that got Marcotte in trouble, sometimes a third grade term is the most apt. "Foul-mouth" would work as well. I used "potty-mouth" because it was used in several of the articles about this situation.
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2007 @ 10:09 am
February 15th, 2007 at 10:17 am
keiths:
Speaking of ad hominems… Once again keiths comes out swinging, so once again I issue the warning. If you do not wish your posts to go into the hole, make an effort to avoid behavior that will land them there.
Why not deal with the subject? Did you read the blog in which Marcotte expressed her version of the 'Blasphemy Challenge'? I would be interested in whether or not you understand why Catholics might have been offended by it. Or if you understand enough about 'The Show' [Presidential politics] to see how it could be damaging to the campaign that hired her as a communications official.
The political blogosphere is pretty rough-and-tumble, and the tone of political discourse in this country has been in the gutter for years. So one can't reasonably expect campaign bloggers to be as studiously polite as either the candidates themselves or their primary press agents. But they can certainly be expected to stay on-message and understand that this is the big leagues - they should have a large enough vocabulary to make a point without dropping unnecessary f-bombs, and a record that doesn't include offensive attacks on religion.
If you disagree, see if you can express that sans the ad homs. Pretend you're auditioning for a job as 'Blogmaster' for some presidential hopeful's campaign.
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2007 @ 10:17 am
February 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I find Donahue a bit obnoxious, but I don't know if I would describe him as leading a radical fringe. The purpose of his organization is to defend civil rights of Catholics and defend from anti-Catholic bigotry.
Comment by Brian Killian — February 15, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Brian Killian:
Depends on how you'd define "radical fringe," and whether it applies to the overall organization that elects him (regularly since 1993) as their president. I know nothing about that. My complaints would have to center on his blatant hypocrisy and oft-expressed bigotry against homosexuals and 'secular' Jews.
IOW, he leads an organization which purports to defend the right of Catholics "to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination," while submersing himself in defamation and discrimination against targeted groups whose rights are every bit as 'sacrosanct' as those he claims to defend for Catholics.
The anti-gay polemics are vastly overblown, and may represent his personal phobia more than any ancient or modern Catholic position on the subject. Given that the church has traditionally steered gay members toward the priesthood, where celibacy was supposed to 'cure' the acting-out of homosexual passions as well as it was supposed to 'cure' heterosexual passions. Didn't work all that well, of course, but the church itself doesn't and never has hated gays as much as Donohue does.
Blatant hypocrisy is par for the course among wingnuts, so I do consider him one. I don't know how certifiably hypocritical his organization's other members are, but they do continually elect him to represent them, so I'd consider them a fringe too.
…apparently by advocating the denial of civil rights for others, while expressing anti-gay and anti-semitic bigotry. Go figure.
That said, in the context of his complaint about Marcotte, he was right on. He's got no power to abrogate her right of free speech, but he can legitimately protest her paid participation in John Edwards' campaign on the basis of her expressed anti-Catholic bigotry. That's his job.
Edwards of course isn't required to acquiesce to demands related to his campaign staff from those who would never support him anyway, and he didn't. He refused to fire Marcotte or McEwan. They quit because they understood that their previous writings would become a focal point for right-wing[nut] attacks Edwards doesn't need to counter while he's just trying to earn primary votes from registered Democrats. And because both Marcotte and McEwan were receiving rape and death threats from the wingnuts Donohue represents.
More blatant hypocrisy from the "pro-life" crowd, eh?
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
As I posted to HuffPo:
Comment by obrienr — February 15, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Iowahawk has fun with The Pandagon Papers
Comment by MikeGene — February 15, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
February 15th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Well, I sure as heck wasn't going to repeat any of the garbage she wrote! I figured the links in the blog - which had links to the offensive material - was enough.
Iowahawk's stuff is a lot funnier, though.
Comment by Joy — February 15, 2007 @ 11:06 pm