A Bit of That Tit For Tat

Bravo Romeo Delta

CVE's response to my commentary about Kos rapidly generated a lot of good comments, many of which have been quite illuminating.

In fact, I got so caught up in the comments and immediate response that I actually managed to wander away from my main avenue of inquiry in my original post. Bearing that in mind, I hope to revisit some of the deeper concerns about these most recent comments.

Before we get started, though, it is rather amazing how quickly allegations of partisanship bounce back and forth in a vicious feedback cycle, isn't it? That alone, I believe, explains the 'root cause' of some of the more egregious behavior seen in American politics.

At any rate, the point that I was interested in exploring a bit more deeply is how Kos' defensiveness was apparently both unneeded, immature, and just plain nonsensical.

As was the case with any one of a number of high-profile politicians that have taken fire in recent years, was there any particular reason above sheer human pride that prevented Kos from acting in (what I can only assume) the best tradition of common humanitarian interests shared by all people. Failing compassion, it is apparent that at least sheer self-interest would have dictated different (possibly insincere) responses, rather than the ones given.

What does puzzle me is that his gaffes turned into a platform for ranting about the 'Republican politics of personal destruction.' In this case, the entire "campaign" could have been diffused by about three lines of text - but rather we get treated to a display of "Bring 'em on." That does baffle me. It's the politics of personal self-destruction that vex me so.

In general, I cannot tolerate inefficient opposition, because an inefficient opposition merely engages in conflict for its own sake. Reminiscent of one of the conditions for Just War, is that a fight cannot be a good fight if there is absolutely no possible net gain or chance of victory.

I drew parallels to the Islamofascists not in an attempt to imply that there was any meaningful comparison, but rather to explore the notion that this is another group of people who seem to be more interested in the fight itself than winning. I expect that out of an Islamic whackjob, but I really had more or less pegged Kos as an actual genuine member of the loyal opposition (rather than a fringe element).

It's when a member of the loyal opposition gets in to this business of cutting off his nose to spite his face that I can only assume that my analysis is in some way flawed.

So open questions in my mind include:

A) Are Kos and a large number of people on his site are, in fact, fringe elements?
B) If they are not part of a relative fringe, then is the entire Left off its rocker?
C) If neither of these two are true, why would a honest-to-goodness political consultant commit such a boner of a needless tactical error?
D) Is this representative of anything? Does it speak to the health of the Left?
E) What's up with this guy?
F) How does the decision of his advertisers to put some space between themselves and this guy constitute 'knuckling under to Rethuglican scare tactics'?
G) Would the outcry of, for example, Trent Lott's or Jesse Jackson's historical gaffes also constitute 'scare tactics'?

Beats me. And it detracts from my much more important goal of trying to remodel my blog.

Launched by Bravo Romeo Delta at April 15, 2004 09:21 PM