Yesterday, I said that I try to be polite when I discuss matters online. Clearly, I'm not always polite, especially when someone pisses me off. I am quite aware of my full of myself tendencies, even if they are not properly restrained in various instances. Overall, the sentiment is not just a bit of overzealous moralizing, but something I am quite serious about. It is important in various instances to be appropriate passionate about one's cause (the enemy detainee cases were a mixed bag -- it is not wrong to say that some aspects of the opinions stunk), but even those on the side of the angels can go too far. This must be kept in mind.
For instance, I agree with Ellen Goodman that Michael Moore's latest effort has its excessive moments. The film is more restrained than some of his efforts and is worth viewing. All the same, he sometimes has to realize that frat boy humor and tactics sometimes can be counterproductive. On the other hand, though I agree with Goodman that his pictures of Iraqi civilians looking like they didn't have a care in the world before the invasion a tad much, it was right of him to remind us that it wasn't hell on earth either. Still, could he not suggest the mixed situation, one that required a temperate response. The answer to FOX News need not be "Dog Eat Dog" News.
Still, my restraint is not to the degree of Nicholas Kristoff, who done a bit too much criticizing of his allies, losing his sense of perspective in the process. [See Jack Balkin's comments yesterday.] I agree that the "Bush is a liar" mantra too often shuts down the conversation, but at some point you have to say "well, it's not like he is telling the truth!" At some point, it is like the test for libel of public figures -- "reckless disregard of the truth." A bit of care sometimes is required in criticizing this bunch, but when "guilty" remains a pretty safe default judgment all too often, something is wrong.
A fully nuanced criticism is often hard to come by if your opposition appears to be so clearly wrong. You are left fearing that noting mild points of disagreement with your allies would just play into the other's sides hands. This is a troubling example of not trust the power of reason. Are not "we" the smart ones, who can handle some haziness? Are we not the ones who can criticize without suggesting criticism is the same as heresy? Can we not accept a common ground, even if we disagree? Surely we can, unless perhaps we still support Ralph Nader's run for President.
The true problem with Nader is not really his spoiler possibilities per se. The true problem with the guy is he is an egotistical soul that is clearly a lousy person for the alleged reason he is out there in the first place -- a movement for change. The need for such a movement is crystal clear, and his bona fides as a presidential candidate notwithstanding, John Kerry is not really the answer. He is the one who must win to give such a movement a chance.
A grass roots movement with members like the mayor of a small NY town that challenged the state ban on same sex marriage, taking the shot at running for offices where there is a chance to win. They need not apologize for attacking even their friends, but at some point a bit of common sense must be applied. The leaders must not be boring, egotistical, and apparently clueless people like Ralph Nader.
So, I say to many of his supporters, "I respect your passion and idealism, I definitely do, but Ralph Nader doesn't deserve you."