Build or destroy: your choice

On kos's fp story this morning Clinton, Obama and FISA, I got into an exchange with a poster who asked me "where do you draw the line? What would Obama need to do for you to issue a public condemnation?"  I answered by saying I cannot imagine anything Obama could do that would cause me to issue a public condemnation of him because (1) I want him to win and (2) I want McCain to lose and (3) I have a personal identification with Obama that supersedes any disagreements I might have with him over issues.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was operating out of an even more basic personal philosophy: a philosophy of edification.

I make a distinction between criticizing the candidate over positions and issues, and sandbagging the campaign as a whole and/or the condemning the candidate's basic character.

I have been doing the former.  I have been criticizing him over FISA.  I'm very upset about FISA.  To the extent that I am a single issue voter, constitutional rights and civil liberties would be my single issue.  At least that's what I have been telling pollsters since the first "free speech zones" were established.  In 1988.

But that is not the same thing as criticizing the candidate in a blanket way that can be used as ammunition by people who would rather see McCain as our next president:

O can't be trusted
O is just like every other politician
O lied about being a change agent
O does not deserve my financial support
I wish I had never voted for him
I'm registering independent now
Bob Barr is starting to look good
I'm only voting downticket in November
O can have my vote but not my activism; etc.

Even if I were angry enough to think or do some of those things, I would not want to broadcast them in a way that could be used to influence the votes of the electorate at large.

Why?  Because if I had a position of influence, and did say such things from a position of influence, it would be hard to claim I wasn't trying to use my influence to encourage others to believe that O deserved to be smacked around a little by me and by the press and by other voters.  It would be hard to claim I wasn't influencing others to believe O can't be trusted, or turned out to be like every other politician.  I couldn't be surprised if my words encouraged others to withdraw their financial support and withhold their activist energy.  It might even encourage people newly brought into the Dem fold by the hope and change message to turn back, to register independent, to consider other candidates, or stay home on November 4.

Encouraging other people to do those things is a plus for the McCain campaign and increases the chances of McCain getting elected.

But wait, some will say, I'm only trying to get Obama to listen to us!  I'm offering him constructive criticism that will only help the campaign!

Really.  Apparently a lot of people do not grasp the difference between disagreeing with an action a campaign takes and condemning the candidate as a whole in a way that encourages his enemies.

The other poster asked me how I would respond if Obama moved to the right of McCain.  But Obama moving to the right of McCain is about as likely as McCain moving to the left of Obama: not within the realm of conceivable circumstances.  You might as well ask me how I would respond if Obama came to my house and shot me in the face.

Besides, I identify with Obama.  For intellectual reasons, for overcoming a difficult/fatherless childhood, for not taking the easy path to making big money when it was laid before him, for many reasons I see myself in him.  And lots of voters base their votes on similar emotional identifications.  They voted for Bush not because they agreed with him on everything but because they felt more kinship with him than with Gore or Kerry.  Dems continually fail to acknowledge this important aspect of why people vote the way they do.  We nominate resumes and vote for people based on policy checklists and wonder why we're out on a limb all alone.

Now people are bashing the best candidate we have had in my voting lifetime in terms of drawing a wide swath of people into identification with him and his message, and I'm the weird one because I have decided, for whatever reason, to show some loyalty?

I'm now going to share with you the best advice I ever got in my life:

Everything you do, everything you say, and every decision you make, either tears down the world or builds up the world. This applies at your job, in your relationships, even in the way you treat yourself.  So whenever a tough decision has to be made, apply this edification test.  Does this action or decision build up, or destroy?  In the short run or in the long run?  That usually makes the decision clear.

Everything we say and do in Left Blogistan either encourages people to vote for Obama or encourages people to vote against Obama.  There is no subtlety going on out in the wider world.  No chance for nuance.  No one listening to our 3000 word explanation about "I'm still voting for him, I just think he's an @sshole about FISA". No "I still hope he wins, he's better than McCain, but I can't give him any more money or time because he sold out the Fourth Amendment."  Just:

Obama's base is turning against him.

and

if he loses this now it's all his own fault.

Period.  Is this the message we want to send?

Is the short-run satisfaction of smacking the candidate around about a subset of issues worth the long-run tragedy to this country and the world of having a Republican in the White House in January?  I lost track of the number of times I said this to Nader idealists eight years ago and cannot believe I am forced to repeat myself word for word again.  

The ONLY advantage Republicans have had over us in the last two election cycles has been the ability to hold their coalition together in spite of realizing their candidate wasn't perfect.  They were quite disciplined at playing up his (meager) strengths and playing down his (many) weaknesses, especially in any way the Blue Team might use to our advantage.  Their talking heads presented a united front. Their pundits had their defenses at the ready.  Problems prominent R opinion makers had with the campaign were taken care of through other channels, not broadcast to millions.  It is the only thing about the Rs that I envy.

The Red Team was worried for a while in 2008 because we nominated someone who was likeable and persuasive instead of giving them the gift of a nominee they were already very practiced at despising.  They had no idea how to run against Obama. Now they can sit back and relax.  They knew we would find a way to self-destruct. We tear our candidate apart for them, write their campaign ads for them and act as though their candidate is an acceptable alternative.  Most ironic of all, the netroots castigate the not-actually-Democratically-controlled Congress for not showing unity and discipline while we have no unity and discipline among ourselves!  WTF?  I don't even have enough expletives in my vocabulary to express my sheer frustration at this!

My edification philosophy:  everything you do, everything you say, and every decision you make, either tears down the world or builds up the world.

This election is simple: everything we say and do encourages people to vote for Obama or encourages people to vote against Obama.

Build or destroy.  Your choice.