It's obvious to all of us here that there are rather significant differences in opinion on DU with respect to the Democrats in Congress and the White House. The actual divisions are not always neat--ultimately most of us do (and if we don't, can and should) have more nuanced opinions than simply categorically "pro" or "anti"--but it is no mystery that there is a division, and that there is overlap across many policy areas in how this division works out.

At least by DU standards, I'm pretty solidly on the "pro" side: I strongly approve of President Obama, I've supported nearly all of his policy initiatives at least domestically (education is probably the main exception), and I think most--though certainly not all--of the criticisms of him from the left are misconceived. My support for Nancy Pelosi is even less equivocal; I just love her. Harry Reid is a bit of a different story, but we don't have to get into that; the important thing is, fundamentally, I think the Democratic leadership is doing basically a good job under the circumstances, I think it should be supported strongly by the Democratic base both before and prior to elections, and I think that the corruption and incompetence of the party is much overestimated on both sides of the political spectrum.

That's not the point of this thread, though. This is not a paean to the wonders of Obama. This is a plea to people to stop making two particular claims characterizing this debate that I think are deeply incorrect and unfair.

1. The claim that the division on DU maps neatly onto a division between centrists and liberals/progressives/leftists/whatever. Now, in fairness this is going to be true for some people: a person who thinks the health care reform bill is actually the optimal point for health care policy, and that a public option was a dangerous step toward government takeover, is going to have a whole lot less reason to be dissatisfied with health care reform than a person who supports a robust public option or single-payer. But it is not true for everyone, and it is not true, I think, for the vast majority of strong Obama supporters on DU (how many people didn't support a public option here?). The reason is that the reasoning does not work in the other direction: for instance, there is no inconsistency in a vehement supporter of single-payer and nonetheless thinking that the health care reform bill was the best we were going to get under the circumstances and a substantial step forward. You might think this view is incorrect--you might argue that the Democrats did not try hard enough because of their political cowardice or their connections to the health insurance industry, or that the bill is so terrible that it is even worse than the status quo. But the contrary view is neither impossible nor obviously irrational.

The same thing is true more broadly. It is possible even to be a genuine radical and nonetheless strongly support the Obama Administration and the Democratic leadership under the present circumstances. I should know, given as how that's exactly the position I'm in. For at least some of us, we are less disappointed by Obama than others because we did not expect more, and because we are used to getting a whole lot less than we want: we reconciled ourselves to these things a long time ago, knowing that they were not likely to change any time soon. Disagree with us if you like, but do not accuse us of being too right-wing for not agreeing with your assessment of the political circumstances. I defy anyone here to argue successfully that they are to the left of me. It is not impossible but it is very difficult.

2. The claim that the division on DU is rooted in a division between people who support loyalty to particular politicians over loyalty to ideology and people who support loyalty to ideology over loyalty to particular politicians. The simple fact of the matter is that, by and large, those of us who defend Obama and the Democratic leadership from criticism from the left do not believe that supporting Obama and the Democrats is an end in itself: rather, we think that the criticisms are incorrect or exaggerated, and/or that the best way to pursue the ideological ends we share with most of the critics is to support Obama and the Democrats. Again, you may disagree with our assessment of the political situation. But there is nothing inconsistent with left-wing values in being of this view. It is not selling out to choose what is in our minds the best of imperfect alternatives. It is just trying to do as much as we can in a world that does not suit our ideological preferences.

I have singled out these two claims because I think they are not only wrong, but unfair and insulting. Furthermore, I think they contribute to the incivility that pervades DU. People do not like being accused of arguing in bad faith, or being told that they are not "real" progressives, or are racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-corporate power, for not sharing someone else's assessment of the political situation. They are likely to respond angrily, and understandably so. I do not mean to claim by this that the incivility on DU is somehow the fault of one side: obviously, this is not the case. There are respects in which people on the other side, too, contribute to this incivility: for instance, when it is suggested that people disappointed by the failure to achieve affordable quality health care for all, or equality for gays and lesbians, are whining over trivialities, as if basic matters of social justice and civil rights can legitimately be brushed aside so easily. But I think, in general, if people stopped making unfair assumptions about people they disagree with, and stopped suggesting without clear-cut evidence that their opponents are arguing in bad faith, it would go a long way.

Part of being an intellectually honest person is thinking seriously about an opponent's argument rather than caricaturing or otherwise distorting it. When we reduce difficult political questions to simplistic binaries--"Either you agree with this particular criticism of Obama, or you are a corporatist DLC Democrat who has abandoned progressive values", or for that matter "Either you support Obama 100% or you are a crazy whiner who doesn't understand politics"--we are not just being unfair to others, but we are degrading our own thinking. We are failing to appreciate that the world is not as simple as we would like it to be, that the possible views on these issues are multifarious and open to considerable nuance, and that our opponents might have good reasons for believing what they do--or that even (gasp!) they might sometimes be right. This is a disservice to ourselves, to the people with whom we engage in discussion, and to the DU community. We--all of us, on both/all sides--should stop it.

We won't, of course. We are only human. But we should at least try harder.