A Split in the Left; A Blatant Divide

There has been a split in the left, a very blatant divide. Division is not surprising. There was a divide during the Democratic Primary: Obama vs. Clinton. But the new divide is malicious and virulent, and I fear that perhaps it, unlike the previous, could truly have lasting and damaging effects this election cycle.

The divide I speak of is ideological, and it stems from two main schools of thought.

The first is concerned with the right and duty to speak out, speak up, and speak loudly, no matter what the repercussions and costs.

The second is concerned with the absolute desire to elect our candidate at all costs, even if that means doing so at the expense of critique and criticism, two fundamentals to free speech.

Both schools of thought are wrong. Both prescribe to absolutist dogma. I've spoken before about absolutism in this election, and how detrimental it can be, and is. Both schools of thought are wrong because there is no compromise, and no middle ground.

One either has to take every opportunity one can to attack and deride Obama, even if it is (and it has been, if one looks at his recent poll numbers and media coverage as it relates to his supporters attacks on him) detrimental to him and his campaign, or one has to just shut the hell up and say nothing, or at least leave him alone to fuck up without holding him accountable (a standard that he himself has said he should be held to, in a response he issued thanks to people not shutting up, and for actually holding him to his own standard).

Now, I am by no means saying that certain people don't hold a middle ground, or even advocate it. But the voice of such rationality has been suppressed under the cocophany of absolutist ideology.

I wonder why it is so hard to not both adamantly support Obama and at the same time call him out on his mistakes and gaffes. Part of it, perhaps, is the perception of certain issues as being "mistakes" on Obama's part, when, in reality, they are not, except under the flag of irrationality and unreasonableness. Things such as gun rights and the death penalty, of which Obama holds quite common and reasonable positions.

There has been a new trend upon calling out and criticizing, attacking and even mocking Obama at every opportunity, even for complete non-issues. This is evident in the onslaught he has recently faced in the media. It has gone too far. It has passed the threshold of "constructive criticism" into the realm of "detrimental criticism".

Yet at the same time, there are those who would rather nothing be said, no criticism, however constructive it may be, to take place, because, they argue, it is inherently damaging to Obama and his campaign. But this is just ludicrous. Obama has shown time and again that he can take such criticism of his policies. He has always shown himself to be open to listening to other opinions and refining his policies and positions based upon such things.

I then ask, why can we not get ourselves to the point where we are able to thoughtfully and analytically look at Obama's positions, ideas, opinions, etc., deconstruct them, criticize them, disagree with them, and discuss them, but still hold our support for him, and do whatever we can to see that he is elected in November? Why can't we regulate ourselves against dogmatic ideology to find a balance? That is, after all, part of Obama's message: a coming together not only despite our differences, but also because of our differences.