Lamont bloggers engage in uncivil discourse
By Judie Jacobson
On his campaign website, Ned Lamont, the Democratic candidate for Senator, invites visitors to let their voices be heard via the site's various blogs. The campaign asks participants to note the following disclaimer and rules, which, if violated, may result in the deletion of comments or even in the blogger's banishment from the site.
"The point of a blogroll and comments on the campaign blog is to provide a diverse set of viewpoints and encourage conversation. A link on the blogroll in no way means that Ned, or the campaign, endorse everything that blogger writes on their own website. A political blog is a forum for Democrats, Independents, Republicans to gather and respectfully exchange ideas... Treat each other with respect and refrain from cursing. Name calling and foul language doesn't accomplish anything."
A respectful exchange of ideas? Here is a representative sampling of what we read on the blog during the course of two weeks. You be the judge.
"Get your yellow belly ass to Iraq and make Uncle Joe proud, or are you really a girl under those trousers?" wrote PamB on Oct. 29 at 3:34 pm, addressing a "classless" supporter of Lamont's chief opponent, Senator Joe Lieberman, whom she accused of "trolling" the site.
"(Lieberman) is a cheap mobster thug conning people with a mask of decency. He's the most indecent creature to ever hold elective office. We need to tear him down, limb from limb. This is war and now is the time to close in and deliver the final crushing blow," noted a blogger by the name of liebermeforme at 11:45 pm on the evening of Oct. 23.
"Nothing between heaven and hell could persuade me to vote for that self-centered, egotistical, hypocritical SOB!!!" wrote MizQue wrote on Oct. 28 at 8:17 pm, referred to candidate Lieberman.
And, finally, this Oct. 27 discourse between several Lamont supporters and Floyd, a supporter of Lamont's chief opponent, the incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman:
"What a bunch of sore losers. Get a life!!!!"
Floyd, 6:03 pm
"Floyd, your insults are meaningless."
Lochness monster, 6:05 pm
"I am a real Democrat not a fake!!!!"
Floyd, 6:07 pm
"Riiiightttt....suuuuure you are."
Bob, 6:14 pm
"Very funny loser!!!!!!!!"
Floyd, 6:14 pm
You get the point.
Anonymity overrules inhibition
To be sure, the Lamont campaign is not alone in offering constituents an outlet for their often forceful opinions. In fact, according to The Blog Herald, upwards of 35 million blogs are threading through the Internet today, many of them the creations of journalists, academics and those toiling in the political arena. Blogs for political junkies at both ends of the ideological spectrum...and most of them do not appear to favor civility.
What motivates individuals to join in the kind of no-holds-barred discussion that characterizes the blog? The same thing that attracts people to the Internet in general.
"The Internet itself enhances what we refer to as disassociation and disinhibition," explains psychologist Dr. David Greenfield, director of the Center for Internet Behavior in West Hartford and author of "Virtual Addiction."
"People say and do things online that they wouldn't ordinarily say or do because of the ease of access and the appearance of anonymity it affords. The ability to immortalize your opinion on a blog is intoxicating. It's a very powerful medium."
Of course, opinions - especially political ones - can also be expressed via written editorials and letters to the editor. But that takes time and effort.
"This is instant gratification. The ease of access is in part what gives it power," says Greenfield.
Instant gratification, however, is not always a good thing.
"You're much more likely to jump on and say what you have to say and jump off. Things are said with little or no inhibition. So it doesn't facilitate the whole processing of information."
Talent for trash talk
Lamont is not the only Senatorial candidate in Connecticut with a blog. Lieberman's blog, however, posts only his campaign's own entry and is not open to postings from the public. Republican Alan Schlesinger's blog is open to volunteers and staffers and restricts itself, for the most part, to campaign updates, thoughts regarding strategy, and experiences on the campaign trail. Unlike Lamont, Schlesinger is himself a frequent contributor to the campaign blog.
Perhaps because it is not open to all manner of opinions from the world at large, Schlesinger blog tends to sport longer, less venomous entries than that of Lamont. For example, about the most mean-spirited entry to be found on the Schlesinger blog a week before the election was a detailed assessment of the Oct. 23 debate by a blogger named "Jose" in which he notes that "Ned sounded like an idiot."
In contrast, during the same time period, Dan, a regular Lamont blogger, expressed his "wish" that "Joe went to Vietnam and did not return. To which, blogger PamB added "I wish he went to Fallujah and returned in a box, like the kids he sent to die for his prejudices."
Not that all Lamont bloggers approve of such sentiments.
"Wishing death on anybody does not help our cause," responded Francis.
Dan quickly backpedaled. "Francis," he wrote, "you understood my comment incorrectly. I just wish Joe decided to become a farmer in Vietnam, so he could not come back to Connecticut and become a horrible senator."
Lamont staffers who regularly monitor the site don't delete such comments. They are, however, particularly sensitive to any remark that is anti-Jewish and do their best to obliterate the reference as soon as it appears.
It isn't always soon enough.
Thus, comments posted by "Marky," justifying a reference to Lieberman as "Rabbi Joe" with an entry that states, "It's hard to see Lieberman's sanctimonious religiosity as anything but Jewish," was posted at 9:39 pm on Oct 16 and was still up for all to see the following afternoon.
Likewise, a poem entitled "Ach du Lieberman," calling Lieberman, among other things, a "sanctimonious squirt / who wears religion on his shirt" was up well past its Oct. 28, 4:42 posting. And, at 3 pm on Oct. 30 one could still read a post from the day before by David Truskoff, attributing Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "AIPAC tells him to. That is all that Joe is and has been."
Letting it all hang out
Objectionable? Offensive? Distasteful? Repugnant? Perhaps. But dangerous?
Not really, says Greenfield.
"The danger is that it lowers the bar for what is acceptable social behavior. But the whole Internet is based on that principle. Is there a danger in that for society? It's free speech. The Internet just extends the first amendment in a new way."
Regardless, says Greenfield, "People expressing anger verbally and in an open way is far healthier than not expressing it, because the more open people are to their hidden and darker aspects the less likely they are to act on them. I can tell you that the people who shot Bobby Kennedy or Jack Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr. didn't write about what they were going to do before they did it."
Comments? Email judiejacobson@jewishledger.com