Do I continue to allow this or should these members have to make a choice?
Should the decision be put to a vote? Should a stricter policy for membership in
the Blogging Dippers be implemented?
Before we begin a discussion about this, let's have a look at the raison d'etre of the Blogging Dippers...
The Blogging Dippers is an affiliation of bloggers who support the New
Democratic Party or its issues.
The key here, of course, is the latter part, which suggests that this blog role is available to those who identify with the issues of the NDP. Unless of course the NDP puts forward very narrow issues that are supported by Dippers and dippers exclusively and exhaustively, it's likely that someone can identify with the NDP on some issues and not on others. Furthermore, it remains entirely possible that people might also be able to identify with another party on some issues. This is even more true when parties look for the elusive 'centre' of the political spectrum. Increasingly, the political spectrum is becoming congested over certain issues, which brings all the parties closer to consensus and less polarized. That being said, it is entirely consistent with the raison d'etre that a Blogging Dipper would also be affiliated to another partisan blog roll. No where in the mandate of blogging dippers does it prevent cross roll-affiliation, nor does it state that Blogging Dippers cannot question the NDP. Lastly, it doesn't state that the purpose of this roll is to win votes for the NDP. In fact, it explicitly states...
The Blogging Dippers website is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by the
New Democratic Party of Canada or any of the provincial/territorial parties.
So what should be done about Blogging Dippers who are cross-affiliated with another blog roll? Nothing, its called free-speech and expression. Let bloggers generate ideas and question the status quo. The last thing the NDP needs is a few-thousand more Buzz Hargroves. And by that, I don't mean NDP members who endorse voting Liberal, I mean a few-thousand now ex-Dippers who have been purged for questioning and criticizing the NDP.
The NDP seems to me, at least, as a party unable to deal with internal criticism. It's caught certain Dippers like wildfire, and it reminds me significantly of the purge of the Waffle and its adherents in the 1970s. This is a blog roll folks, do we really need to be juvenile to the point of expelling people who are critical of the NDP and preventing them from being members of a blog roll. Seriously, if that's how the party deals with internal dissent and criticism, then the party and its members are in a really sad state.
I'd like to conclude by saying that this blog roll should be seen as a forum for ideas and debate. If it must be reduced to a forum in which each members is limited to stating how much they love Jack Layton and regurgitating party rhetoric, then it's a forum that is in a pretty sad state.
I'll understand if no one reads this and I get the boot, but I think that would prove my point rather nicely.
6 comments:
Hi Dissidence,
Rather articulate.
DD,
I agree with you in some respects and disagree in others. First off, I agree that there is nothing explicit in the current BD mandate that forbids membership in other partisan blogrolls. However, Robert hasn't just autocratically kicked you out or anything like that. He's raising a discussion about whether or not the blogroll members feel that the mandate should be changed. That, I think, is extremely fair and democratic.
Second, I agree that BD shouldn't be limited to just NDP cheerleaders. We (bloggers, that is,) should be here to critically examine the issues that we care about, to call elected officials to account for their decisions, and to promote the values that we hold. I think that there needs to be (ample) room within BD to criticize the NDP. However, there has to be a line somewhere. I mean, by your logic, I could be a straight-up neoconservative Republican, but agree with the NDP on some minute issue, and still be considered a "blogging dipper." I think that defeats the purpose of having a partisan blogroll. As I said in the comments to Robert's post, it is important for cross-party discussion, debate, and collaboration to occur, but there exist many fora in which that discussion can take place already. The point of having a partisan blogroll is so that people interested in a particular party can get a one-stop directory of what is on the minds of that party's supporters.
So, where do we draw the line? I think that there is only one fair way to do it. If you want to be a Blogging Dipper, you need to support, vote for, and promote the New Democratic Party. Questioning its policies and methods is fine, just as long as you support the NDP at the end of the day.
I think that it's similar to holding a membership card in a party. You can't just join four parties each of which you agree with partially. You either pick one party, join it, and work for change within it, or you simply don't joint a party and decide on an election-by-election basis who you are supporting.
Anyway, that's just my two cents. I can certainly understand you feeling stifled, but I don't think that that is the intention here. I think it's just a question of where do we draw the line in order to preserve the party solidarity of an explicitly partisan blogroll.
And to further isolate yourselves, blogging dippers could have Robert approve all comments too!
Give your heads a shake. How can the NDP grow if you slam the door on anyone who doesn't sing from the same song sheet?
Or maybe it would just be easier to surrender now, to Dion's Liberals.
Well put DD.
Seems like McLelland hit a nerve here. The discussion- and yes it is still just a discussion and not a forgone conclusion- is about being on multiple partisan blogrolls. It is not about censorship, or what a good NDP blogger should or should not say. It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether or not there should be some sort of standard for membership in the Blogging Dippers, and to contemplate having a committee that would regulate membership.
While I can appreciate your flare for the dramatic DD, this is hardly on the scale of the purge of the Waffle. Relax. You weren't even on the list of bloggers in danger of losing their BD membership.
The post was intended to serve to purposes, yet both were intended to speak to a similar audience. First, this post was to address the multi-partisan aggregator rule, which I must reiterate is a horrendous idea.
Secondly, it was to respond to some negative criticism that I have received at the hands of some (look again at Robert's post, I was specifically named by a fellow blogger in the comments section). Indeed, I recently have been making some comments critical of the NDP, though I think those were necessary to ensure that the party remains a viable left-wing alternative and not merely a 'progressive' party that is centre-left. As a result, I recieved some criticism at the hands of a few bloggers, who suggest that those comments were inappropriate.
However, I think this post fuses those two issues because we have two groups (one more left-leaning and one more right/centrist-leaning) who don't follow perfectly into line with official partisan rhetoric as to what the party should be. As a result, both groups have recieved criticism, and I've attempted to address both concerns in one post.
And yes, I do have a flare for the dramatics.
Post a Comment