In the ongoing argument between supporters of Jimmy Dore and supporters of AOC, as in every other online debate, the battle lines have been drawn and people have dug in their heels. It’s like a big tug of war over a mud pit, with fairly evenly matched teams.
On the one side, the Jimmy people are definitely showing some bad manners, and using some provocative language (this is the side I’m taking, but damn, some of these people need to show a bit of restraint), while the AOC people are actually sounding a lot like Biden people, or Hillary people before that, saying that this is not the time for an argument and AOC knows what she’s doing and we should just trust her.
One of them made a pretty good argument that I saw a couple of minutes ago, that by holding our leaders to too high a standard, and arguing over every little thing, we are potentially limiting our number to too small a group. It was a good argument, but I think it’s wrong.
It’s the big tent vs. the small tent argument. If you keep the tent small, you have fewer people and therefore less power, but if you have a big tent, you lose focus and there is a greater risk of a schism, because anything over a certain size is going to have factions.The silver lining is that it’s not an either/or choice. Let me put it this way: On a scale of 1 to 10, one being a single person shouting out their ideas on a street corner, but they are so specific they can’t agree with anybody and nobody can be with them, and 10 being everybody is welcome, we don’t even care what you believe.The correct tent size may be a four, or it may be a seven, but it’s definitely not a 1 or a 10. I see the big government v. small government debate the same way.
www.gurukalehuru.com 