First, let me make it clear that Jeff Jarvis does not need my help in replying to this Oliver Willis attack; he's got everything under control.
Second, I do not as a rule read Oliver Willis, particularly now when I'm trying to avoid the more partisan voices in favor of the moderates, who actually seem interested in a discussion.
But the recent dust up between Willis and Jarvis, mild as it was, does illustrate very nicely a problem I've pointed out before. Often times, their zealous anti-conservative rhetoric abrogates their own core principles. Look, the left is very proud of their reputation for being inclusive and openminded. Yet when it comes to conservatives, and in many cases moderate liberals, the open door is slammed shut. In the past, I've called this hypocrisy, but I'm beginning to believe it's more a kind of tone deafness; they really don't see that in their zeal to mount an effective attack against conservatives, they've adopted the same hateful weapons they claim conservatives use: intolerance of even mild dissent within the party, ridicule of anyone even slightly to the right of themselves, and slavish devotion to the party leaders. It seems that more and more members of the left want to purge the party of any members who won't toe the line. In fact, simply having a conservative agree with you is almost enough to get you summarily excommunicated from the party. Who would have ever thought that the Democratic Party would become one which valued ideological purity over inclusiveness?
That is certainly not a policy that strengthens a party or wins elections, and it is the sternest test for Dr. Dean. Will party hacks and flacks set the tone and platform, or will Dr. Dean engineer a populist revival of the party?
Finally, while a full bore fisking of the Willis piece would be pointless overkill, I do want to examine this statement:
The reason Jeff raises such ire on the left is that he's a reliable source for the right in getting a Democrat to bash Democrats. A similar dynamic exists with Mickey Kaus, The New Republic, and Joe Lieberman. They (and a few others) can reliably be called upon as a "voice of reason" within the Democratic party, in order to discredit the relative moderation of the party ("Balanced budgets and sensible wars!" Damn, we're crazy). Needless to say, in the case of the war in Iraq, had we ignored the so-called reasonable ones, 1,500 American soldiers would be alive today.