Why the TYT/Jimmy Dore Feud Matters
And what we should learn from it.
Disputes on the political left are nothing new, but sometimes those disputes go beyond healthy discussion and can potentially be career-ending.
Some would argue that the ability to openly discuss and even disagree on issues is an attractive quality of Leftism. Yet, time and again, we’ve watched political leaders and influencers on the left take extreme measures to silence or destroy opposition.
While not everyone is familiar with the recent and ongoing controversy between The Jimmy Dore Show and The Young Turks, most of us have witnessed similar and perplexing altercations.
In the midst of the ongoing spectacle, I was reminded of a similar chain of events that ended what should have been a prolific and game-changing political campaign. That campaign belonged to Tulsi Gabbard.
For a brief overview of what I’m talking about, the following thread should provide an ample summary:
The reader might question exactly what Tulsi’s experience has to do with the Jimmy Dore/TYT altercation, but I assure you it is a frustrating and infuriating pattern on the left.
As mentioned previously, the ability to freely and openly discuss political issues is one of the left’s primary talking points. How many times have we heard the Democratic Party referred to as a “big tent," welcoming and open to all? Journalists of major Democrat-leaning news organizations, such as the Washington Post, love to remind voters of this:
“Democrats are a big-tent party, while Republicans are a closed circle. For more than a half-century, Republicans have purged dissenters and turned themselves into a rigid, radical, unified bloc — ideologically, racially, religiously. As the Republicans cast off free-thinkers, Democrats took them in.”
So what exactly is so outrageous about this assertion? After all, it’s easy to see, at least superficially, that the left is far more diverse in its makeup, and this applies not only to those with political aspirations, but to the block of voters that identify as “left.” Yet, anyone with an ounce of honesty knows things are not always what they seem.
It’s easy to present a façade of diversity when your opponent is so overwhelmingly homogeneous that even North Korea would be jealous (yes, I’m exaggerating!) Still, the most obvious choice for anyone who is at least mildly interested in diversity would seem to be the Democratic Party or some loosely-linked affiliate on the left.
Alas, appearances are deceiving and that is clearly by design. The Democratic Party and other left-leaning organizations, news outlets, journalists, political influencers and casual commentators have all played their part in the prevarication of inclusiveness.
The attacks on Jimmy Dore and Tulsi Gabbard all but verify that fact. Who is attacking them? Is it the Republican Party? Is it right-leaning, conservative media? Is it the conservative voters who see them as a threat to their value systems and conservative ideologies? Not at all. It’s friends, cohorts and powerful institutions on the left (Democratic Party vs. Tulsi Gabbard and TYT vs. Jimmy Dore.)
When Congresswoman Gabbard decided to challenge the Democratic establishment, she paid a hefty price. Not only was she banished from the DNC’s inner circle, every effort was made to permanently destroy her career.
Similarly, when Jimmy Dore criticized his former employer’s premiere hosts, Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, for refusing to acknowledge the OPCW coverup in Syria, he was met with threats and unfounded smear attacks.
The message is clear. Dissent on the left is NOT permitted and anything that casts a negative shadow on the powerful institutions that domineer the left will be met with severe consequences.
Tulsi Gabbard and Jimmy Dore did not learn their lessons. They challenged the left-wing of an establishment party for phony progressivism and when those they challenged realized their positions as prominent voices on the progressive left were being threatened, they retaliated not ONLY against their accusers, but against voters and their audience.
In fact, many influencers on the left have become SO desperate to discredit any valid criticisms that they’re accusing their critics of being undercover Republicans or Russian agents.
So the question remains, why is what we are witnessing important and what should we conclude based on it?
The past 3–5 years have have seen a major shift in the American consciousness. More and more, Americans are not satisfied with choosing between the “lesser of two evils" every four years.
Pseudo-challengers, like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have risen to potentially offer alternatives, only to eventually surrender and join their opponents.
Similarly, traditionally progressive media giants, like The Young Turks, as well as those who continue to be associated with them, have folded to corporate sponsorship, desperate for financial security in times of great instability. Not only that, the most traditionally progressive voices are aggressively reprimanding and working to silence criticism of their work.
Who can we trust and turn to as honest and voter-centric players in the game of politics? It’s getting more and more difficult to recognize the enemy of the people, because they’ve become increasingly successful at blending in.
I wish I had a definitive answer to that question, but unfortunately, my perspective is limited by my experience. I do know that charisma and the right talking points aren’t enough. The enemy has learned to speak our language. Even previous history, political background, voting record and formerly held positions don’t always provide an answer, because people can change for the better or worse.
What I do know is that anyone engaging in distraction from progressive goals or making excuses for why we can’t fight back or telling us that we’re being “divisive" for fighting for what’s right, is not an honest actor.
That may be all we truly ever have to guide our instincts, but it’s better than succumbing to fear, retaliation or other malicious tactics used to keep us from succeeding at achieving our goals of having a government of, by and for the people.
And while it’s exhausting to constantly be in battle-mode, what choice do we have? Our future depends on it.
