This isn't the kind of thing I normally pay much attention to here, and never planned to write about it: I'm more into abstractions, not soap operas. But after reading the comments on Kos, I have a hard time not writing. Other than the obvious policy disputes, is "the left" really so different from "the right"?

Observations:

(1) Marcotte sees those who criticize her as being utterly insincere.

Bill Donohue... right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics... his intent is to "silence" me... Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems... Bill Donohue doesn’t speak for Catholics, he speaks for the right wing noise machine.

It's surely true that Bill Donohue (head of some semi-important Catholic organization, I gather) doesn't speak for all Catholics. But Marcotte and her supporters simply cannot fathom that such a person (much less countless others) could be actually offended by her obviously-blasphemous and anti-Catholic comments. Commenter after commenter talks about "phony outrage" and "right wing noise", "hype and smear", "baseless" complaints, etc, etc, etc.

Though they're not really (I'll explain in a moment), such remarks strike me, as an outsider, as incredibly stupid: Yes, the "right wing" was desparate to get some random John Edwards-employed blogger, Marcotte, fired. Because, among all the other bloggers who support Democratic candidates, she's ... what, so amazingly good? Why pick on her in particular? And (of course) John Edwards is such a substantial threat to, say, Guiliani, that it's clear they'd certainly go after him first.

(If it were me being devious, I'd try to support Edwards -- as one of the weakest candidates -- and then expose Marcotte after the primaries. Duh. But it doesn't occur to anyone that this might have been a better plan.)

But as I said: this isn't stupidity, and these are (otherwise) sharp people. This is narcissism: it's all a big plot to get Marcotte. It has nothing to do with her sexual comments about God. That's just a superficial excuse to get at her -- because she's "pro-choice" and "not religious", as she explained.

To quote former Los Angeles NOW president, Tammy Bruce (who is also "pro-choice" and "not religious"):

Narcissism is actually the belief that everything that happens, happens because of you, or revolves around you... The issues for narcissists, whether they be feminist, gay or black, is always about them, surrounding them, or about how the opposition is out to get them. Paranoia is a key factor in narcissism and easy to exploit.

The Left’s organizing relies on selling the line that everyone who disagrees with the leftist status quo is a hater of some sort; those who disagree with leftist policy are not dealt with as serious people who have a different opinion on the issues. That would then require arguments based on reason. Instead, leftist leadership casts their opposition as haters who live every moment planning to eradicate the gay, woman or black. When your base is primarily narcissistic that’s an easy line to sell, remains emotional devoid of reason, and makes people easy to condition and control. Leftist politics, like a vicious circle, rely on the damaged as footsoldiers, while the most damaged, the “Malignant Narcissist,” ... move into positions of power and leadership... [1]

(2) The few sensible leftists who try to help are not appreciated. I've watched Kos comments for quite a while, and I've seen this over and over.

In the comments, I was struck by "adigal", who says the usual lefty things ("left wing girls way too smart for our own good") -- and yet at least has sense to realize her man, Edwards, can't afford to alienate every moderate or Democrat-supporting Catholic in the US. She also offends by insisting that people should be responsible for their own words.

Yet she is mocked for caring about her "beloved mainstream", she's threatened with being "troll rated", an accuser insists "you are Donohue people", and she's threatened with group-think ("smart is knowing who your allies are"). (Sheesh: with friends like that...)

(3) Convenient morality. One minute a commenter dismisses the complaints this way: "The right wing specializes in this particular type of hype and smear. It's a most effective way of silencing your opposition."

The right is bad, they deliberately "hype" and "smear." (Again, both terms indicate there was nothing really stupid or problematic about what Marcotte wrote.)

So is this man, our hero, going to rise above it? Oh, no way: "The best defense is a strong offense, as they say. Offense being the operative word." Translation: We need to become worse than they are.

The same is true of Marcotte's reaction: It was bad to attack her personally, yet she's seeking to do the same thing back. Whether or not that was actually her opponent's motives, she stands condemned by her own judgement. We expect this of children, not adults.

I've been watching Democratic boards for a long, long time; I've seen the patterns above over and over. Am I wrong about this? Then find me a right-wing equivalent -- or actually, many of them, since I can pretty much produce left-leaning examples on demand.