Through the Republican looking glass

People on Democratic Underground, and I think on the left in general, put forward two arguments, which I think are contradictory, when it comes to party unity.

Firstly, we proclaim our love for diversity of thought. We say that we are unlike the groupthink Republicans, to whom words like "lemming" and "sheeple" are applied ad nauseum. "They just do as they're told", we say, and move on. We're different because we can think for ourselves.

On the other hand, DUers yearn for "leadership". "Why won't they just stand behind Feingold?" becomes equated to "having a spine". I don't get it. First we want diversity of thought, and when we display that diversity people on our own side equate it with weakness. Evidently we're all supposed to be just diverse enough to follow the individual Democrats people think are important. Now the Feingold has proposed censure, Democrats who for whatever reason don't support him are "undermining party unity". One could just as easily say they're speaking for themselves. In fact, seeing as how Feingold just came with censure out of the blue, and is openly questioning House Dems' moves toward impeachment, isn't *he* undermining party unity? I guess not, since he's evidently this week's gold standard for liberal politicking. But, this is just an example. We've seen this in many situations before.

To that end, I propose we make a poll of 10 prominent Democrats representing the spectrum of left-wing thought: from Lieberman to McKinney/Kucinich. Then, everyone on DU will be compelled to vote in said poll. When the results are compiled, that person will be the new leader. Then, we'll have the leadership people around here desperately crave. We'll support that person in all their undertakings. We won't dispute a thing he or she says. The level to which you support this new leader will be the measure of "spine" on DU henceforth. Then, we will have our leadership.

But will we be satisfied with our new unity?