More Tit for Tat

The Civility War has continued on the blogs, to good effect, I think. Gilliard nails all the former Wonkettes and the Kleimans who defend her and sends the correct message to all the other oh-so-civils like Drum, Garance, Yglesias, E. Klein, et al. (Maha Barb has spent way too much time rationalizing channeling your anger through Zen. Whatever.) That message is Tit for Tat that I detailed a few posts below for all our intellectual Mister Rogers wannabes out there who don't understand that being civil to the uncivil turns you into the Kansas City Royals (or another team mentioned on this blog):

Game theorists can show you how a population of appeasers and compromisers will have their asses handed to them time after time by predators on civility. When predators enter Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, "let's all get along" will mean shaving standard after standard until you're at the point where the predator has what s/he wanted all along and gets to decide whether s/he'll keep any of the tolerant, nurturing, communal types around. (As pets, as Grover Norquist famously quipped.) If there's any good news, it's that, once there are only predators, one wins until the poison (or the stress of worrying about it) gets him, or they consume themselves, or they have to become more appeasing and compromising. At that latter point, which does happen here and there in civilization, those who can cooperate are more productive and prosper better. Until the population gets back to the original point, where the predators can destroy the Mister Rogers of the world again for their short-term gain.

Matt Stoller applies the point further, responding to a typical "please steamroll me flat and play me like a drum" post from, who else and appropriately, Kevin Drum:

. . . wonkery is at this point counterproductive because the essence of wonkery is an assumption of good faith. If you write a policy in wonk-land, it's assumed it will be carried out, the law will be respected, the money will be appropriated, etc. The Bush administration has broken that basic compact. They lie. All the time. They approach arguments in utter bad faith from the get-go. They abuse the process, everything from budget battles to conference committees. If you approach people like this in good faith, you lose. That's why Iraq is so fundamental, because it is the singular essence of a bad faith Presidency.

That's it, Zen or no Zen. Predators facing Mister Rogers will lie to his face and strip that sweater right off him. You get nowhere being civil with predators until it is clear that civility is better than the retaliation you're giving the predators. Calm, rational anger says, "Wusssssssss," and only impresses the already civil. So cut the crap and, as Gilliard says, rally around your allies for this overarching cause. The predators are organized, active, and institutionalized (and not in the way we might like). If you approach people like that in good faith, you lose.