Personalize or Not?
Saul Alinsky famously argued that social movements ought to try to put a single face on their opposition, because this makes mobilization easier to sustain. At the same time, others have argued that our growing tendency to personalize, dramatize, and fragment our daily news and political communication makes it more difficult to see (let alone address) institutional, chronic, and systemic challenges.

Since the election, as McConnell did after President Obama's victory, those opposed to the president-elect have poured boatloads of energy into attacking his brand, reveling in pointing out to those who voted for him that his 'tells it like it is' myth has already resulted in reneging on nearly every dramatic campaign promise he made.

I wonder if we would not be better served by a depersonalized focus on opposing his policy proposals and cabinet appointments? Maybe this is a distinction without a difference. Maybe I am just exhausted with personal attacks as the primary vehicle for policy arguments. Or maybe I am afraid our thin-skinned president-elect will lose it, or that divisiveness will deepen beyond recovery, or that personalized attacks are more likely to strengthen the resolve of both those on his team and his supporters in the bar stool next to me. Doing a lot of just-plain-wondering these days.