The main argument of a newly formed Twin Cities media watchdog group goes something like this: The mainstream U.S. media is an abhorrent monolithic entity acting in concert with the U.S. government to “shamelessly profit from an unjustified war” in Iraq while “facilitating police brutality” and “persecution” of innocent people at home. The Counter Propaganda Coalition, which grew out of the antiwar movement, presented this remarkable case to a chilly crowd in downtown Minneapolis last weekend in a mock trial of the “corporate media.” The verdict was met with hearty cheers and chants such as “Corporate media’s favorite song / written by the Pentagon!”

Now, it is easy to dismiss such outrageous allegations of a military-media complex, especially when they are provided without evidence. But such sweeping, simplistic rhetoric that fails to offer any solutions has become commonplace among some liberal activist circles. A typical protest sign declares, “Bush is a terrorist.” Another says, “Amerika: Get a clue.” But ultimately, the left must understand this type of rhetoric is counterproductive, serving only to showcase the increasing difficulty of building a credible alternative to the status quo.

Too often, it appears many on the active left view the world much as the president does: in black and white, without fully understanding its murkiness. To many, the United States and media corporations are unquestionably evil, while the rest of the oppressed world is always good. Evidence is applied accordingly. Although it would be nice if the world were so tidy, it’s a problematic way of thinking. And in the end, the endless tirade it inspires, as exemplified by the Counter Propaganda Coalition, appeals only to those who already agree. Those who might be persuaded are turned off by the undercurrent of anti-Americanism.

Another related problem on the left is its intolerance for differing viewpoints. The collectively run Internet news network, Independent News Center, which allows its patrons to post their own news and accounts, refuses to publish certain items. The site’s editorial policy says because they are “fighting a power structure that seeks to divide us, along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, national origin” they will remove from the news wire “anything that divides us.” Curiously, their language sounds similar to George W. Bush’s post-Sept. 11 remarks on the war on terrorism: “You’re either with us or you’re against us.” Unfortunately, the homogenous groupthink that pervades the U.S. establishment mirrors the situation among the opposition.

The world is entering a crucial point in its history. The events of the next few years will have a great impact on the way the world is shaped for the next century. More than ever, Americans need to have a robust debate about how to deal with the many problems we face. For their part, liberals and activists need to move beyond simple blame and start proposing solutions. Democrats learned the lesson during the last election. While many candidates were quick to criticize the president and talk about what they were against, many seemed hesitant to tell voters what they were for. Until the left realizes it must offer a viable alternative and present the arguments in a reasonable way, its issues won’t be given the attention they deserve, and U.S. democracy will be poorer for it.