I’ve always seen the internet as a … way to shape and influence the debate and join the discussion. So it’s not really about adhering to some structure of what a blog should be … What we’re celebrating is participation. We’re not all going to be alike.
Jerome Armstrong on Open Source
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
The heavyweight contenders are in the Open Source ring. That’s Glen Reynolds of Instapundit in the Tennessee Libertarian trunks. And that’s Jerome Armstrong of MyDD and Daily Kos in the colors of California and the Opposition.
They’re both out in hard covers now: Reynolds — a sort of Goliath among the “war bloggers” on the way to Iraq — has the nerve to call his book “An Army of Davids.” Armstrong — co-authoring with Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a.k.a. Kos — is locating himsef in “Crashing the Gates” somewhere in the mystery zone between the implosion of the Howard Dean insurgency and the new establishment of electronic Democrats.
Bloggers, let’s get it on!
Do we still believe in the Web transformation? Is it Right? Is it Left? Is it real yet?
We’re expected to be wary now of “blog triumphalism,” but what if the new tech is still underhyped?
Or is it already commercialized beyond recognition?
Is the beloved “long tail” of unbought, unbossed little voices still wagging in the world of the A-listers and the corporate sites?
Were you prepared for the Walmart capture of blog publicists for the company line?
Can you see the pretty radical difference in the way Republicans and Democrats are workshopping and using the new machinery?
And of course: how does it play in the contest for Congress this year, and the mobilization of money and opinion around the succession to George Bush in 2008.
As it happens, I audio-blogged two strong interviews with Glen Reynolds: Instajournalism as ‘functioning anarchy’” and Kos: “A Democratic Clubhouse on the Web” three years ago, when we were all young Internet sprouts.
So please help me crank up a fresh set of questions and answers here.
Glenn Reynolds
-
Blogger, Instapundit
Open Source guest, The Republican Coalition
Author of An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths
Jerome Armstrong
-
Blogger, MyDD
Author of Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics
With the help of mainstream media, having accepted them as legitimate sources, haven’t bloggers like Instapundit and Daily Kos – the A-list bloggers, created a repeat of the hierarchy of media that already existed before the dawn of personal publishing on the net? There was a recent stat that 99% of blog readers read the same 1% of blogs.. another indicator of a new class system that has taken root?
Strictly my $0.02 opinion, I view much of the relationship between weblogs and politics as having a ‘repackaging’ aspect. Another channel for promulgating a point-of-view and persuading/coercing public discourse. Another forum for point-counterpoint. Another funding vehicle. Another arena for scalp hunting and gotcha games. Another prop and cast-of-characters for the political theatre.
I see a dearth of authenticity and honest inquire, but perhaps my cynicism is clouding my vision and judgement. That is, blogs as honest brokers and investigators, where the explicit agenda is to examine (likely)intractable problems and expound and ruminate upon the various aspects and follow the thread of inquiry wherever things lead. The tone of most of the political blogs are fairly polemic and confrontational. This probably reflects and informs something about our political discourse.
This is me being cynical. Somebody please prove me wrong.
As transformative as the blogosphere has been in capturing political discourse from the tight grip of the old major media outlets, I feel that the Golden Age of the unaffiliated blogger may have already unwittingly passed us by. The Old media has, in large, adapted to the new trends in time to avoid becoming fossilized. While the Old media – like TV, broadcast radio, and print – effectively commodified access to information and opinion. the New media will commodify reputations. Commercial interests tend to adapt to the small-scale motion of people- just look at the music industry. They are slow and often react late, but when they act they engulf. Their initial tardiness only increases their apetite. Bicyclemark’s statistic is alarming. This “class-system” of reputations will make it easier for Money to locate esteemed blogs, and commodify them, as has been history’s trend.
I have a question to follow up my post, because I want to be (and a lot of the time, i am) hopeful:
Is there anything other than personal integrity that can safeguard the “new machinery” from being coopted?
How do we keep from having the Internet replace ABC and CNN and FOX with new commodified outlets which, though they may number a dozen or even twenty, are still functionally equivalent?
Part I: Suggested questions and my answers
Here are some questions of the top of my head – if you read my profile on Open Source you may understand where they are coming from:
How would the framers today use the blogoshere to hash out the Constitution?
They would have trouble – today’s issues as al things – thus their inclination to raise the age on those given power; and lower the threshold on sanctions for misuse of that power.
They would take their time to craft their thoughts, and then go away on holiday to let things settle. They would also use their lifetime of observation to quickly say succinctly in a short space – they are not succinct – they merely have succinct solutions to the old problems. They may be more verbose as they search for new solutions to issues they had not had a lifetime to wrestle with.
What protections would the framers include in the Constitution to protect the rights of people to peacefully assemble, anonymously share views?
They would include them and honor those protections, not explain them away. The Framers would likely debate amendments related to privacy and freedom from government harassment in the expression of their concerns about unlawful government official conduct. They would include some meaningful sanctions on government officials for violating what they promise to do: Protect the Constitution, and strip the government of legislative immunity as does the 42 USC 1983 do with wayward public officials.
If the framers protected personal papers, and knew that government intrusion into private affairs stifled a free exchange of ideas, would they today have something to say about national security letters, computers, private e-mail, and the NSA program?
The framers want to protect people, not power. The framers would see the solution is not to harass the source of the nation’s wealth – its citizens – but to boldly challenge our international competitors to do it better. Our example at home and abroad would speak volumes – one that would inspire not destroy.
What is to be said of the New Jersey State Legislature effort to require people to identify themselves – would the authors of the Federalist Papers have been dissuaded from creating the needed arguments to lead the people to victory at Valley Forge?
They would reject the notion — noting the inconsistency between the standard imposed on the public and that ignored by the government. The framers would have used such a restriction as a catalyst for prudent solutions: How to compel the government officials to meet that standard first, then perhaps have a few generations we might get around to imposing that requirement on their children. Some may have been dissuaded and given up as Washington often considered. One cannot lead when they are right, but the needed time to germinate the ideas is insufficient to inspire a nation, much less a single blogger.
How would the framers argue for sanctioning those who spread rumors and lead the nation into imprudent and unlawful war; should those who print falsehoods be subject to war crimes?
Civilians who commit war crimes may be lawfully punished as a war criminal. The framers would protect the right to speak; and they would also question the Patriotism of those who induce others into wars based on falsehoods. Yes, those who use falsehoods to commit crimes have committed several errors – first in planning the crime; second in committing it; third in lying about it; and fourth in inducting others to join them.
The framers would argue that the misconduct be the subject of sanction – it is irrelevant wither the sanctions were clear or vague. There are some things that one knows not to do and are clearly wrong simply because their effect. Nuremburg taught us that new law can be created to define what people should have known what not to do. Yes, we can after the fact, ex post facto charge people for crimes against humanity – even when they are simply inciting others to wage unlawful war based on falsehoods.
We have to consider whether their professional training and experience put them on a higher plane of responsibility to ensure their words were truthful and connected to reality, not simply connected with a desire to maintain their A-List status. One cannot credibly command a reputation based on professional certification, but then blame the audience for having relied on information which proves to be false. The world now knows that A-List bloggers may be A-List War Criminals.
Should members of Congress lose their legislative immunity when they step into the blogosphere and advocate assent to unlawful Presidential rebellion against the Constitution?
Indeed. There can be no absolute immunity for anyone who knows – or should know – that the war is devoid of facts. That they refused to use their mind, or end what was clearly known to be unlawful should not be something that should be excused. Rather, their blogs should be admissible as evidence before the war crimes tribunal or Grand Jury.
Should lawyers who take political stands in the blogosphere face close scrutiny by State Bar Disciplinary boards; or should professional certifications not be used as a basis to command attention; is it unreasonable to give someone deference in the blogosphere because of their credentials, but not also hold them to a higher standard of conduct before the State Bar?
Public conduct commands closer scrutiny. Just because someone has a legal background doesn’t mean that they should be trusted. America has learned the hard way that lawyers can justify in their own mind and their co-conspirators any number of twisted legal arguments. Those lawyers who say they have the path to political truth must be reminded we live in an adversarial world where they are not the final arbiter: The People still hold the power to decide whether the legal profession is or is not in rebellion against the document from which they derive their power. Professional credentials have a burden of responsibility and a position of authority – one cannot command authority but refuse to embrace the responsibility for the consequences.
It is foreseeable that political speech when it is devoid of facts is at odds with the legal professions model rules. If the Bars do not tame their members, then it is up to the clients to create a body of law through malpractice claims. The way forward is to consider when the State level sanctions fail to discipline those who have world wide impact.
It is meaningless to grant blind deference to a blogger because of their credentials – they may be rich in stature and acclaim but devoid of moral fiber and clarity. A clouded mind is not cleared with silence, deference, or respect – it takes something else called passion, focus, desire, perspiration, and a willingness to listen and understand the opposing view.
If State Legislators view their private e-mail as confidential and non-public – something which cannot be access by the open records laws – why should private citizens be required to disclose their personal identities?
The framers would compel the government to demonstrate the standard was good enough for them, then mock them as they left excuses in their blogs not to assent to the standard.
Is it possible for someone to be a highly trained professional, but completely wrong and a threat to the Constitution?
Yes, and the problem the nation has is when the blogosphere cannot tell the difference between what is truth and was is the law – they are different things. The law cannot be debated or ignored after the misconduct is self-evidence, just as evidence cannot be created out of thin air. Those who blog and pretend the facts and evidence and laws can be debated do not deserve to be called professional – they are merely bloggers looking for something to say. They are not leaders – they are weak in their commitment to principles, easily swayed by what the client wants, not what the law commands. They deserve to have their blogs used against them at a state disciplinary board – they must choose whether they are actors in the electronic media or professionals before the court of law. There is a difference.
What is to be done when the founding principles of this nation are at odds of what this nation’s leadership is willing to protect?
When one blogs about matters of international law, war crimes, and rules of evidence – but the facts are not on your side – it is best to remain silent, than blog and remove all doubt that you are an unprincipled lawyer not a principled statesman.
How bad does a situation have to deviate from norms before prudent solutions appear on the horizon; who is to say whether a professionally trained scholar or an anonymous blogger has more credibility – the laws are simply based on text – why does it matter whether a well crafted solution is from someone who is known, trained, anonymous, or a jester in a blog comment?
The prudent statesmen will know when to listen. Unprincipled lawyers will blog when they have no facts, then command others to assent to illusions. These are not matters of daily diaries, but issues of criminal law and human lives. A single blog can undermine a nation’s soul and destroy a client’s faith in the legal profession. Woe to the lawyer who realizes too late the rambling blogger is well versed in legal malpractice.
What would the founding fathers have done had they had blogs – could they have avoided the heat, or must we meet face to face in empty chambers; has the Congress simply become a Hollywood Stage, and far more could be done if we required members of Congress to sit with the other two branches and divided power – so that neither branch
could control the blogosphere?
The founding fathers would have ensured the law was not something which was easily ignored for the sake of favorable news. They realized the unfavorable weather in London made it impossible for Parliament to do what was prudent in the Common wealth of Virginia.
The framers would be open to new ideas that would protect the people from abusive power; they would blog that new solutions are needed to divide the power of those who ignore their oaths and are elected to do the blogger’s bidding.
. . .
Part II: Open Source Questions and my answers
�Do we still believe in the Web transformation? Is it Right? Is it Left? Is it real yet?� Yes, transformation is inevitable. It is a mistake to view the Web as “the answer� – rather, it is like paper – merely a tool. The source of the transformation is the human spirit. The issue is not whether the web is transforming, but whether we recognize the transformation in new corners of the web. The youth of tomorrow who are not alive will start new – and they will transform within, and their transformation will amaze us as they use the web in new ways – just as we transform our souls when we choose to be touched and remain open to new ideas to lawfully do what is prudent.
“We’re expected to be wary now of “blog triumphalism,â€? but what if the new tech is still underhyped?” Perhaps it is overhyped to believe that the web is underhyped. The issue is profits – are there real profits; and is the cost of the tool greater than the rewards. Sometimes it is good to withdraw from the tool and let things rest, as one does with a vacation – let things simmer – convergence occurs with the aha! In open space — not with the dread of more.
“Or is it already commercialized beyond recognition?” When Gutenberg developed the printing press, he did not imagine that paper would be used to make plans to land on the moon. We are never “beyond recognitionâ€? – rather, we are well below what is possible and what will be recognizable. There will be a day when people contemplate how to change the batteries on their vehicles on Mars; and what is to be done to create a fabrication facility for sub-orbital travel across the Martian icecaps. They will do that on the surface of Mars, not just here on Earth. We will wrestle with the lessons of 1776 when new people lead independent lives in new worlds. To prepare for that time on Mars, must learn the lessons of Iraq and give people the power to choose – not force them to assent to something that does not work, is imprudent, or at odds with what we actually know to be true. There will be ads on Mars adjacent to these fabrication facilities, and we will laugh at them and roll our eyes just the same – think of the commercial possibilities. Hold onto your wallets – you ain’t seen anything yet.
“Is the beloved “long tailâ€? of unbought, unbossed little voices still wagging in the world of the A-listers and the corporate sites?” An A-list blogger will not last forever. The Founding Fathers have been forgotten by the RNC, appearing to revere Stalin and Hitler over Washington or Adams. The little voices grow into big voices; the big sites are fortunately there to provide structure and save time. The issue has been the vacuum of credible media discussion of issues of substance; while at the same time bloggers have learned how difficult it is to stay on top of the news. We need aggregators for our aggregators – the issue is who to trust to do our aggregating. A-List bloggers are not necessarily A-List aggregators, nor do they have A-List content or prudent thinking. They can be as easily overshadowed by event and led astray. They are not Gods – they are mortals – as we are reminded in Federalist 47 and 51 – deserving to be carefully watched not blindly trusted. Beware the A-List Blogger – they may not have A-List intentions, or A-List respect for the rule of law or Constitution.
“Can you see the pretty radical difference in the way Republicans and Democrats are workshopping and using the new machinery?” Yes. One is inspired by the law; the other inspired by defiance. Both argue over distractions; real Patriots transform our way of thinking. The RNC and DNC both use non-sense – one is more effective in turning on the volume; the other far better at reading the Constitution. One is better organized to mobilize tyranny; the other better adept at noticing the problem. One is better at credibly clashing ideas and moving forward on the basis of the law; the other ignores the law. The way forward is for each side to simply listen to the other, and use the clash of ideas to assert the rule of law, and find prudent solutions – it I not a tradeoff as both appear to choose.
�And of course: how does it play in the contest for Congress this year, and the mobilization of money and opinion around the succession to George Bush in 2008.� A single butterfly may ignite the passion of a single soul – and for that we might sail to new plateaus. Had the framers had a blog, the Constitution would have quickly spread – life can quickly change. We do not know whether the mobilization will be for the right people, the right laws, or the right Constitution. What is popular is not necessarily legal, nor should we assent to the popular will when it defies the law and prudence.
All excellent comments so far (though Constant abuses your lack of a word limit to posts)– it seems that the concerns I aired in The New Gatekeepers from last year are finding fertile ground– the point of bigfoot bloggers being susceptible to the same problems that have been ailing bigfoot media.
Another thing to consider: the blogs are another tool for politics, not governance. They’re great for emerging pundits and emerging democracies.
Still, that said, blogs only connect because they fire so much. Compare the 2005 scandals that the media beat the blogs on vs. this DKos tempest-in-a-teapot from yesterday, a naive discovery of campaign mail generating some 224 comments.
Some more talking points. Kos lost again in rallying his minions to support a candidate, as political consultant Brian Reich points out. Reich concludes: “Here’s my challenge to Kos — forgo your upcoming book tour and go to work at 430 South Capitol Street. Show the party how its supposed to be done. Help Governor Dean, who you helped put at the head of the Party, figure out what is so wrong with the DemZilla system that it would prompt a separate effort to build data system for the party. Roll up your sleeves and set the Party on the right course.”
As the resident poet among the commenters here, I thought I’d toss up some haikus as an antidote to the long comments. Hyperlinked for your enjoyment.
Political blogs
Smother leaves of grassroots
Under piles of dirt.
Readers of the blogs
have to dine on quantity,
whine on quality.
Rather’s muggers asked:
What’s the frequency, Kenneth?
Times were slower then.
Insta- who, what, where?
Tenets of journalism,
thrown out the window.
Kosymandias
Look upon his works, despair!
There’s just no heir there.
Doesn’t it make sense that when any new media emerges, it will be the conduit for some stars who previously had no other way to shine?
I’m not sure that blogging is impacting the world much really. For all the talk, it didn’t send Dean to the Democratic Convention. There have been some blips and a few gifted people have found the conduit for their voices. But it is still a form of communication, just as print, radio and TV are. And influential communication requires myriads of receivers for each sender. So, you get caught in the same morass as any other medium if you are trying to be influention: how to reach a lot of readers.
And for the readers, they are caught in the same dilemma as with any other medium: how to verify the veracity of the communication.
I’m not sure why we are surprised that Blogs would quickly be corralled the way other media have been. What did we expect?
Hey, JonGarfunkel: I abuse ‘the no-word limit’ too!
I’m chuckling — I’m not picking a fight, not at all.
Every now and then it takes a lot of words to make your points, especially when the writer must begin with an attempt to overturn ‘conventional wisdom’ in order clear the way for the sensibility informing her or his logic.
And overturning conventional wisdom, imho, is perhaps the blogosphere’s best virtue. Even when those of us who try it stumble instead of stride.
But I don’t think Constant stumbled. I very much enjoyed Constant’s post, even though it was a seven course dinner, and even though I had quibbles here and there.
Thanks Constant.
And thanks JonGarfunkel too!
Nice poem!
Both of your contributions are shining examples of the blogosphere’s virtues.
One more thought: we have a culture built on the religion of the $. We measure the nation’s successess and losses in $. We see economic exchanges as the primary reason to co-exist. So, again, why are we surprised that a corporation (created solely as a means to maximize the ability to collect and keep $) would be smart enough to see this new form of communication as an opportunity to co-opt it for their own gain?
And why are we surprised, that if a person wants to devote herself to blogging, that she would welcome the economic support?
Blogs themselves aren’t going to change the nature of this beast that we call culture. There has to be a compellingly strong innate desire for that change by a critical mass of people. And the change has to be forced through physical actions that move things. Boycotts, protests, in-your-face confrontations witht the truth, putting your money where your mouth is. While writing can be inspirational, it loses its power if it is not mated with actions. And disembodied writings from ghosts inside a machine don’t stand a chance.
MLK was inspirational because he was real. He came out and spoke to you. He walked his talk and led action. He wasn’t a pundit. He was a leader. Blogging alone can never triumph over anything.
I think one of the lessons of our time is that we must never confuse the technological tools we create to aid us in our efforts with the actual efforts we must make. We must never confuse the power of technology with the power of synergy – a power that is only generated when people actually come together.
This is what leaves me with a skeptical edge about the ROS ‘community’. We write to one another and we are each afforded a place where we can sort and express our thoughts and get data/feedback from others. But it is a solitary activity. I look forward to posts from nother and nikos and peggysue and many others. But you are all fantasies to me. You give me words and I build in my head a character behind them. This is all a fancy form of navel-gazing. I have an appreciation for some level of that, obviously, but I don’t see it as going anywhere. As we can already see, most of us have our perspectives and we stick to them. We are simply honing them here. We are not really moved by one another. Nor are driven to any actions in the real world. The best we can hope for is better self-expression and perhaps, some good information about various topics.
IME, the best experience of community online is when a listserv or forum or blog is an extension of an IRL group. Then the online communication is simply another way to communicate. It offers another form for people to connect. Some people write better than they talk. But when there is an IRL connection the writing is much more powerful. It creates a shift in the IRL relationship where the realy energy is.
Ok, i’m blathering now. And with all this, you might wonder why I post here. The answer: I’m not entirely sure. It is an outlet. A way to communicate beyond my limited IRL sphere and to receive input and exchanges that I would not otherwise get. In my day-to-day life I must deal with the mundane and can’t always explore my meta-thoughts with others. So, I get a bit of this here. That said, I also find it a bit dry. As I’ve mentioned before, I hunger for a ‘spritual community’. One where I can freely explore what spirituality means to me with others who are doing the same. One which is liberated from the confines of religions. A group that accepts that all seekers of the truth hold their own valid truths. I guess that this forum gives me a bit of that. But it would be far more engaging if it were the extension of IRL experience. Even if it was a conference that happened once a year and this was the thread that kept us united in between.
But I digress. All of this was very windy way to say that I don’t understand the blogger hype. Bloggers are people, too.
allison–you make a *very* good point about technology not necessarily being a replacement for IRL interaction. I’ve been arguing that point since my first forays into social software back in ’98 (with flame-happy newsgroups!)
I’ve found that, even as a blogger, it’s best to step off-line and meet people f2f. That’s when we begin to make more soild connections.
heck, why do you think there are all those blogging conferences populated by A-listers?
Blogging is so many things to so many people that to quantify what is best/worst about it, or to say that political blogs are the pinnacle is rather short-sighted. If 12 new entries latest permutation of the Technorati 100 are in Chinese or Japanese, we can’t necessarily predict what’s going to happen next in the blogosphere
Okay, Allison and Tish: I’m not a Luddite (except for cell phones), but I’m a would-be geek. A geek wanna-be. An ignoramus who wishes vainly for fluency in geek-speak.
So what’s IRL?
Nikos, an IRL is a TLA! Okay, just having some fun.
Here’s a wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_life
I think that this is a great topic and a great chance to review / discuss how the blogshere has influenced political debate here in the US.
Glenn Reynolds (a libertarian who has worked in Democratic campaigns and voted for Democrats) was a leading blogger that stopped the Meiers’ nomination to the Supreme Court and who was eventually replaced by Samuel Alito – no matter your political leanings or philosophy one has to admit that is a big positive move / change for Republicans. Then, as the Economist article below shows, bloggers dealt a death blow to the “princeâ€? of MSM anchors Rather – and no one can argue the he was a “friendâ€? or Republicans.
I could go on for paragraphs about the “positive� influences that the blogs have had on Republican politics but I will turn to the negative ones it has had on Democratic politics.
Kos – Is the most influential reason for Dean being the Chairman of the Democratic party. Dean is a fund raising disaster, a recruiting disaster, he says he is building the party up in Red States yet when he travels there local Democratic politicians avoid him, he is a disaster as a national public spokesman as he refuses to ever be interview in any forum at the same time / same show as his counter part Ken Mehlman and the results will show in the next election but I have seen no reasonable argument by anyone that he is having / will have a positive influence.
Kos tried to pick 15 Democrat politicians and raise money and support them – they all lost. Kos backed Hackett’s run for the House and Senate in Ohio – Hackett lost the House race and had to humiliatingly withdraw from the Senate race. Kos supported a liberal Democrat’s primary challenge to Cuellar in Texas and he is supporting a primary challenge to Senator Lieberman and all polls show that Lieberman will easily defeat that one too.
So I ask, why is the Republican cause helped / assisted so much by the blogshere and why are the Democrats so hindered?
The Kos Record is Intact
The Daily Kos (no, I won’t link to it) is an ultra-left web site run by Markos Moulitsas “Kos� Zuniga. In April 2004, Kos, an America-hating extremist, famously remarked, “screw them� when he heard that four American contractors had been murdered, burned, and strung up in Fallujah. In typical liberal-weasel fashion, Kos then tried to erase his comment and bury any evidence that it ever existed.
Kos’s influence has been growing by leaps and bounds. The Daily Kos now gets hundreds of thousands of readers every day. It is by far the most widely read blog about politics. Prominent Democrat politicians, like John Kerry, stop by and write at the Daily Kos.
But Kos’s political instincts leave, shall we say, something to be desired. In 2004, he created the “Kos Dozen,� A group of 12 (eventually 15) candidates whom Daily Kos readers were supposed to back with donations. With Kos’s keen instincts, and large donations from Daily Kos readers, the number of Kos Dozen candidates who were elected was… zero.
Then last year, Kos backed Democrat Iraq-War-veteran Paul Hackett in his challenge to Republican Jean Schmidt for an open House seat in Ohio. After funding Hackett with hundreds of thousands of dollars, Hackett… lost.
Kos hasn’t learned, though. This year, he’s been on a crusade against relatively moderate Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar. Kos backed Cuellar’s Democrat primary opponent, former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. In Tuesday’s Democrat primary election, Rodriguez… lost.
The stellar Kos record is intact.
Most encouragingly, Kos still hasn’t learned. Here’s his typically Kosian reaction:
So we didn’t kill off Cuellar, but we gave him an ass whooping where none was expected and made him sweat. That’s the reason why Lieberman is sweating in Connecticut and lining up his dog and pony endorsement shows to flex his muscle. He can’t take for granted that a no-name businessman with no political experience and zero connections in his state’s political establishment will be a non-factor, not with what we’ve done for people like [Howard] Dean and now Ciro.
I hope the Democrat party spawns many more activists like Kos, and I hope they do for all Democrat candidates what they’ve “done for people like Dean and now Ciro.�
Outreach and outrage
Mar 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition
JOURNALISM is like making beer. Or so Glenn Reynolds says in his engaging new book. Without formal training and using cheap equipment, almost anyone can do it. The quality may be variable, but the best home-brews are tastier than the stuff you see advertised during the Super Bowl. This is because big brewers, particularly in America, have long aimed to reach the largest market by pushing bland brands that offend no one. The rise of home-brewing, however, has forced them to create “micro-brews� that actually taste of something. In the same way, argues Mr Reynolds, bloggers—individuals who publish their thoughts on the internet—have shaken up the mainstream media (or MSM, in blogger parlance).
Few mainstream journalists would deny that the blogosphere keeps them on their toes. Make a mistake, and a swarm of furious pyjama-clad scribes will pounce. Make a grotesque partisan error while masquerading as “objective�, and the ensuing storm may cost you your job, as Dan Rather, a CBS anchor, discovered during the 2004 election campaign after running a story about George Bush shirking National Guard duty based on documents that bloggers quickly exposed as forgeries.
Mr Reynolds spells out some of the bloggers’ advantages. First, their numbers. There is only one New York Times, but technorati.com tracks nearly 30m blogs. With so many eyes, the blogosphere reacts quickly to breaking news. George Bush’s second pick for the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, was doomed within minutes of her nomination when conservative bloggers started likening her qualifications to those of the horse that the emperor, Caligula, tried to have made a Roman senator.
Many blogs are awful. But it is easy to filter out the dross, because the good ones provide links to each other. Bloggers may be (mostly) amateurs, but they are often smarter than the professionals, or possessed of useful specialist knowledge, argues Mr Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, whose own blog, instapundit.com, attracts more readers than many established political magazines. That he blogs only part-time perhaps explains why his posts are so brief and to the point. The result is crisp and readable, as is this book.
Mr Reynolds marches the reader briskly through fields where he sees technology empowering the little guy. Wireless internet allows people to work anywhere. With so many people telecommuting, “latchkey� kids are now more likely to come home to at least one parent. And burglars find it harder to identify empty houses to rob.
Mr Reynolds’s techno-optimism is exhilarating, though occasionally Pollyanna-ish. He thinks that the ageing process can probably be cured, for example, and that mankind will dodge extinction by colonising other planets. His greatest strength, however, is in describing what he knows best: blogging. He sees communications technology making repression steadily harder. An ordinary video camera can be confiscated and its tape destroyed. But if a video blogger were transmitting footage wirelessly to hundreds of other people as he films it—as will soon be possible—it would be a rash secret policeman who shoots him.
Mr Reynolds understands that the blogging revolution has ill effects as well as good. The same technology that spreads protests against tyranny can also be used to stoke sectarian riots, as happened recently in Nigeria. And there are some things the little guy cannot easily do. With a few exceptions (Mr Reynolds lauds a do-it-yourself war correspondent in Iraq), bloggers do little original reporting. Posting opinions online is cheap, but news-gathering is not. Mr Reynolds sees this changing as technology costs fall still further and bloggers find niches in local news. But the revolution is unlikely to destroy “old media� entirely. For one thing, with no MSM, what would bloggers deconstruct?
Thanks, CCM.
Okay…memorizing…’IRL’ means ‘in real life’….but IRC means ‘internet relay chat’…
remember Monty Python?
“My brain hurts!”
US blogger almost single-handedly puts an end to the Canadian liberal / Labor govt
Liberals call in RCMP to probe possible fraud
OTTAWA – The federal Liberal party has asked the RCMP to investigate whether the party was a victim of fraud in relation to the federal sponsorship scandal.
But some of the testimony ended up on U.S.-based weblogs over the weekend. It first appeared on a conservative American website, which was promoted by a Canadian website.
Media lawyers are expected to ask the head of the inquiry, Justice John Gomery, to remove the ban this week.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/04/gomery05.html
Another anti-Bush Government Voted Out
Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:24 am – January 24, 2006.
Filed under: Politics abroad
It seems that just like their neighbors to the South, even the Canadians don’t pay much attention to Michael Moore. Despite the last minute desperate appeal from this anti-American propagandist, Canadian voters yesterday rejected the Liberal government of Paul Martin. Those in the Great White North were not swayed by the Liberals’ fear-mongering that a pro-American government would be bad for their nation.
http://gaypatriot.net/2006/01/24/another-anti-bush-government-voted-out
Conservative Blogs and the next election:
In early Summer 2004, I saw a C-Span show on a little known (at the time) group called the “Swift Boat Vets for Truth�. Afterwards, I knew that they were going to have an affect on the 2004 Presidential election later that year so I searched conservative blogs for links to them. For a few weeks after there was no official online org set up to fund them so I had to contribute to another that promised to get anything that I contributed to them. Among all the contributions I have made in my life (which I have made since I was 17) in order to influence US political elections this was the most effective. Within months they had raised tens of millions and with that, had affects much out of proportion to the amounts that they spent to get their message out.
The materials below, which have been promoted by blogs and that I predict, will have another disproportionate affect on the next election – every Democrat will have to run a gauntlet of and respond to a series of these commercials made by an Iraqi Vet in their state / district. You will also notice that blogs are forcing the MSM to cover these issues as well.
“Midwest Heroes” Come Under Attack
Progress For America has put together a terrific video called “Midwest Heroes.” You can watch it here. The video features three servicemen who have served in Iraq: Lt. Col. Bob Stephenson of Minnesota, Captain Mark Weber of Iowa, and Staff Sgt. Marcellus Wilks of Iowa. The theme of the video is that “American troops are making real progress in Iraq.” I was delighted to see that PFA is playing the video as an ad, not only on cable TV, but as a sponsor of the Winter Olympics.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013127.php
http://progressforamerica.org/
http://www.midwestheroes.com/docs/video/
Pro-war ads take aim at swing state
By Mike Dorning
Washington Bureau
Published March 1, 2006
WASHINGTON — In an early sign of the imagery that may flood the nation’s television screens as congressional elections approach this fall, a conservative political group closely aligned with the Bush administration has launched a blitz of television ads to shore up sagging public support for the war in Iraq.
The television commercials feature vivid portraits of smoke pouring from the World Trade Center and the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Madrid and London as veterans of the Iraq war and parents of fallen soldiers make the case for continuing the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.
Progress for America is considering a follow-up ad campaign in Minnesota and expanding the advertisements to other states but has yet to make a final decision, Roy said. He declined to identify potential future targets. But Larson said Families United, which has established chapters in six states, plans to open chapters in March in Ohio and Pennsylvania, both swing states with highly competitive Senate races.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/chi-0603010173mar01,1,5979801.story?coll=chi-ent_tv-hed
I would like to hear all bloggers on show reflect / comment / analyze the affects blogs are having on the MSM – declining readership at most newspapers etc.
Also on the blogs assistance in spreading the knoweldge about the declining credibility of MSM – I would never have known about Brian Calame’s continual admissions of bias at NYT without “monitoring” by blogs
Constant – I regards to your post regarding what / how bloggers would have discussed / debated while they wrote the US Constitution you will find that they did and that there is a record of it – it’s called the “Federalist Papers”. The public debate was held over the period between the acceptance of the “Articles of Confederation” and the writting of the Constitution and anyone who reads the “Papers” will realize that they were seriously taken into account when the Constitution was written.
KOS AND THE “IDEOLOGY OF WINNERISM”….Look, this slam from Jason Zengerle is just unfair. Yes, Ciro Rodriguez, the Kos/Atrios/etc. candidate, lost fairly badly to Henry Cuellar in Texas last night, and yes, this means that liberal blogs continue to have a batting average that makes the ’62 Mets look good. But Rome wasn’t built in a day. I imagine the Kossacks will learn from their mistakes and figure out how to do better in the future.
But it turns out that Laura Turner actually has a better critique than that. Zengerle thinks that Rodriguez’s defeat is also a defeat for Kos’s “ideology of winnerism,” but she’s not so sure:
Doesn’t Zengerle posit there might be, like, a reason the blogs launched themselves behind Rodriguez that might have to do with ideology, in the sense that Cueller is (and he really is) a very bad Democrat? If Kos and Atrios just wanted a win for somebody with a D behind his name, they probably would have stayed out of Texas-28, which already gurantees such an outcome given that the GOP doesn’t even run candidates in the district (somehow the Republican revolution never took hold there). The blogs took a chance on the underdog Rodriguez. Isn’t that the opposite of a blind Democratic “winnerism”?
I suppose there are multiple of ways of looking at this. Laura’s way is one, but it’s also true that the whole thing was sort of a freebie. It’s easy to take a cheap ideological stand when you know there’s no danger of losing in November, so this race doesn’t really say anything one way or another about the Kossacks’ willingness to risk a loss in order to elect a better candidate.
In the end, of course, I suspect this is all a bunch of overanalysis. The ability of Kos to rally his troops depends on the troops themselves, and my guess is that their preferences are fairly unpredictable. Sometimes they’ll sacrifice ideology for a better chance of winning, and other times they won’t. Just like all of us.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
Rise in Online Fundraising Changed Face of Campaign Donors
Small Contributors Found to Be Polarized but More Representative of Middle Class
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 6, 2006; Page A03
The surging number of campaign contributors in 2004, especially the small donors who gave online, changed the character of one of the most important constituencies in U.S. politics, the people who finance presidential elections. This key group has become more reflective of the middle class, has a higher percentage of women and is far more willing to contribute without being directly solicited.
The new small donors, who played a much bigger role in 2004 than in the past, are polarized on ideological, cultural and economic issues in much the same way that large givers are, according to a survey by the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University of all donors, both those using the Internet and those who did not.
Among all donors, the differences between Republicans and Democrats on such issues as taxes, same-sex marriage and privatization of Social Security are enormous, much larger than in the general public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500816.html
Nikos wrote: “Both of your contributions are shining examples of the blogosphere’s virtues.”
Not quite. They’re examples of the WordPress’s clumsy default settings, which makes up a good chunk of the blogosphere. One person can post a 2,500-word treatise in a discussion setting, and another person can dump several posts totalling around the same number of words. If everybody wrote short verses as responses– that wouldn’t be the blogosphere, maybe the poetsphere– and we’d have a much different dynamc here.
The web thing to do would have been to add hyperlinks. But as I tried to communicate in my haikus, what happens on the blogs is that a few people can dominate a conversation with quantity– volume and frequency of posting– which often is a stand-in for quality.
Look, Constant made some good points, and Winston has some decent points buried in their, but it’s sort of lost its way by now.
Chris’ distinction between Instapundit and Kos / DD is really ironic when compaired with the results between them.
Kos / My DD – politcally motivated trying to have influence and they have produced no real results
Instapundit – wants no influence yet has much
also, yeah, the myth of the continued strength of the “amateurs” is not guaranteed, given the rise of, um, “interested parties.” (PR, candidates, etc.,)
And regarding differences between the different parties, one ought to read the Adamic/Glance paper Divided They Blog.
Chris – The Dean campaign was a failure
Uhh, Dubai Ports, most of the bloggers opinions followed from the Washington Times editorial and talk radio. Obviously blogs are part of the mix. But they’re not always leading opinion.
Winston– well, the Dean campaign was good for Kos and good for Trippi.
A healthy dose of skepticism is required.
Most what I have seen is simply entertainment and self congratulatory posts
- newsreporting, echoing news of the day. This can be valuable as the press seems unwilling or unable to provide escalation and coverage.
- silliness, community bonding and personalization
- soapboxing and strongly held opinions {and tin foil}
{I am guilty of all the above}
What I miss and hunger for?
Not enough acutal discussion of issues.
If the Dean campaign was crushed by the media then he is still being crushed today.
Decent point on the differences between the parties, but note that neither side cited Lada Adamic’s and Natalie Glance’s paper.
and still Chris mispronounces Kos. It’s short for Markos. The ‘o’ is long. Rhymes with pose.
And shpilk– we forum-commenters are providing the skepticism.
JonGarfunkel – Good for Kos yes, but Kos’ stated purpose on this show, was to influnce the Dem party so what is good for Kos is bad for Dems?
Good for Trippi? – He’s a “has-been” evidence for this” He’s not even a topic on this show!
shpilk – If the failure of the left in the blogshere isn’t a serious discussion then I don’t know what is?
Ask Glenn Reynolds if the “Pork Busters” effort is a effort to awake the Republicans from thier “complacency”?
Kos is a good example of how bad ideas from the “netroots” is a bad influence.
Yes, the “Pork Busters” was interesting– is it still around?
Winston– pass on the Kos/Trippi line. I was just saying that it helped raise their profile to claim the Dean campaign as a success.
I don’t think my haikus are going to be read. :-/
But note that Chris hasn’t mentioned the 2,500 treatise above.
I might suggest that a running set of “open letters” published in the newspapers of the day, from which the “Federalsits Papers” were taken, was a form of “blogging” and is why the US Constitution was / is such a success.
oh, there’s Constant’s essay mentioned on-air.
Winston– yes, that’s what Reynolds just said. Echoed your point.
Also it was a smaller electorate then– it was much easier to get involved.
These days, it is easier just to manipulate larger numbers of people.
What does Glenn say about the “conglomeration” of blogs into “Group Blogs” like Pajama Media.
I think that is sort of “anti-blogging”?
porkbusters was mentioned– there’s the link. But the blog doesn’t really have a critical mass these days. No posts in a few weeks. Everyone still blogs on their own.
Yes, I thnk group efforts are not the same as blogging. Closer to magazines, truly…
Manipulating people is easier when your ideas are well thought out and effective and competition is what gives you those.
Kos et al are not fostering the “competition” between ideas. Just look at the difference between Kos and Instapudit.
Kos is trying to push his ideas and Glenn wants to discuss his and let them develop.
That is why he is influential.
JonGarfunkel – don’t judge the porkbuster efforts by looking at the site, go to technotrati and do a search. Reynolds blogs on that subject ~ once a day.
The question to ask re: power is about responsibility as well.
Chris is sort of getting there now.
Glenn is right on – it is self correcting. I fact checked bloggers as often as check MSM
Chris is shocked! PR has invaded blogging!
Winston: what is self-correcting?
Sorry, Jon, couldn’t get to the Haikus. Had ‘em cued up, but it’s a madhouse in here.
Thune campain – bloggers not disclosing thier ties with campaign what about MSM disclosing thier ties. The Pres of CNN was a Clinton advisor while he was running CNN!
If Kos and MyDD didn’t learn anything from interacting with Glenn then they are hopeless!
“If the failure of the left in the blogshere isn’t a serious discussion then I don’t know what is?”
Actually, I gave up trying to find any redeeming value whatsoever on the right wing blogs.
Zero – none – nada. There is nothing there, at all.
Since none are open forums of discussion, and subject to immediate censorship, they are not blogs. They are propoganda machines, and nothing else.
Brendan, tell all that I think that it is obvious that this show was a “big get”.
There are very few events that one van get so personally “close to” that will have an impact history and having all these bloggers talking to each other and responding is getting close to something that will – blogging will be dicussed in history books for a long time and might even be one “event” that will remain there for hundreds of years, like the invention of the printing press by Guttenberg.
Once again, bravo to all.
JonGarfunkel, allow me please to rephrase my sentence:
“Both of your contributions are to me shining examples of the blogosphere’s virtues.�
No one is obligated to read every post in a thread.
I was happy to read Constant’s because I’d enjoyed his/her contributions in other threads.
I might just as easily have put it off until I had more time, or even skipped it altogether – as I sometimes do posts from bloggers I recognize as predictably ideological or arrogant. The blogosphere’s electronic page is effectively infinite, and it affords a forum for many worthy voices who otherwise would have no means to contribute to the conversation, be it a national, international, or parochial discourse.
I stand by my praise – of both Constant and you.
I hope, however, that Constant (or anyone else) will not feel reticence to post again because of criticism from a self-styled poet.
Again: thanks for the haikus. They were delightful and insightful — just like Constant’s post.
Nikos– Thanks. And Constant, forgive my use of the word “abuse.” Whether there are I use that word as an information systems engineer and not in the right sense as an interlocutor here. And I certainly do not criticize as a self-styled poet.
If the question is about egalitarianism on the web, consider this. Suppose that the distribution of how much a reader reads of a web page approximates a power law or lognormal function– that is, to say, that maybe 50% of the readers person tuning into this page scans ten screenfuls, and 90% readers read up to 10 screenfuls… Well, Constant’s post starts on screen 5 and continues through screen 13 (using 700px high screen). So it might have some effect on what posts are read and what voices are heard.
BTW, feel free to address me simply as Jon.
‘The blogs are broadening politics’ – quite right!
S’why I’m here.
This format is effectively the ‘Federalist Papers’ of the 21st century – or, at least, the forum from where the 21st century’s new American constitution’s “Federalist Papers� will be drawn and debated prior to the ‘IRL’ constitutional convention.
Right on!
btw folks, we on the Left Coast have to wait until midnight EST to hear the show — hence our seemingly ‘belated’ responses.
Nikos: “This format is effectively the ‘Federalist Papers’ of the 21st century – or, at least, the forum from where the 21st century’s new American constitution’s “Federalist Papersâ€? will be drawn and debated prior to the ‘IRL’ constitutional convention.”
Yes. And with better climate control! Things can get toasty in Philly during the summer.
Jon: “But as I tried to communicate in my haikus, what happens on the blogs is that a few people can dominate a conversation with quantity– volume and frequency of posting– which often is a stand-in for quality.”
You know, I cannot begin to tell you how many meetings I’ve endured that had this same ‘quality’. Or as another sage mused: “A meeting’s length will be directly proportional to the boredom the speaker produces.” I bring nerf guns and stop watches when I run meetings. We’re missing these guiding instruments on the web.
Jon, thanks for your kind and prompt reply.
My only real concern is that elitism and the blogosphere are oxymoronic – i.e., we ought to welcome all contributions so long as the replies are respectful and thoughtful (rather than simply reflective of ideology).
Speaking of ideology, I will defend to the death from the spelling-police Winston’s often typographically flawed contributions– even though the tedious rightwing propaganda informing his posts reminds me of snail slime.
My own ideal is that in order to mine the gorgeous gold in the wordy ore, we must tolerate and accept not only typos and grammar flaws but wordiness too: not all of us are concise writers.
Uneconomical blog voices often have uncommon brilliance to share. That’s the beauty of this new media-forum.
My own posts (not brilliant, not by any means) are often windy, but at least my heart’s in the right place.
So, if we want to urge our cohorts toward economical use of words, it’s best to do so by example, not via public critique. Such critique, even if it can teach its intended lessons faster, runs the risk of muting the voices we’d benefit from by hearing out. (Talk about awkward sentences!)
Think about all the hours Constant must have put into her or his post, and then parse it carefully to see if you could convey all the same nuances in markedly fewer words.
Even taking into account your poetic talent, I rather doubt you could.
Look, I appreciate poetry, but prose has the advantage of clarity. If it didn’t, we’d all be posting in ‘Homeric pentameter’, or something akin to it.
Instead of critiquing the stylistic choices of others, stick to your own blatantly obvious gift: inspirational poetry and prose.
I’ve benefited from reading you. As I’m sure many other have.
And as many others will from reading Constant.
See ya.
btw Jon: terms like “power law or lognormal function”, or even “nesting threads” are the proverbial ‘Greek to me’ (even though I still remember a bit of the Greek I was once nearly fluent in!).
Which is a long (uneconomical, but hopefully entertaining) way of saying that I very much like the ROS site as it is currently configured.
My only wishes are for an ‘edit function’ for the contributors’ own posts, and a ‘tangent thread’ for those seductive temptations like ‘socializing’ off the sequence of a thread’s established topic.
(Wouldn’t that be fun?)
‘The Right targets the media’.
Right.
And how.
They’ve effectively co-opted it.
The idea that they still need to focus on it is like a hunter pumping an entire M-16 clip into a deer that five minutes earlier fell dead from a fusillade of bullets.
C’mon, gang!
CNN, the putatively ‘neutral’ cable news network, started the kook-ification of the body politic by seating blatant lying nuts like Robert Novak across from obvious intellects like Michael Kinsley – who has a ‘TV charisma’ of, oh, minus-three on the 1-100 scale.
“Under the Crossfire formula, if 99% of scientists agreed that the Earth was round, while 1% said it was flat, the two views were given equal time, and, thus, equal validity in the minds of the viewers.� (David Brock; pg.208; The Republican Noise Machine; Three River Press; 2004-5.)
Or (and better): “Hitler: Right or Wrong?� (ibid)
Mr. Dodson, I’m aftaid you are barking up a tree you haven’t yet peed on with your 5:43 pm post. I wonder if there is anything anywhere in the world that happens that you can’t attribute to an American.
It is quite simple why the Conservative Party was elected this time in Canada (to a minority government) and it had little to do with the US. If you looked at the numbers you would know that the vote was split between 4 parties and the Conservatives only increase their percentage of the popular vote from 29.6 to 36.3%. Still the centre-left (almost 60% of the popular vote) dominates Canadian politics, just as the Centre-right does in the US. People voted the Liberals out, not the conservatives in. Yes, the scandal you mentioned swung some traditional Liberal support in Quebec to the Conservatives. And it reinforced a general feeling that the Liberals had become complacent and needed a kick in the rear. The scandal had been an issue for a while and it was just one factor. But on the whole, most Canadians couldn’t care less about a few hundred million blown on pork-barrel politics. This is not the first time. If the billions handed out to Republican favorites in the US couldn’b bring down Bush, why do you think such paltry handouts would melt the Liberal ice in Canada. If the scandal had been a real issue, the Conservatives would have swept to power.
More than anything, Paul Martin’s rhetoric and personality could not win over the undecided and moderate voters, especially in Quebec and Ontario, which hold the key to victory in Canadian elections. The Quebec factor is particularly important. Liberal Prime Ministers of length, Chretien and Trudeau, both were French Canadians. Martin, has some French Canadian heritage, but he grew up as an English Canadian. This hurt his chance of finding favour with those not firmly in the Nationalist camp. Also, the last Conservative Prime Minister of note was Mulroney, also born in Quebec. Maybe it is like trying to elect a President in the States who does not hail from the South.
Martins’ anti-US rhetoric probably won him a handful of votes and lost him a handful, but not much more. The reason is because most Canadians know that the Liberal party is pro-American. Those against NAFT, missile defence, and US emperial aims usually vote for the New Democrats, not the Liberals.
Blogs or no blogs, as America’s most well-know Canadian once said,
“Canadians have an abiding interest in surprising those Americans who have historically made little effort to learn about their neighbour to the North.”
- Peter Jennings
Btw Winston, you must by now have something of a ‘siege mentality’ at work when you see not only my name but those of sidewalker, nother, peggysue, Allison, and, oh, gobs of others that I’m too tired to mention just now.
But speaking only for me, I’d like to point out the following:
When you and I exchanged thoughts on the Dubai port deal, I knew I wasn’t getting regurgitated rightwing ideology from you – because it was so early in the contretemps that the Right hadn’t yet ‘decided’ its outlook.
That, my friend, was a pleasure. I knew I was reading the unadulterated take of one Winston Dodson, and not the filtered, steroided, and excreted views of rightwing rubbish-sacks like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Frist.
I couldn’t have, because such views hadn’t yet made their way through the Fox-News-Nation propaganda organ.
So, my apparent potshots at you aren’t simply gratuitous: when, as in your first post of the Michael Brown thread, you exult Foxy/Righty triumphalism to the obviously progressive ROS regulars (which seems deliberately provocative, and hardly constructive), it burns me up that the likes Vermin O’Reilly are speaking through the obviously thoughtful person that posited his non-ideologically-prefabricated opinion of the Dubai deal.
Now, I don’t much care if you ignore this post, or any of my other posts. But I had to say this, just for the record, because I believe that underneath your plainly evident Fox News skin is a considerate person at least partially deluded by a pervasive and toxic brand of hierarchy-worship: the inherently flawed Republican ideology I’ve attempted to debunk in more posts than I can name of the top of my head just now. I happen to believe (perhaps naively) that you’re better than that. A more intelligent person than the toxically deceitful likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, et.al.
Now then: you needn’t type a word in reply.
In fact, you can call me an *sshole if you’d like.
I don’t care and it won’t hurt either way.
But, at the very least, I feel the need to reiterate what I’ve been saying in different ways and in different threads: the stuff you post that’s ideologically grounded is much more obviously propaganda to those of us outside the rightwing merry-go-round than to those riding the damned thing.
This means that should you ever post something critical of the right (ala Dubai) – even if it still embraces some conservative-centrist values – we’ll all recognize it and respond to it much more positively than you’d likely believe beforehand.
I can’t prove this, but I sense the overall fairness of the bloggers here in ROS, and therefore believe it. Progressives are a much less truculent lot than those slimeball conservatives who’ve made character-assassination into a societally accepted form of melodramatic theater – and into an underhanded vehicle for winning elections.
Peace, brother.
Coincidentally here is a post from Americablog’s John Avarosis of yesterday that pertains:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/are-nyt-and-adam-nagourney-running-hit.html
This show by the way was an excellent example of how well the blog-live radio show can work. I would not be surprised if others pick up on this model.
The problem I have with the blogs in general is all the sifting for the kernel of the idea and for quality. I have given up on a lot of blogs that I used to check and depend on referrals from my blogmeister-mate now. (I have one from “Riverbend” in Iraq that is awaiting my attention.) I have not given up the New York Times however.
Thanks to Constant who had these gems on that long post (there were other sentiments as well):
The framers want to protect people, not power. The framers would see the solution is not to harass the source of the nation’s wealth – its citizens – but to boldly challenge our international competitors to do it better. Our example at home and abroad would speak volumes – one that would inspire not destroy.
Our wealth is our citizens. Inspire, not destroy.
and this simple sentence: The source of the transformation is the human spirit.
[quote]
So she wrote on. Her main identity on the nets was Demosthenes — Peter chose the name. He called himself Locke. [...] Peter took careful note of all the their most memorable phrases and then did searches from time to time to find those phrases cropping up in other places. Not all of them did, but most of them were repeated here and there, and some of them even showed up in the major debates on the presitige nets. “We’re being read,” Peter said. “The ideas are seeping out.”
“The phrases, anyway.”
“That’s just the measure. Look, we’re having some influence. Nobody quotes us by name, yet, but they’re discussing the points we raise. We’re helping set the agenda.”
[/quote]
Sorry to be late to the discussion, as usual. I don’t know much about blogging, but the broadcast last night so much reminded me of a book I read when I was younger. The above quote is from _Ender’s Game_ by Orson Scott Card. The first copyright on my edition is 1977; it won Hugo and Nebula awards, It seems that Mr. Card must have been modeling his idea of “the nets” on early BBSs (often run out of people’s spare rooms, basements and garages) even before Usenet expanded the idea. And now, blogs have carried the idea further.
oh, by the way… in the story “she” (Valentine) is not quite 11 years old and her brother, Peter, is 13. Another virtue of an anonymous net — good ideas can be evaluated independently of their source. (That thought was discussed in the book, too.)
(I missed an obvious typos in the quoted passage; sorry about that. “…careful note of all their most memorable…”)
Nikos – I never feel a “seiege mentality” becasue I realize that the comments of this site are very small microcosm of opinon and many of mine are well represented on blogs such Instapundit et al and what was very obvious from this ROS show was that these odeas are simply more effective because they are well developed by a process of inter-change between the bloger and blogees.
And your comment about getting my “regurgitated rightwing ideology from you – because it was so early in the contretemps that the Right hadn’t yet ‘decided’ its outlook.” is an illustration of this point.
If you will review the threads above and if you listened to the show you will notice a specific interplay between what was in threads and the topics covered by Chris and responded to by guests.
At one point Chris brought up the point about (paraphrasing) “what would the framers of the Constitution have blogged if they had had them at the time and are the Federalsit Papers and illustration of that”. Well, if you look at the threads the portion of the idea as to what the framers would have discussed on blogs was brought up (on this thread in this context) first by Constant and my reply was that they did if fact blog, and those were called the Federalist Papers.
Constants thread was a bit naive in that you could tell that that commentor either probably never read the Federalist Papers because in those comments it was apparent that the writter didn’t understand what was discussed and not during the framing of the constitution so the rambling / ravign rants about “war crimes” and that the Constitution would ahve had protections to “peaceably assemble . . ” . Well, it does have a protection to peacably assemble and “war crimes” were both discussed and also covered in the “Bill of Rights” as well. (It seems that Potter may also not be very versed in the history of the development of the Constitution or what it actually says)
Then, my brining up the point re: the Federalist Papers as a metatphor for blogging at the time and that was discussed by guests, especially Glenn Reynolds, was a seemingly effrotless hand-off. Do you know why? That topis has been broadly and endlessly discussed on conservative blogs that I participated in (by commenting in threads, copying materials from the net as I did for this show) and read and commented on the inputs from others. Som this whole idea, the Federalist Papers and a methaphor for the existence of “historical blog-sheric” interaction, is an example of egurgitated rightwing ideology.
And the great thing is that, after the crucible of discussion on the right wing blogs, it is a poerful idea and because of a process ( I will go so far as to say battle) that many on this site seem to be oblivious of, these types of ideas are developed and used to “win” in politcial efforts.
And as an example of how you, and many on this site are living in an ideological bubble is illustrated by another major thread of discussion in these threads and on this ROS show. I am referencing my comments / materials in the threads regarding the ineffectivenss of the left blog sphere in the political realm. This was discussed by the guests and even admitted to by the bloger at MyDD and the “positive” influence on the conservative agenda. This was also extensively discussed on the show by the participants and a consensus agreement was that it is true.
An illustration of this bubble is Sidetalkers take on the Canadian elections – all that he says is true but it is obvious that he lives in a bubble or chooses to ignore that fact that the entire recent election process was precipitated by the results from the “Gomery Commission” and that a right-wing US blogger was repsonsible for publically airing the results of that commission while the Canadian govt surpressed coverage of the commission’s results in Canadian newspapers as well as blogs is as much of a “historical fact” as that a right wing blogger single handedly (more were involved but had the silver bullet) ended the career of Dan Rather. And you can sneer at the fact that I beleive that Dan Rather is no friend of Republicans / conservatives (I have personally met Rather in Somalia and can attest that he is biased and will lie – I should say “slant” the news to make his point of view what we hear on the news – and have told this story to people who infleunce this show) but if “my side / Republicans / conseervatives” can get rid of any mroe Rathers it is nothing but good for us / our ideas (and, I feel obviously, good for us all) and not good for many people who comment here.
I’ll cover this in another post here later, but my SOLE reason for participting in these threads is to try and foster the competition of ideas. I think that it is obvious that that is happening on the “conservtive side” and is apparent in the results – just look at what was said during the show. But, it isn’t occuring on the left. Kos, and to a lesser MyDD, are simply people talking to each other and changing NOTHING. But many on the right SEEK that conflict. In an email to one of the producers I pointed out that Hugh Hewitt (about the same as MyDD on hte left) has Peter Bienart on his radio show (center left pundit who was on ROS a few weeks ago) once a month and has an all out debate with him. That is NO WHERE to be seen on any leading left-liberal blog / show.
And, Glenn Reynolds, a self confessed Libertarian who worked on and voted for Al Gore’s campaign is regularly critical of Bush and the war but he is classified as a “War blogger”. (Anyone who does hasn’t followed the real war bloggers). And, Nikos, you yourself had a discussion on another thread where you supplied material from Brock that attempted to insinuate that Micky Kaus is anyhthing other than COMPLETE LIBERAL / CENTER LEFT pundit. He is FAMOUSLY so and has the publishing credentials / career to prove it.
So, your appologies are not required Nikos becasue I feel that it is I who should sometimes appoligize becuase my attempts to accually move the apparatus of debate within the left, from it’s current state of inward looking bubble seems rude.
I can only say, that if you review the material that I prenented to ROS for this show, listen to the ebb and flow of the discussions and admissions from the guests on the show, and don’t feel that if you want to “win the battle of ideas” from the left, then you have lots to improve, then I feel sorry for the left and our future.
And, I don’t have to appoligize for much / most of what I present / discuss because much of it I don’t simply parot / repeat I help to develop – I particiapte in it.
And by the way, as far as the Dubia Ports deal goes – Rush (who I don’t listen to much because he serves the same basic service to the right as Kos does for the left – but I caught him the other day as I was driving )is saying that it is a disgrace and that the American people should be ashamed of what they did.
My thought the entire time and if you noticed, Reynolds said that he eventually came to the same conclusion.
Aren’t blogs mostly about ‘packaging’? Using an analogy, if information is unknown, it’s like iron ore, buried in the ground for sure, but unknown still. A reporter or researcher is like the miner who brings the ore to the surface. Then the writers and editors ‘refine’ the ore and turn it into iron. But iron can be further processed into steel, sold, and then turned into a zillion different products. I think of bloggers not as reporters, researchers, writers or editors as much as manufactureres — taking the known and expressing it in many new ways, twisting it, melding it, and using it for their own benefit. When a blogger does original research (interviews, etc.) his importance is not as a blogger but as a researcher or reporter — very traditional roles. And if a blogger simply adds emotion to facts, he is like the guy who turns steel into shrapnel.
An illustration of this bubble is Sidetalkers take on the Canadian elections – all that he says is true but it is obvious that he lives in a bubble or chooses to ignore that fact that the entire recent election process was precipitated by the results from the “Gomery Commissionâ€? and that a right-wing US blogger was repsonsible for publically airing the results of that commission while the Canadian govt surpressed coverage of the commission’s results in Canadian newspapers
Winston Dodson I am wondering if you have any points in your shotgun approach to argumentation that don’t overstate for the sake of trying to score a hit. Previously you tried to claim that MacArthur wrote the Japanese constitution. Now you claim that a US blogger was greatly responsible for the Canadian election results. Then you say I ignored something that was not “fact” at all but just speculation (show me the facts that prove it and I will gladly float away in my bubble). For your information, the Gomery Commission was investigating a scandal that most people had already heard a great deal about. They just wanted to know how much Paul Martin was involved, and actually the commission cleared his name, so by your logic he should have won the election since the leaked information would have helped his campaign. For god’s sake, the Liberals had been in power for 13 years, and a deciding number of people just grew fed up with their complacency (Look what 5 years of your boy there has done for redefining the arrogance of politics). The original scandal, for which the Gomery Commission was set up, just reinforced this feeling, but as I mentioned earlier, it (not your US super-logger) was not the main factor that turned the election away from a Liberal minority to a Conservative minority. If it were, I would have no reservations in saying so.
What I really like about ROS is that most of the contributors will eat some humble pie. Does this make them less competitive and thus less effective? Maybe in your world of here, take our medicine, it will be good for you. But in a world were building bridges between peoples (no, not just ones based on unequal exchange) is more important than bombing them, this is the more suitable way. Might you not like to have a piece now and then?
Winston Dodson, so that you don’t have to waste your valuable time proving that you are less inclined to arguments based on reason and fact than you would like readers to believe, try going to the following link (http://erg.environics.net/news/default.asp?aID=598) to see the results of a survey taken after the Canadian election. Especially the results of questions #9a,b are interesting. When asked if they changed their mind during the election (for example after the leaked Commission results by right-wing super-blogger), 21% of respondents said yes. When asked why, only 4% of of the 21% said it was because of liberal scandal/fraud (of which Ad-gate was only one). This does not sound like: almost single-handedly deciding the outcome of the election. Have you had a bite of that pie yet?
Sidewalker – I did argue that McArthur wrote the Japanese Constitution becuase he did should I be aware of evidence that he didn’t?
And, my arguement was never, has never been that the Gomery election caused the election results my arguement is that it cause the election to happen. The fact that the Gomery commission was, for a long time, covered up by the Labor govt was a reason why they couldn’t maintiain there voting majority.
And what I find amusing is that for someone with on a loosing side, cause and affect never makes sense.
It also seems that in “eating humble pie” in order to maintian some sort of decorum ROS contributors on the left or willing to give alot of credit to rambling non-sense.
And I will say it one more time. The evidence from this very show indicates that the reason that the left / liberal side is losing the battle of ideas is because of it’s willingness to waiste time on simply silly and untested opinions.
Sidewalker – this may not be the thread for it but here is one source (and this isn’t the only one but it was the one that I could find the describing the origins of the Japanese Constitution. The source goes on to describe how compromises were made to make it “more Japanese” but never is there any suggestion made that is wasn’t MacArthur and his staff that had the biggest influsence upon it’
“The Matsumoto Commission’s recommendations, made public in February 1946, were quite conservative (described by one Japanese scholar in the late 1980s as “no more than a touching-up of the Meiji Constitution”). MacArthur rejected them outright and ordered his staff to draft a completely new document.
Much of it was drafted by two senior army officers with law degrees:”
“The new constitution would not have been written the way it was had MacArthur and his staff allowed Japanese politicians and constitutional experts to resolve the issue as they wished. The document’s foreign origins have, understandably, been a focus of controversy since Japan recovered its sovereignty in 1952.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Japan
But I submit this in a larger sense of suggesting that in many put the kind of efforts that you do in fact checking / correcting many sources of info (like the 2 blogs talked about on this show) then I think that one of the main lines of discussion during the show, the lack of effectiveness of Kos / MyDD (even though I think MyDD is not as laughable as Kos) would not have been dicussed because it would not have been so true.
And I just want to make 1 point with 2 illustrations of how the feedback works for Bush / Cons / Repubs and not for Dems / libs.
Bush went all the way over to but didn’t jump into the precipace in the Dubai deal. The only thing worse than getting this far was to have got it through and realize that the base could not support it. The Repubs are now in damage control mode and will repair much.
But, and I love to point this one out (because my buddy Nikos says that I like to parrot what the right-wing blogs / press accept when I flatter myself and try and particapte in developing it) because it shows illustrates how the feedback loop doesn;t work for the Dems / libs. See the article below written by Jacob Weisberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Weisberg – No “conservative” here!) of Slate. He basically lambasts the leadership of the Dem party and points out the same thing that was discussed on this ROS show regarding Kos / MyDD – they are inefective. I understand that leadership changes are tough and that many are saying that Bush needs some on his team but with recent history in mind it would seem that Bush will probably make them while the Dems / libs will just marrily bumble along with thier current ones because of the lack of any effective feedback loop.
http://www.slate.com/id/2137731/?nav=fo
My post seems to have been removed, so I’ll post it again.
Don’t know if people are still reading this, but I just got around to listening to the show. Interesting points…I wonder why no one picked up on the evolutionary biology reference to the blogosphere accumulating parasites (along with other successful systems). I wanted to track down that reference, as I have never heard of Thomas Wright(?).
So I scanned the post, and I found it a bit ironic that so many people are critiquing ideology, but no one thought for a second to question the intentions of the Framers. Undoubtedly, the Federalist Papers do express that debate and exchange that occurred during the drafting of our foundational national documents, and that many of those debates were worthy and important. But come on…talk about ideology: you all are unquestionably supporting and praising a group of slave owners. The entire system they developed was based on their immediate needs and interests…needs and interests that do not correspond to our historical situation. I will (and do) support whole heartedly the defense of the ideas of free speech as set forth in the First Amendment. But we must realize, when we try to imagine ‘what the Framers would do’ is essentially asking: what would the slave owners want us to do? And remember, this argument is also used by the far Right to justify conservative extremist stances. Best example: the ‘Constitutionalist’ approach endorsed by the most conservative members of the Supreme Court. They daily asked themselves ‘what would the Framers do?’ And most of the time, they seemed to be the best expression of that foundational spirit.
So the real question is, why are we so tied to those original documents?
zzAstier – Your point re: slavery is well taken but you seem to insinuate that the owning of slavery and the support for it was “general / universal” among the framers and that simply is not true. Just look at the compromise in the body of the Constitution where each slave was counted as “3/5 of a man” for the purpose of apportioning votes etc. There were many, including Jefferson, who suggested ending slavery with the new Constitution but because of the economic interests of the South and compromise had to be reached.
All of this is in the vien of putting the limitations of what it meant, at that time, to be a “liberal” democracy.
No one will debate whether it was wrong to not grant universal sufferage in regards to our current standards but holding people of that time to them is not a reasonable requirement. Slavery was still practiced by the Ottoman’s until the late 19th century and if you want to compare the right of universal franchisement the considier the fact that even with the generous UN definition of living under a representative govt and being the right to vote, a vast number of people still do not to this day do so – China is but one example.
The brillance of the US Constitution is proven by the fact that it still the longest serving one in the history of the world – the French, who fancy that they taught us the principles that form ours are on their 5th Constitution thus the “5th Republic”. They had to disolve the last one after the revolt in Algeria where under the constitution in the 4th Republic that tried to create another France be continueing the colonization there – sort of ironic, isn’t it, that now it is the influence from that same society that is threatening the very future of France?
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
–Thomas Jefferson
I have been thinking about this quotation for quite some time. I am not sure what he means by patriots, or how their blood is spilled. But the emphasis on temporality is unmistakable. As Machiavelli teaches us (through Polybius’s re-reading of Aristotle), once founded, the only thing that faces the state (be it Republic or Principate) is corruption and decay.
With ideas like this one, it is no wonder Jefferson wanted to protect his ability to express them.
On a different note: it seems like many people on the left argue that the blog (and/or the Internet in general) is inherently democratic. I would guess that you do not agree with this, Winston, and you would be right. The blog is no more inherently progressive than cable news in inherently conservative. This is why it IS useful to approach the problem in a way analogous to the Framers’ understanding of the printing press. Through our understanding of what the blog is and should be, we can legally codify protections that will guarantee its continued existence in the form we deem most necessary and appropriate. We just don’t have to approach the problem with the same hang-ups that the Framers had. As I mentioned, one of these hang-ups was a conflict (and I do agree that the debate was a conflict AMONNGST the Framers, with various positions represented) between a slave-labour based agricultural economy and a developing industrial economy. Both interests are expressed in the Constitution, but NEITHER pertains to our current historical reality.
Questions of access, flows and migration (and I see, Winston, that you are interested in a show on capital flows) are precisely the issues we are dealing with. We need to develop good laws that protect the internet on its own terms, not laws that try to squeeze the internet and its component parts into the pre-established paradigm of intellectual property rights based on the Romantic (as in the period) conception of the sole genius author (among other ideological hold-overs from past eras).
Well, that’s enough for now. As you might have guessed, I recently discovered Radio Open Source. So I don’t want to show all of my cards in my first postings.
Winston, you seem to be changing your position here now. You originally wrote,
Winston Dodson Says:
March 4th, 2006 at 2:36 am
Sidewalker – The Japanese Constitution came directly from the typewriter of Douglas McArthur. He wrote it himself and gave it to the first Japanese adminstrator, who he himself picked, while giving him a ride in the back seat of this limo.
Now you say his staff wrote it. Which is it?
I pointed you at that time to 3 links that showed that he did not type it himself as you stated as if it were a fact. Btw, I never claimed that the Japanese wrote it. They wrote one version that the General rejected.
http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2001/gordon.html
http://www.asij.ac.jp/japan/asij_authors/e_g/gordon_b_bib.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX102.html
This is what I am trying to get at with some of your posts. You go off as if what you say is so factual, when it is not a fact at all. Your opinions, thought I don’t obviously agree with many of them, I have no problems with, as long as you don’t try to support them with your so called facts.
As for the election, it was not called because of the Gomery Commission leaked results. From the beginning Martin promised an election once the Commission completed its report and the other parties didn’t bring down the Liberals until the report was finished. Don’t forget that Ad-gate rumors and Martin’s lack of personal charisma influence the previous election that brought in a Liberal minority in the first place. You just place too much weight on that leaked information and you overstate its importance. That is my point. It is not a fact that that information swung the election as the survey data I presented shows.
Also, the results of the commission were not covered up, thought the whole Ad-gate scandal they tried to cover up for a long time, thus the commission. You seem to be getting things confused here.
Winston, thanks for your thoughtful reply of March 11th @ 11:37 AM.
I liked it – honestly – because it feels honest. (Misguided, maybe, but honest!)
And it deserves in return a reply just as honest; but, to be thorough, I’ll have to chapterize its 4,000+ words – whose message is meant at least as much for progressives than it is for incorrigibly rightwing you! – into five installments so…here comes Part 1:
A fundamental difference not of goal, but of belief in human nature
Honesty is a virtue of yours that I worry many of your rightwing cohorts don’t commonly share. Now, having effectively just lauded you, I must say also that I’m glad sidewalker weighed in already while I’ve been busy working up this response – it’s one less propagandistic ruse from you that I’ll feel any need to have to address!
Unlike most Righties though, I reckon you probably believe your supposition that an American rightwing blogger sparked the fire that won the Canadian election for the Conservatives. That’s fine: believe whatever you like. Just know that the rest of us read such naively self-important stuff with a pretty darn wide grin on our faces.
I’m fascinated to learn of your blogospheric participation in the Right’s ideological evolutions. This is noteworthy.
Now, I was originally pondering use of the adjective ‘laudable’ instead of ‘noteworthy’, but that started a train of thought that I’ll try to summarize below.
First, let me say that I believe that you believe you’re engaged in a noble endeavor: an endeavor that attempts not to fool people but to enlighten them.
Yet it’s troubling, if not downright condescending, that you so callously dismiss many of the regular bloggers here as operating in a uselessly ‘isolated bubble’ (which I suppose means to imply that our interactions here are non-constructive). On the contrary, it seems to me that in our own way we’re doing essentially the same thing as you do elsewhere– yet without the predicative benefit of a prefabricated ideology.
This makes the majority of posts here more searchingly impressionistic and ‘questioning’ than laden with pat answers that stem from an ideological source.
Luckily, we’re getting something more than mere echo out of our exchanges – as the next to last part of this Tolstoyish contribution will attempt to demonstrate.
The majority of posters here are obvious humanists, which, in this sad-sack republic of ours, has no obvious or cogent political movement apart from the confused and confusing morass of individuals known as the Democrats. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism )
“Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on our ability to determine what is right using the qualities innate to humanity, particularly rationality. (H)umanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse a recognition of a universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.�
My only significant quibble with the Wikipedia definition is in this:
“Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to our potential is hard work and requires the help of others.�
My quibble is especially that last sentence: I don’t think ‘persons must work hard’ to live up to our potentials for deceny. That, I reckon, is a typical ‘Wikipedia’ avoid- controversy-at-all-costs nod toward the entrenched moralistic types who fear that human nature is somehow ‘smitten by Satan’.
I, for one, don’t think it’s terribly difficult to be a good person. Hell, I’m living proof: I’ve been a slacker all my life—and yet I’ve also been an active humanist, and work hard not to better my ‘inherently satanic nature’, but to slay the many cultural sacred cows benighting our species (like belief in Satan!). (Well, of course, I could also be Satan in disguse! But if you believe that sort of silly logic, well, I’ve got a elf-run Christmas-gift factory at the North Pole to sell you!)
Anyway, I especially like this bit from the Wikipedia entry:
“The ultimate (humanist) goal is human flourishing; making life better for all of us. Even among humanists who do believe in some sort of an afterlife, the focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after us, not on suffering through life to be rewarded afterwards.�
This definition, and the humanists it describes, might seem to provide an opening of fertile ground for the ready and eager ideology of the Right – after all, isn’t ‘human flourishing’ the purported goal of the trickle-down school of thought?
– but no, it doesn’t and can’t, because secular humanists find the Right’s foundational premises abhorrent. We see straight through the hoax called “Compassionate Conservatism�, and most of the next installment of this reply (in the next post) will try to explain why.
Part 2 – The Rightwing Ruse
‘Exploiters in “Faux Jesus� Humanistic Clothing’
I have earlier in this very thread likened rightwing ideology to snail slime (because I was trying to be polite), and not simply because I’m a partisan hater of anything conservative.
Look, if I considered American rightwing conservatism the gatekeeper to true humanism, I’d join up with you. In a heartbeat.
Instead, I think that the Right’s ideology, however well-intended by either professional or volunteer-crafters like you, is foundationally flawed. Many of its biggest funders are or were known bigots, such as the known racist billionaires Joe Coors and Fred Koch (of the Koch family foundations) – whose John Birch links are a matter of public record. These lowlife economic elites spawned ‘foundations’: Coors funded the fledgling Heritage while both he and Koch fueled the American Enterprise Institute and a slew of less famous think tanks. Now this think tank-propaganda effort has spread into the blogs, where nobly-minded but misguided people like you are helping to foist and perpetuate the Right’s gigantic hoax.
By trumpeting the putatively inarguable idea that the masses will benefit from the trickling, over-spilling riches of an economic elite, the Right’s ideologues deliberately downplay the importance of equality in negotiations – hence their political operatives work to bust labor unions and to stymie any further growth of the labor movement, with the specific goal of eradicating the relative equality of workers.
They seek not to negotiate but to dictate wage and non-wage compensation for the labor their enterprises require. This manifests lately in Bush’s proposed ‘guest worker program’ – for those jobs ‘Americans aren’t willing to do’ – completely ignoring the likelihood that unemployed or under-employed Americans would happily take on these labors for a reasonable wage!
No, the Republicans would rather legitimize undocumented aliens to work at slave-wages than to allow the American worker to negotiate fairly with the employer. We can’t have that.
The purveyors of this trickle-down ideology loathe negotiation with all the fervor a Taliban loathes the unveiled face of a burka-less woman on the street.
Such inequality is not humanistic.
It is the economic manifestation of hierarchy worship.
And yet they cynically invoke the icons and tenets of Christian religion – even though the words attributed to the Bible’s Jesus character are unambiguously proto-socialist. (Recall please that I’m irreligious.) http://www.davidchandler.com/writings/BiblicalLiberal.htm
The Jesus of the Bible shamed the rich and their supportive hierarchies.
Part 3: Hierarchy Worship
The Right quite evidently fears people: viewing us as barely civilized beings – like dogs and cats teetering on the shady fringe between grudging domesticity and incipient ferality. The Christian Right’s obsession with satanic influence is the archetypal religious version of this view – but even secular right-wingers fear the latent ‘immaturity’ and ‘selfish evil’ of the human masses. Thus, they claim, we require a strongly policed populace – yet a governing elite that needs virtually no policing. Why should they need policing – they’re the society’s leading lights, and so much so that they write the laws, don’t they?
Yeah, they sure do, and in-so-doing they make certain that their own uncivilized urge to bilk the masses laboring for their entrepreneurial concerns is legally protected. They neglect or legislate away workplace safety regulations, dooming many to not only poor pay but to shorter and sicker lives.
Then, when dissenters cry foul, the elites sush said dissent by whatever means they deem appropriate, whether it be via simple propagandistic scorn and paternalistically condescending disregard – or by outright incarceration on the inherently false basis of sedition. Why false? Because anyone advocating for under-represented countrymen can’t be treasonous – unless the only fealty recognized is to the country’s elites, and not to the larger population.
Meanwhile, the apparent need for greater policing among the poor (unlike the paucity of a similar need among the elites) is explained as a rational and justified means for protecting the law-abiding citizens from criminals – which is true – yet it conveniently ignores the larger truth that crime isn’t an ‘inherent characteristic’ of those untrustworthy lower classes, but a symptom of economic desperation.
Blame the poor for their poverty and for their ‘lazy’ wish to jeopardize their lives and freedom in a risky career of crime, right?
It’s just another chorus of that ancient elitist song called ‘Blame the Victim’.
Why the hell should only the elites get to make the rules of a society and its economy?
You can argue that I’m misstating the question – that in a democracy the populace makes the rules collectively.
That’s the dogma we’re fed in high school government class, right? And on the face it seems true – but it’s only ‘true’ after the elites frame not only the questions of societal order underlying the making of rules, but – and just as importantly – the elites create the deliberative bodies the society requires for rule-making. (zzAstier’s take on this is perfectly apt: only men of property – and this property included the human chattel called slaves – had a hand in crafting the Constitution and the attendant Federalist Papers.)
This, effectively, is stacking the deck and setting the agenda simultaneously.
No such pre-dictated agenda and stacked deck is anything akin to true negotiation – which, again, requires relative equality between the negotiating factions.
The American two-party system (accidentally legitimized by the Constitution’s framers, who’d naively hoped to neuter the influence on the body politic of any and all political parties) gives us a republic whose professional political agents are funded primarily by the economic elite, and, whenever politically feasible, drawn from the same elite. Then the aptly named Republican Party has the gall to excoriate as ‘populist opportunists’ the advocates of the masses within the nearly as aptly named Democratic Party!
As if the non-Republican mental-condition called ‘having a conscience’ is some kind of defect or crime!
Please.
Look, they’re both at least in part disingenuously duplicitous, because both are representative of elites who exploit the masses for their own purposes. The Elephants are expert at exploiting the veiled-racist and worldly-ignorant jingoists; while the Donkeys do the same with more recently enfranchised groups of the body politic (i.e., women, minorities, and, curiously and laudably, via the environmentalists, other, non-human forms of life within the USA’s borders and within reach of American policies [like sea-life]).
Yet, for all their flaws and apparently leaderless foolishness, the Dems are demonstrably more humanist than the Republicans – and worthy of better regard than the disgusting smears that the lying rightwing propaganda network slings at them.
True secular humanists compare the hierarchy-worshipping doctrine informing rightwing ideology to a childish need for a strong, protective, but stern ‘daddy’ for the ‘latently miscreant human race’. The Christian Right’s obsession with their Daddy-Santa-God is the religious archetype of this doctrinal predicate – a doctrine, mind you, founded on fear, and not on science. Societal worries over crime – trotted out nightly on sensationalist newscasts – are manipulatively abused as justifications for the ‘strong daddy’ government.
Reagan won his first election at least as much on this form of fear-mongering as on the Iran hostage crisis. Bush I’s ‘Willie Horton’ ads are the most disgusting version of this crap I can recall off the top of my head.
So, rightwing ideology is promulgated (via tax-subsidized think tanks and through the shouting Benitos of corporate media) from doctrine that inculcates fear in the populace. The fear can be from perceived foreign threats, or from perceived domestic miscreants. In both instances the sources of fear are either exaggerated (how many muggings or rapes do you witness on a day by day basis?) or mishandled to perpetuate the foreign threat (Iraq and the Islamists, obviously – but Hitler and Mussolini did this same stuff all the damned time, using the specter of conspiring Jews and bloodthirsty Bolsheviks to terrorize their populations).
Rightwing ideology implies that the masses need a big, protective daddy, who the elites are both duty-bound and delighted to provide.
Rightwing ideology attempts to reassure: by suggesting that the people needn’t concern themselves with the minutia of governance – elect our partisan professionals, and let us take care of everything for you.
You’ve got movies to watch and videogames to play, don’t you?
Don’t mind us. We’ll keep everything running smoothly.
Don’t mind us giving regressive tax cuts to our biggest contributors.
Don’t mind us bleeding dry the social-safety-net programs you want us to preserve – while, in your names, we run up an unconscionable national debt and finance it day to day via the machiavellian investment of a quasi-Stalinist government in China, our biggest future competitor.
Don’t mind us spending your tax-monies and the lives of your youth on a resourceist foreign oil-grab war, while jingoistically claiming that we’re ‘fighting to protect your freedoms’ – as if the Islamists who want us out of their hair care how we live half a world away!
Don’t mind us ignoring national priorities like affordable health-care or education – a fundamental that should be any decent government’s primary focus.
Don’t mind us ignoring effectively proven science to placate a growing plurality of ignorant religionists – who happen to be our most zealous backers.
Don’t mind us legislating our covert electronic surveillance network into your privacy under the ruse of anti-terrorism.
Don’t mind us appointing and approving legalistic rhetoricians who intend to overturn the majority’s consistently reiterated desire to preserve a woman’s right to abort unwanted zygotes and embryos, which, if they grow into something more than a mass of dividing cells and make it all the way to true babyhood, will alter forever a woman’s life – and perhaps make both mother and child into a miserable family. And oh – we’re only doing that for those same sperm-worshipping religious kooks who support and enable our seedy manipulation of the scientifically ignorant and religiously bigoted.
Don’t mind our development of a tax-subsidized think-tank and corporate-media propaganda establishment, that’s exquisitely talented at smearing political opponents and at the same time dictating the national political debate away from the needs of an increasingly worse off people in favor of the predatory desires of greedy and actively manipulative corporations.
Rightwing ideology venerates and sanctifies rapacious greed, even while hypocritically clothing itself in a populist and bigoted version of Christianity.
Jesus never lauded the greedy – he excoriated them (it got him killed, too).
Rightwing ideology has promoted and justified the greatest gap in living standards between the richest and poorest in any putatively ‘decent’ modern national economy.
Rightwing ideology supports exploitation by elites of the masses by trumpeting the ‘virtues’ of entrepreneurs, while ignoring or excusing their greed-based refusal to negotiate with the people they need to work their enterprises.
Lastly, but perhaps most damningly, rightwing ideology perpetuates its circular logic that the masses are ‘too ignorant for real democracy’ by under-funding education. (One statistical study of comparative educational achievement @ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_399.asp )
This, Winston, isn’t an ideology worth promoting.
It’s an ideology deserving of the same fate as that of the geocentric universe.
This ideology enables an economic system that has a fascinating natural-world counterpart:
“Interaction between two entities, in which one benefits and the other is harmed�.
This is the definition of parasitism.
(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/parasitism )
Try reading this while thinking of the interactions between economic elites and the rest of us: “Parasitism is an interaction between two organisms, in which one organism (the parasite) benefits and the other (the host) does not benefit, or is harmed. Parasitism can be considered a special case of predation since in both interactions one species acquires biomass directly from another. In cases where the parasite is specific to a single host, the interaction is symbiotic.� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism
Human elites have evolved not merely a method but a highly structured and ‘logically’ justified (ideology) apparatus for preying on the human peoples they descend from. It’s clever – no, it’s downright ingenious – but it’s downright abhorrent too.
Rightwing ideology posits the need for stern (but loving! – yeah, like Mussolini!) public leadership: a specialized political class wiser in ‘the realities of economics and real-world foreign threats and therefore policy’ than the simple minds of the electorate.
This doctrine stems from that same infantile – and fear-born – desire for a strong, stern, and protective daddy. And then the trembling, daddy-yearning Righties have the nerve to call us freethinking and democratic humanists wimps!
How funny is that?
The contemporary rapaciousness of American capitalism, enabled and justified by rightwing ideology, is not only patently shameless but a blight – a demonstrable blight on the people it exploits both domestically and globally, and on the planet’s life and ecosystems it systematically violates and degrades in its parasitic invasiveness.
Part 4 – Potential solutions non-ideological humanists might want to explore
Count me in as a secular humanist, who seeks, by my modest blogging (and other writing), to have a hand, however small, it bettering everyone’s life – not by promoting the justification of parasitically exploitative capitalism, but by promoting the fundamental human virtue – a virtue as old as tribes, clans, and families – called ‘sharing’.
Its societal vehicle is that o-so-tribal and equally ancient clannish activity called ‘cooperativeness’.
Example: if a hunter-gatherer innovates a new tool or technology, does she hide it and make more while selling the artifacts to her kin – or does she unselfishly and excitedly teach to her kin the method of manufacture?
Which system is more humanistic: cooperative sharing – even for entrepreneurial profit-seeking ventures – or outright greedy hoarding?
Cooperation is not possible in systems that legislate the right of one agent to dictate terms to another instead fairly negotiating.
You want your workers to be cooperative and supportive? They can’t when communication consists primarily of the one-way transmission of your orders, and your workers’ only acceptable response is obedience.
Cooperativeness is perhaps more time-consuming, but it’s vastly more mutually satisfying.
So, your intention, Winston, however noble, strikes us humanists at best as problematically naïve, and, at worst, deliberately fascistic.
Even so, I believe you are actually helping us by positing your rightwing offerings.
At least you show us with stark clarity what we’re up against.
But most of us regular ROS-ites view the offerings rather differently than you probably do.
We are, after all, standing well away from the Right’s merry-go-round of self-justifying circular logic. So, despite the kindly intent behind your frequent offerings of steaming rightwing ideo-dung, please forgive us for choosing instead less noxious fertilizers for our humanistic explorations.
Like this: “A political philosophy that calls upon government to be for the people. In contrast to Socialists, modern Social Democrats do not believe in nationalizing Industry. Social Democrats believe in human rights. Rights for workers, for women, for children, for men, for people.
This contrasts with fascists who believe in rule by the corporation either through proxy media or direct interference with elected governments.� (My emphasis – because it quite perfectly describes the deplorable state of the contemporary USA.)
http://www.socialdemocrat.org/
More:
“The right to a culture based upon a standard of living instead of a poverty level.
The right of all people to equal access to the highest level of health care available in their society.
The right of all people to a clean environment.
The right of all people to good public transportation.�
That sounds suspiciously like a political philosophy based on cooperativeness and sharing instead of on hierarchy and greed, doesn’t it?
It’s such a pity our lame-ass two-party system prevents a genuinely wide-spectrum political conversation like those of Europe’s state-of-the-art parliamentary democracies. It’s an even bigger shame that the rightwing co-option of the corporate media has effectively demonized political usage of any word or ideal with ‘Social’ in it. If our Donkeys avidly promoted this kind of stuff instead shrinking from the terrifying ‘S’ word, they might, like the Swedish Social Democrats, be in power for decades instead of scrambling for their political lives. This kind of responsible people-centered policy-prioritization would surely generate the grassroots enthusiasm and contributions necessary to counter the Right’s propaganda organs, and perhaps even to send the shouting Benitos (Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al.) to where they belong: the nearest banana republic.
(Texas?)
(It’s not too late to grant Texas its independence, is it?)
Oh, and btw, Winston, before spewing back at me any arrogant or ignorant propaganda attempting to discredit the Swedes (even though you’re good at that sort of thing), please recall from my previous posts in the ‘Civil War in Iraq’ thread that the Swedes are among the planet’s best-educated, most worldly, and most uniformly trilingual population. (‘Trilingual’ is especially important: the more diverse one’s patterns of thought, the more intuitively innovative one can be. The more literate one is, the more acute one’s thinking.) We don’t hear much about the Swedes, but that’s probably because they number a mere 9.1 million. Additionally, Swedish women have attained a much greater measure of equality to their male counterparts. Which shames this grand old USA of ours, where women persistently earn 70 cents on the dollar for equivalent work done by men, and who are by comparison grossly under-represented in our government: http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/BasicFactsheet____4123.aspx
Swedes not only believe that their highly educated populace can be entrusted with a more ‘hands-on’ style of democracy than our democratically-fearful 18th century republic, their high standard of living – and comparatively puny gap between the most and least affluent in their society – proves it unambiguously.
Oh, I’m sure you can drag up some putatively discrediting statistics (you’re so good at it!), but having spent time in Sweden, I rather doubt the legitimacy of any American Republican’s propagandistically-generated misrepresentation of that eminently decent country.
Part 5 – A Few Loose Ends
Winston, much of what you say about the Right’s greater internal communications (blog, in this instance) and activism rings true – but I believe that this is because ideologies by nature are like pre-cut clothing draped on a mannequin. After the buyer – the voting body politic – wears the clothes away from the pre-election fitting room, she or he finds that the design that flattered by attractive sleekness doesn’t allow free movement in real life use. Ideologues then are effectively the tailors who must continuously loosen their prettily appealing product away from sleekness toward practicality instead.
Gorbachev’s perestroika is the most earth-shaking version I can recall of this ideological tailoring – but it came much too late to save the communist ideology, because the Soviet body politic had worn their ill-fitting Leninist/Stalinist/Marxist garment for so long it chafed like a 1960’s vintage nylon shirt.
Instead of letting their Communist Party ideological tailors work over the thing any longer, the USSR’s people threw it away as fast as they could.
Who wouldn’t?
An example closer to home and still pending: when the Republicans get around to reversing those regressive tax cuts for the wealthy, their ideological product’s custom tailoring will finally begin to properly fit the indebted body politic they’ve so successfully deluded for so long (thanks to the lying rightwing propagandist network).
Mickey Kaus may well always vote Democratic, but he probably does it like I do: by holding my nose since I can’t hold my breath awaiting a legitimate Social Democratic Party. I’d suggest that this dismay of Kaus’s is likely the reason he attacks and excoriates Democrats more than he does Republicans. But this is also essentially cheap-shotting the more humanistic of the two parties he can choose to vote for. It’s a ‘free country’ (sort of), so he has the right to take aim at whomever he pleases, but he’s an influential voice, and ought to comprehend the damage done by his piling-on.
Your Republicans, Winston, are a whole lot slimier than the Democrats I vote for so grudgingly.
Winston wrote: ‘if “my side / Republicans / conservatives� can get rid of any more Rathers it is nothing but good for us…’
Fine. And if any of us here on ROS can get rid of slimeball Benitos like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Novak, the entire country will benefit from the loss of such ignorant, shouting bigots. (‘Benitos’ btw, for those new to my rants, is a counter-slur to the Right’s opprobrious use of ‘liberal’ – and it is meant to slur the Right by evoking images of the shouting idiot Mussolini.
I’m oddly glad you don’t much listen to Rush. But if your comment about him was meant to offset my implication that the Right is ideologically monolithic, fine – but Rush’s true liege lord is Bush, not any of the Congressional Republicans.
Lastly: Winston wrote: “Constant’s thread was a bit naive in that you could tell that that commentator either probably never read the Federalist Papers because in those comments it was apparent that the writer didn’t understand what was discussed…�
This is condescending and insulting to boot. Constant cited Federalist 47 & 51 here:
“…the issue is who to trust to do our aggregating. A-List bloggers are not necessarily A-List aggregators, nor do they have A-List content or prudent thinking. They can be as easily overshadowed by event and led astray. They are not Gods – they are mortals – as we are reminded in Federalist 47 and 51 – deserving to be carefully watched not blindly trusted.�
Constant has obviously read the Federalist Papers.
Constant just as obviously didn’t read them through the same ideological lens through which you read them.
Moreover, because the Federalist Papers are not some exclusive rightwing abracadabra, we can all read them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Federalist_Papers by linking to the Wikisource option-box (at the page bottom) appropriate to the Paper we’re interested in, which will bring you into this site: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm .
zzAstier: welcome to ROS.
Re your Thomas Jefferson quote – I reckon he was pondering a situation like this:
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.� – James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Convention (June 16, 1788)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison
And more from Jefferson himself:
“Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind; for I can apply no milder term…to the general prey of the rich on the poor.�
“Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.�
“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.�
“What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?�
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
KCRW’s “To The Point� held an extended debate today (March 13th) on the immigration question: “Politics, Economics, Religion and Illegal Immigration� @ http://www.kcrw.org/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?tmplt_type=program&show_code=tp
Interestingly, even the Republican representative agreed that Bush’s ‘guest worker program’ initiative is designed to keep domestic labor costs low.
A caveat: the show is well worth a listen, but each of the panelists at one point or another misrepresented the views of the others – sometimes hilariously so!
Nevertheless, each of them presented their own viewpoints lucidly.
I have come too late back so I cannot ever respectfully respond to all but -
If I missed Constant’s citation of the Federalist Papers then I stand corrected but i reviewed her to long threads and failed to see it again, but that is my miss.
And, Nikos, I love the way that your group Ruch et al in with Rather as being on the other side of the spectrum. If you are sincere in this I salute your honesty because Rush is a self confessed purveyor of politcal mush just like Pamphleteers of old were while Rather is supposed to be objective. Keep it up and the right will continue to whittle away at the MSM until they are no more.
All Ican say is once again, you get what you expect and if MyDD and Kos is what you expect then you get what you deserve.
Go to MyDD, he taughts Senator Feingold’s proposal to Censure President Bush for the NSA controversy. While it may make you feel good the ENTIRE right-wing blogoshere is hoping this will come to a vote because it does nothing but help Bush. Even the MSM is saying that Dems, in general are rushing to put distance between themselves and this effort.
My theory regarding Bush is that he is the “Forrest Gump” of US politics – no matter how far he falls due to his own efforts events conspire to help him out and Feingold’s efforts are just another is a series.
I am not a person of faith nor a beleiver in luck / fortune / fate but when I read this blog and blogs like MyDD and Kos I almost have to convert.
Do you remember the movie the “Life of Brian” by the crew of Monty Python? Remember the “crack suicide squad” where they boldly and pointlessly run into the midst of everthing and stab themselves in the heart?
Well, who does that remind you of?
P.S Regarding MacArthur and the who wrote the Japanese Constitution. I presented material from wikipedia. See also the famous biography “MacArthur: American Ceasar” and you will see that the famous lawyers on his staff described how he presented them with his draft of the Japanese Cpnstitution and then they added to / edited it.
And I ask, you make the distinction between his “staff” and the General – If I am not mistaken he, along with 2 others are the only 5 star generals in the history of the US. Do you think that there is anthing that a staff of a 5 star gen can do that he doesn’t know about and aprove? He interviewed and selected each lawyer that worked on the staff and personally approved everything submitted to the Japanese govt, of which he was THE OCCUPYING general.
It is a historical fact, attested to in the autobiography of the head of the Japanese govt at the time, that MacArthur handed the copy of the Japanese Constitution to him in the back of a limo on a ride to the meeting of parlimnet as one hands over a grocery list.
So, I say that your arguement above that it was “MacArhur’s Staff not MacArhtur himself” as, at best a differnce with out and distinction.
But, even if I accept your argeument there is still much difference between what we are allowing the Afghanistani / Iraqi govt and what we allowed Germany / Japan.
Winston: I’m loathe to lump Rush with Dan Rather — but the Right for years has wrongly presented Rush’s rants as ‘truthful’ and ‘objective’ takes on the state of the contemporary Union. So, whether or not I want it, Rush is viewed by his malleable listeners as ‘objective’.
Which is the best of many damned good reasons to send him to the nearest banana republic (where he and his fellow benito ilk properly belong).
PS to everybody: apologies for the hurried and nearly indecipherable writing in my five-chapter post(s) above. I really did need an editor like Jon Garfunkel!
Oh well, too late now…
[NJ, Blogger anonymity] NJ backs down. [ Click ]