Chait's "Machine"
Jonathan Chait's large and dispositive New Republic cover article on the netroots is bound to become a lightning rod for discussion of this subject, online and in the MSM. But reaction in the blogosphere has been somewhat slow, probably because Chait's take, published in a magazine that has been a frequent object of progressive blogospheric abuse, doesn't follow any predictable pattern.
Chait clearly validates the positive and important role of the netroots in Democratic politics, but in doing so says some things about the biases and habits of progressive bloggers that they aren't going to be happy about. As someone whom Chait accurately describes as having a "complicated relationship to the netroots," I'll take the risk of wading into this controversy since nobody other than cscs has so far addressed it in the Coffee House.
First, a couple of quibbles with Chait's analysis.
As Chris Bowers pointed out earlier today, Chait's definition of the "netroots" as a subset of the progressive blogosphere is backwards. The netroots, usually defined as anyone who primarily engages in progressive politics online, includes most "activist" bloggers but also a lot of people for whom blogs are unimportant or incidental.
And as Garance Franke-Ruta pointed out, Chait is probably overemphasizing the handful of high-traffic blog sites, most notably DailyKos and Atrios, as embodying both the progressive blogosphere and the netroots.
I also think that his bright-line distinctions, helpful as they are, between "partisan" and "ideological" blogs, and between "activist" and "wonk" blogs, are overwrought. To the extent that "partisan" sites make maximum partisan differentiation from the GOP the Holy Grail, they encourage precisely the same ideological positions endorsed by the self-conscious Left ideologues, who on their own part, generally accept ideological heterodoxy for Democratic candidates in red territory. And viz. Josh Marshall, some "wonk" blogs have become vehicles for political activism, while some activist blogs, such as Firedoglake, have become important avenues for basic factual reportage.
Having said all that (and I'll get into his discussion of the DLC on my own site, NewDonkey.com), Chait has basically provided a sound analysis of the political origins, psychology, and utility of the progressive blogosphere, including its interest in (and perhaps direct emulation of) the conservative movement.
Two points Chait makes are likely to arouse some serious hostility from progressive bloggers.
The first is his charge that they exercise a double standard about intra-party fights, avidly supporting criticism of Democrats (not just obvious apostates like Joe Lieberman, but plenty of regular Democrats who vote wrong on issues related to the war, and on occasion, the congressional Democratic leadership) from the Left, while treating criticism of Democrats from the center or the right as the Sin Against the Holy Ghost.
And the second is his concern that netroots progressives have a flexible if not hostile attitude towards inconvenient and off-message facts, just like their conservative movement counterparts.
These two tendencies, Chait suggests, are reified in the propensity of at least some major progressive bloggers to try to kill by isolation--a sort of social death--"centrist" heretics.
I hope that Chait's fascinating piece, even for those who dislike it, helps restore the intra-progressive dialogue that ought to contribute to the development of any effective and representative "machine."
"The first is his charge that they exercise a double standard about intra-party fights, avidly supporting criticism of Democrats . . . from the Left, while treating criticism of Democrats from the center or the right as the Sin Against the Holy Ghost." Maybe I'm being dense, but why would someone on the left support criticism from the right?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 1, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a pretty good article and worth reading. There are a number of things that I thought were off, and you can see others have already noted some of them at Hacks Vs. Wonks, and Authenticity Vs. Propoganda by Chris Bowers at mydd.com. In particular, the use of the term chickenhawk is explained in the comments and the bizarre description of the Edwards campaign bloggers being fired is addressed by Bowers himself.
May 1, 2007 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do like to read your analysis Mr. Kilgore, but surely it is clear to you that Washington DC insiders such as yourself and Chait have a bit of a conflict of interest when it comes to analyzing a movement which is based in large part on a reaction to insider failures and failings. You have moved to North Carolina IIRC and claim to no longer be an insider, but anyone who works for TNR clearly qualifies as such.
sPh
May 1, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Chait's piece but I think he somewhat dismissed the main point about what's going on here and on other sites -- this is really all about ordinary people realizing that they can play the same game played by a David Broder or a Joe Klein. Broder is especially annoyed by this. Klein was annoyed but seems to be coming around.
We don't act like the MSM punditry. It amuses me that they're so annoyed that we can be a little obscene but all in good fun. So what, we call people wankers? Is that so bad? Do we need to have blogger ethics panels and discussions of civility at the American Enterprise Institute?
If the blogosphere has proven anything it's that the mainstream politicos have a thin skin and really can't take a joke or two, especially if it's a poignant joke.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 1, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Kilgore writes:
I confess to never having seen quite this formulation before. I've tried running it over my tongue, substituting a couple of other names:
Somehow,I can't imagine Mr. Kilgore phrasing his introduction in this way if he were offering a second take on a topic addressed by any of the stable of regular writers at TPM Café.
For what it's worth, I think cscs did a fine job, and I read this formulation as being a wee bit dismissive--rather like John saying "I'll take the risk of wading into this controversy since nobody other than Matthew has written a Gospel". Perhaps it was an innocent formulation and not a kind of denigration of the analysis of one of us "amateurs". I don't think I skipped my anti-paranoia juice today, though. And if it was unconsciously dismissive then it does illustrate why those of us out in the boonies get a little tired of feeling patronized.
aMike
May 1, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, I gotta get a new user name...
May 1, 2007 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big deal over nothing. Guy starts to write "nobody has addressed it yet", then notes that actually cscs has addressed it, amends sentence. (Obviously noting cscs has addressed it doesn't change thrust of comment since one comment thread isn't exactly exhausting the topic.)
Accumulating Peripherals
May 1, 2007 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Like any political community, the netroots have developed distinctive linguistic tics that hold special meaning to adherents, and these reveal something about the way the movement thinks. Among the most revealing is the netroots' incessant use of the words "meme" or "frame" to describe ideas. It is a formulation that assumes that establishing the truth about an idea matters less than phrasing the idea in the most politically effective way and repeating it as much as possible."
Maybe "regular" people need "phrasing the idea in the most politically effective way"
However, I'm not interested in being brainwashed by the Left or by the Right. Is there anybody who wants to read "phrasing the idea in the most politically effective way and repeating it as much as possible" ?
I doubt.
Generally speaking TPM contributers with exception of M.J are trying to be intelectually honest but there always temptation ...
May 1, 2007 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment sort of proves and encapsulates a part of Chait's argument, the part about many netizens' incredibly reified conception of "Washington insiders". That term has some descriptive utility, but it's not like saying "He is a libertarian" or "She is a member of the United Steel Workers". When people start to use the term too quickly and dismissively, it begins to sound to my ears rather like those insult-categories in totalitarian politics -- "kulaks" (USSR), "splittists" (PRC), etc.
Accumulating Peripherals
May 1, 2007 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have always noticed that many writers of the letters to the editor to newspapers are much better and incisive writers than any of the newspapers' paid columnists. Blogs have allowed that blossom to flower in full. There is a tremendous amount of good writing now available that never existed before.
May 2, 2007 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it is just because it is before 6 AM in my time zone, but this commentary doesn't actually say very much. As a review, it is neither pointed nor especially insightful. As a commentary, well, what am I supposed to get from it?
Chait's piece is OK, but why on earth would anyone pay much attention to a print article in a low circulation magazine on... blogging? Chait should have published in TPM and gotten a true feel for the medium.
May 2, 2007 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure of your point here, other than you think there may be some more precise term to describe what generally is know as an insider?
The point of the netroots, a point even Chait makes, is it's a reaction to the failings of the Democratic Party and the institution of journalism (that's why he starts off with the 2000 election fiasco, as it is a blend of both failings...).
While Ed K, I think, has demonstrated the ability to look outside the insider wall, Chait may not have. He doesn't, for example, address his role in rooting on the Iraq war -- the "power" of the netroots (for lack of a better word right now without enough coffee...) is, in part, because of his failing.
Chait also skips past another, I think, telling example of TNR's uncomfortable-ness with the netroots, and that's Lee Siegel, and the way he was fired off their blog because he was using a sockpuppet in the comments.
Maybe "Washington Insiders" isn't the right word, but there is a vast difference between the culture of the netroots and the culture of punditry and journalism, and it's a difference that the latter two groups still don't seem to get. In my post on this topic, I gave the "chickenhawks" example...
It's hard to sound authoritative on a topic when it's clear you don't understand it.
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 2, 2007 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to be persuasive when you're calling one of the TPM Contributors a liar...
And I don't think you can avoid being "brainwashed." It's all around you, everywhere. Even centrists have a message. Even the ideology behind TNR. There's politics and message in everything.
At least the netroots are being up front about it.
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 2, 2007 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is exactly this kind of patronizing and condescending attitude that bloggers despise. I found it rather insulting to cscs who did a fine job in bringing this to our attention - I don't care for the push off the podium.
May 2, 2007 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies to cscs if that line seemed dismissive. I certainly didn't mean it that way, and yes, I would have written the sentence in the same clumsy way if I had been referring to one of the front-page bloggers. Truth is, I wrote most of the post earlier in the day, at a time when the only comment on Chait's piece out there was one by Armando at Talk Left.
May 2, 2007 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What’s our disagreement ? You seems to suggest that they all are liars not only M.J.
You are correct, they all “have a message” and they all are trying to brainwash us.
However, the difference in the degree and methods.
May 2, 2007 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chait was interesting but fundamentally missed the point. The Netroots don't despise TNR or Lieberman because they compromise on this issue or that and so don't score 100% on our scorecard. The Netroots despise TNR and Lieberman because on the number one issue of our day they just got it wrong and continue to get it wrong, to rephrase Carville:
"It's the War, Stupid!"
A rational case was made early on by people like Ritter and Gilliard that Saddam was not a strategic risk to the United States. Then the Army Chief of Staff went before Congress and effectively testified that we did not have enough troops ("several hundred thousand") to accomplish the mission. At which point suggesting that not going to war was the correct policy should have been an acceptable starting point for discussion. Well it wasn't, conventional wisdom out of the Beltway/DLC/Whitman/Lieberman/TNR was that not only that anti-war people didn't know what the hell we were talking about, were obtuse to the politics ("you can't oppose a popular wartime president") and were anti-American to boot. Well speaking only for myself you can only be called a traitor a couple of times before it builds an animus that doesn't go away.
Chait's position seems to be that everything can be formulated in shades of gray. Well no on some things there still is such a thing as Right or Wrong and Black or White. TNR got this war wrong, TNR continues to get this war wrong, TNR got and gets this war wrong for all the wrong reasons, and TNR was wrong about the wrong reasons it got this war wrong to start with. Despite Peretz and Ledeen's fever dreams Saddam was not a strategic threat to Israel and no amount of payments to the families of suicide bombers was going to make him one.
People can tap dance around the truth but it is pretty clear that the Neo-Cons had a three phase plan. Phase one, invade Iraq, install Chalabi as head of an Iraq that would recognize Israel. Phase two, invade Syria and in the process irradicate Hezbollah and eliminate them as a threat to the northern border of Israel. Phase three, overthrow the Iranian regime so that no future Hezbollah could ever be reconstituted. Or maybe phases 2 and 3 could be reversed. You don't have to go so far as to suggest this was formal US policy, but certainly this was and is the path Ledeen and Perle were and are pushing from their positions right outside the center of official power. And by all evidence Peretz/TNR and Lieberman are right with Ledeen and Perle on this and much of the DLC/MSM is lining up right behind. The war drums against Syria and Iran are beating and idiots like Chait are wondering "Why can't we just get along".
Sorry one disasterous war at a time is plenty and Obama and Clinton talking tough about Iran is a formula for further disaster. The squishy center is treating the netroots like it was just a blind pig that happened to find the acorn, that fundamentally it was wrong to be right on the war before the smart people who were right to be wrong on the war because who knew it would turn out the way it did. Digby as usual put it best, Chait et al just can't get past the fact that the "DFH", the "Dirty Fucking Hippies" got this right in real time and for some odd reason are upset that just as we predicted in early 2003 this was only going to result in Boys and Girls Coming Home in Boxes.
What drove this home for me was Sullivan. When anti-war people were pointing out the rising death toll of Americans he 'explained' that the soldiers and marines were "servants of civil masters" as if the US Army existed to serve the convenience of British ex-pats. Once again Chait and TNR miss the whole point of "chickenhawk". No one is suggesting that not having served means you can't have an opinion on the war, but instead that the combination of not serving and treating US soldiers like game pieces to be expended freely makes you a moral coward.
Well excuse me for not wanting to compromise with cowardice.
May 2, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because it could be correct and useful?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 2, 2007 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble is that davai is exactly correct.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 2, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Atrios lambastes Chait for accusing the netroots of not "believing in ideas" when Chait says:
Atrios says:
I think Chait is basically attacking the netroots from the classic journalistic perspective here. Chait is not saying the netroots has "no concern for facts," but rather that the netroots doesn't strive to tell both sides of the story through the classic journalism model. In other words, the netroots doesn't strive for balance or objectivity - to tell "the whole truth," so to speak - but instead seeks out those facts that are most persuasive to its side. I suppose this is a valid criticism, but given journalism's difficulty unpacking the lies of modern conservatism, it's not very powerful or persuasive.
Beyond this, I think Chait's article fundamentally misunderstands the fact that the netroots is first a medium and only secondly a "movement." After all, what is the netroots? It is a bunch of ordinary people using the internet to combine their voices to create influence. I would argue that the fact that the people who have created and grown this medium are liberal is strictly secondary. Any group of likeminded people could use the internet to create influence in the same way liberals have. Liberals just did it first.
Chait wants to put the netroots in the same ideological box as political movements like communism or fundamentalist Christianity. From this perspective, it's unsurprising that he finds the netroots "interest in ideas" to be "purely instrumental." After all, true ideological movements are almost always built around one or two central ideas (workers should own the means of production, the Bible tells us to live this way, etc.). The netroots lacks this kind of ideological purity because...well...it consists of a bunch of ordinary people on the internet who share some general political views but are nothing like the "movements" Chait would like to compare the netroots to. After all, the members of the netroots would be liberal even if they never touched a computer. It is the medium that is pulling them together, giving them strength in numbers. The medium is the movement.
In one sense, the netroots is nothing new. Unions have been allowing individuals to pool their influence for decades. So have interest groups like the NRA. From this perspective, Chait's article is right on the money: the "liberal netroots" is another collectivist political entity in a long line of collectivist political entities to wield its influence in the public sphere. And yet the netroots is different from these "movements" because the medium - the internet - does not require a membership. Anyone can use it for any message at any time. All that is needed is an idea and a sufficient number of individuals. No real organizing is required. No money is required. All that is really needed is a couple of leaders to get the ball rolling and a message that persuades ordinary people.
And this is where Chait misses the boat. I think his article does a decent job of looking at who is currently powering the "liberal netroots" and what effects these people may have on political discourse in the next few years. By and large, however, I think he fails to see the forrest for the trees. The internet, as a medium, is bigger than any union or interest group. Anyone can do it - and the only way to do it is to persuade people that you are right.
The power of the netroots lies in the fact that it is not an idealogical "movement" or a union or a special interest group. There is no hook or sales pitch. It is simply a bunch of people who agree with each other on the merits. The simplicity and accessability of the internet - the medium - is what makes this possible...but there's absolutely no reason that libertarians or conservatives or whoever couldn't do the same exact thing. Their only challenge? Finding enough people who agree with them on the merits.
It is pure, uncut democracy.
May 2, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
.> but rather that the netroots doesn't
> strive to tell both sides of the story
> through the classic journalism model.
Contemplating the Flat Earth Society will convince you that since many stories do not have "two sides", a commitment to always "telling both sides" rapidly degenerates into a willingness to be spun by convincing liars.
In any case, this has only been the "journalism model" since 1980 or so, when the theories of all the j-school professors hired in the wake of Watergate and the students who rushed into their programs took root.
sPh
May 2, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
For most people who write at TPMCafe Bush and Cheney are the Satan and Lucifer of our time and Joe Lieberman is close behind. Thus there is support for that which opposes these leaders. It is clear what is thought about mainstream Democratic politicians and Americans in general except a smug contempt.
There is a remarkably ideological based view of the world that doesn't seem very much different in kind than the Right's. There is a great belief in the moral superiority of the non-Liberal left. There seems to be a need to believe that today is little different than the 1930s, a defeatism, anti-Americanism, anti-Israeli bent that is largely a product of the post-modern embracing of the "victim" and opposion to the "victimizer." The result is that like with Bush inconvenient facts are denied, rejected or buried in the name of greater truth.
It often seems that many find places like TPMCafe to vent their frustions that the world and especially America is not more to their liking.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 2, 2007 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a journalism major myself, I would argue that the current quest for "balance" is really a perversion of the classic ideal of journalistic objectivity. Objectivity in journalism is not so much a goal as a method. Any journalism (or philosophy) professor will tell you that truly capturing the "truth" about any one thing is impossible. Objective reporting never the less strives for "truth," but does so in a realistic manner. It requires the journalist to investigate an issue from all vantage points, to question the assertions of each stakeholder, and to articulate the strengths and weakenesses of a given position using credible sources and the analytical insights of the reporter herself.
The quest for "balance" short-circuits this process by saying that the reporter does not need to carefully examine the position of each side. Simply presenting each side's argument is enough. Under the "balance" approach, there is no need to analyze or quantify a given position. It is cheap, easy, and relatively uncontroversial. (It's worth noting, of course, that even the "balance" model can be watered down and cheapened when media outlets select only the blandest and least pointed positions to present.)
"Balance" is not real journalism. Nor is this how journalism is taught at the university level (in my experience, at least).
Unfortunately, the objective model of journalism is time consuming and expensive. It also requires reporters to take strong stands - to tell the reader in explicit terms when one side appears to be lying, for example. As a result, objective reporting is not only expensive, but risky, since media outlets are regularly accused of treason and frozen out by official government sources for publishing unflattering pieces. Moreover, as Knight-Ridder will tell you, practicising the objective model doesn't always win you the Pulitzer or even garner much attention.
Still, I would argue that there is nothing at all wrong with the modern "journalism model." When practiced in a principled and faithful fashion, it is still the best method for arriving at "truth." The real problem, in my opinion, is how few media outlets actually follow it...
May 2, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which happens what... every 10,000 days?
Most of the criticism from the right amounts to "you'd be correct if you were more conservative--like me!"
May 2, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. The Dream of Bipartisanship.
Where those on the right want to "help" us on the left, by "working together" and providing "useful" criticism.
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 2, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes. An impartial observer...
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 2, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure where I suggested everyone on the front page is a liar.
But our disagreement is that you're calling MJ a liar. I am saying, it is hard to take your argument seriously when you start off with that kind of accusation.
You can say you disagree with his opinions, but suggesting his opinions are intellectually dishonest, that he's some kind of troll here at the Cafe, to me is way too far.
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 2, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Being "objective" means facing up to the facts even if they don't support your own biases.
That means doing a lot of work to figure out what the facts are. It doesn't mean finding two sides to every issue, though. Sometimes the facts are the facts. If a car is in fact blue you don't have to go find a colorblind source to say that it's green in order to write an objective story.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 2, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why mess with a brand that's working?
You'll be on Colbert before you know it at this rate.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
May 2, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you provide us with a couple of recent examples of conservatives offering justifiable, constructive criticism of liberals, Daniel?
And examples where the cure is worse than the problem they identify (e.g., killing Social Security in order to save it) don't count.
May 2, 2007 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the following applies to MJ
"It is a formulation that assumes that establishing the truth about an idea matters less than phrasing the idea in the most politically effective way and repeating it as much as possible."
You can call this lie, intelectual dishonesty, banana, whatever. I don't care
May 2, 2007 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was always my biggest frustration with the netroots. I think there is a double standard there in terms of the Netroots getting to make their criticisms, and yet hiding behind "loyalty" when a criticism gets made of the netroots. i've been carousing amongst the netroots since july 2004 and if I had a nickel, no, a penny for everytime I've heard a Dem called a coward, i'd be a very rich man. one of the defenses i've heard is that it's a fight for the soul of the dem party, but when the general election starts up, we pull together and support the dem, even if that dem isn't our favorite dem in the world. whatever. then the next thing i see is the uber-blogger markos charging the tim kaine campaign with "cowardice" TWO WEEKS before the election. Of saying "I won't be sad when he loses" about Ford TWO WEEKS before his election.
So this idea that the Netroots changes their agenda from intra-party warfare (which can be healthy!!!) during primary to wagon circling during the general election is, i'm sorry, it's horse manure.
and such horse manure would be just part and parcel of political activism except that it is only exacerbated by, get this, what was the first words out of bloggers mouths when lamont won his primary??
loyalty.
yep. loyalty. bloggers suddenly appealing to loyalty.
A perfect and recent example is the dustup over Carville providing commentary to CNN without CNN making it known that Carville support Clinton. The netroots made their case, and called carville all sorts of names. in truth it should be disclosed where a pundits loyalties lie and it became paramount to force CNN to nudge their viewers towards viewing everything carville says through the lens of his relationship with the hillary campaign.
and yet. just recently, i challenged a blogger saying it was difficult to view anything they said except through the lens of their preference that hillary not be the dem candidate. this blogger got very upset, defensive, and before he banned me i was actually a little worried i might be served papers for slander.
i pointed out that in straw poll after straw poll, 95% of the netroots wants hillary to lose, so i might take that into consideration when i read a netroots bloggers political analysis about the primary.
now. the punchline is this. we all know what set off the final blow to carville. it was him saying that obama fudged the health conference in nevada.
well. he did. other bloggers said so.
apparently it's ok for a blogger to say so, but if carville says so, CNN has to make sure their viewers know Carville is trying to take down Obama for the Clinton people.
the criticism of centrist dems is not just scathing, though it may be sincere it is constant, and has all the ceremony of the angry mob.
one iota of criticism made of the netroots is the most vile attack.
i don't know who chait is. i've never read the new republic. but that one observation is absolutely correct.
May 3, 2007 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Chait has the history of today's liberal or progressive blog world wrong. Before Blogs, we had Message Boards, and many of the people who today run or support major and minor blogs initially congregated at places like Salon's Table Talk before it went subscription. Salon -- a hybrid in those days between paid opinion and reportorial staff led coverage of the rightist attack on Clinton (Reportage by Wass, Opinion by Conason) -- creating the opening for a "movement" then called Censure and Move-on, now just Move-on. All this pre-dates My DD and Kos by several years, and open access message boards predate the arrival of Blog softwear.
What Chait misses by a mile is that very few in the MSM made much of an effort to challenge the reporting surrounding anti-Clinton Journalism from the Right, it was as if the Times and the WaPo had signed on with Richard Mellon Scaife and friends. It was up to some of the more obscure, Gene Lyons and Joe Conason for instance, to use this just emerging technology as well as still relevant book publishing, to create a meaningful opinion center, that then allowed others to invent further applications, such as Move-On, supporting mass advocacy. In this respect the pre-history of today's blog form is rooted in the Alienation of a Majority -- the people who supported Clinton, Acted, and never let his poll numbers to dip below 50%.
And Message Boards themselves are a public evolution of earlier E-Mail lists that predate the slightly earlier development of the Web. I found Chait's analysis flawed precisely because he located the emergence of Political discourse and activity only with early adopters of Blog Format, ignoring critical earlier formats. He also in the process, totally fails to understand how the Alienation of the Majority was one strong incentive for the invention and acceptance of new formats. Chait stresses particular individuals, My DD, Eschaton and Kos, and pays no attention to a huge audience that was turned off MSM, and wanted a very different media that minimized gatekeeper's decisions regarding what was news and what was the range of acceptable opinion up for discussion.
May 3, 2007 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
apparently it's ok for a blogger to say so, but if carville says so, CNN has to make sure their viewers know Carville is trying to take down Obama for the Clinton people.
Of course. This seems obvious. Although your characterization, "take down Obama for the Clinton people" is a bit overblown.
For one, Carville was paid by the Clintons, he has a financial interest.
Two, it's a question of power and access. The whole point of blogging is that we on the *outside* gain a voice in our politics. Carville, without the disclosure, presents himself as an impartial *outsider*, when, in reality, he's a powerful *insider*. As bloggers, certainly individually we have a very limited sphere of influence; as a whole, we are gaining some influence, but it's still limited.
There's a huge difference between blogging here and appearing on CNN.
And I'm not sure I understand your point about loyalty. It's obvious to me, Joe Lieberman, for example, is not a loyal Democrat. Certainly not the kind of Democrat that needs to be tolerated in a state that's far from "red." (Which is why you won't see the netroots go after Ben Nelson.)
So what's the problem there?
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 3, 2007 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel A Greenbaum,
Well how would you characterise what is going on in the United States today? I have trouble believing that you can read the daily postings at talkingpointsmemo regarding the attorney purge, the voter suppression of the GOP, the Niger memo, and not get a little concerned or heated under the collar towards the President, his party and the conservative ideas that brought him to that high office.
How do you maintian your composure?
Is it really the most appropriate response?
What I also want to suggest to you is that it is exactly not what you think it is. It is not an ideological based view of the world, it is an empirical based view of the world. It is not a perscription trying to achieve utopia but a justifyable anger at the facts of the case, the case of republican criminality and subversion of the constitution.
Or to put it another way, Karl Marx got nothing to do with it, Thomas Paine and Jefferson do.
May 3, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The netroots are drunk in their blind lust for power, just like their neo-con peers have been. They never stop to consider power at what cost, or the eventual outcome. Sure, some have their ideological agendas, but the majoritiy of them are little more than sheep helping push the train without taking the time to even think or care about which direction they are going.
I think Chait has a lot of things right, but he ignores some of the wider truths as well..
The netroots do not represent any help to the democratic party, they might spout that claim as a meme, but just like any spoiled brat, who likes to inflate their importance, it doesn't mean that others are going to feel the same way.
The netroots find a lot of truths inconvenient.. including the wider issues. They are out of touch with even the majority of democratic voters.. when they are reminded of this, they respond with a let them eat cake rejoinder. They also censor and employ any means necessary to suppress voices they find inconvenient.. including those speaking to their ignoring the issues of the poor. Some here on tpmcafe.com have taken to espousing the attitudes of the right wing controlled media, that there exists a right to censor as blogs are privately owned.
They have morphed into what they hated about George W. Bush. They believe there ought to be limits to freedom, that if one profits from exploitation it is acceptable. In short, the leftist blogosphere are like the emporer who was too egotistical to realize he was parading around buck naked..
May 3, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
bloggers aren't granted permanent outsider status.
and I do not believe Carville is on hillary campaign payroll. it was one mailing. but i don't contest his preference that hillary take the nomination. nor do i even contest CNN referencing his status during his spots.
what i contest is that everything he says has to be viewed through that lens.
but if it does, then why shouldn't someone else decide to view everything said by a blogger through the lens of the obvious and comprehensive vitriol expressed towards hillary on blogs?
but basically. "we're outsiders. the criticisms that we make of others won't apply to us because we're not insiders" won't wash.
"we're a powerful movement with a chance to change the landscape of american politics but when we say something stupid no one listens to us anyway." well. isn't that special?
these are the kinds of things i'm talking about. it's immensely infuriating.
it's obvious to me blogging isn't about loyalty in general. i'll be perfectly blunt. a blogger ripping into kaine or ford two weeks before a general election suddenly extolling loyalty right after a primary doesn't even qualify as hypocrisy. it's the kind of lack of self-awareness i expect from republicans.
you just, quite simply, can't spend 4 years calling a certain part of the democratic party cowards, you just can't spend so much time trashing certain people, and then, once your guy wins, expect those same dems to suddenly start pulling for your guy.
it's freeekin retarded, man.
May 3, 2007 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry it took me so long to give this comment the high rating it deserved. I was testing the hypothesis by contemplating the Flat Earth Society, stumbled, and fell over the edge. :-)
aMike
May 3, 2007 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet the netroots do maintain gatekeepers who decide what is and isn't news, they apply the same selective attention to issues their neo-con peers do, and if anyone seeks to critique indifference and elitism, they are attacked, and censored.
If you spoke out against the idiocy and hypocrisy of their appointing of a Howard Dean or a Ned Lamont, candidates who were the epitome of Bush-lite, you were attacked as a troll.
The message boards of old were far more representative of the wider democratic voter. The issues of poverty, the wrongs of outsourcing and offshoring, taking on NAFTA, the health care crisis and many other issues were discussed passionately. There was empathy, and there wasn't the condescending, elitist attitude you see on the blogosphere.
May 3, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed the golden age of the Message Boards... but if they included messages liberally salted with phrases like
I guess I didn't miss all that much.
I don't know who the dastardly "their" were who "appointed" Howard Dean or Ned Lamont. As I remember it, Dean ran for the nomination of the Democratic Party, lost, and was elected Party Chairman, and Ned Lamont ran for the nomination of the Democratic Party, won, and then was defeated by "Independent Democrat" Joseph Lieberman (if Lamont was "Bush-lite", what in heaven's name was Lieberman??). This has something to do with democratic practice--the elections bit, you know??? To attack both these men and their supporters in the name of the "wider democratic voter" seems less than perfectly logical.
I don't think Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith over at Firedoglake are either idiots or hypocrites, and they were vital contributors to Lamont's campaign. I assure you I'm neither an idiot nor a hypocrite, and I honor Howard Dean for his courage in condemning the war in Iraq.
aMike
May 3, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink