Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Partisanship and blogging
Among the more bizarre notions gaining traction in the blogosphere is that there can only be two positions on the Iraq war: a) that it's all good and that the critics are spineless anti-Americans (or, worse, reporters for mainstream media) or b) that it's a calamity from Day One and will surely end in disaster. So those of us who have been critics of aspects of the occupation - from insufficient troop members to deployment of illegal torture, for example - are accused of being fair-weather pro-warriors. Or, because we still back the goals of the original invasion and want Iraq to shift toward democracy, we're deemed Bush lackeys. The problem with this way of looking at things is that the stakes are far higher, it seems to me, than the question of whether you are pro-Bush or anti-Bush. The truth, it seems to me, is that Bush is a very mixed blessing....
[T]he notion that our debates have to be about whose side are you on in terms of domestic politics strikes me as depressing. I understand that partisanship isn't always bad, and indeed inevitable. But the way in which the blogosphere has become more partisan over the last few years, rather than less, strikes me as a disappointment.
Why? Because part of the point of blogging as a medium is that it empowers the individual. In big media, the pressures of conformity can be as great as they are subtle. At the Boston Globe or the Washington Times, you know what you're getting. How many columnists in the mainstream media can be described as unpredictable in partisan terms? How many "liberal" columnists ever praise the president occasionally? How many conservative ones tear him a new one from time to time?...
The reason is subtle pressure from suits and colleagues and readers. But the point of blogging is that it can liberate you from such pressures.
I agree completely. It is a shame and a waste that so many blogs are so predictable in their partisanship.
In my capacity as blogger I try to look at issues and controversies individually. Yes, it is true that when I add up my point of view on the important issues of the day I usually end up actually voting for Republicans. It is also true that as a matter of temperament and personality I prefer businessmen and soldiers to professors and lawyers, and that influences my feelings about candidates. But sustained readers of this blog know that I often criticize Republicans, including or even especially the Bush Administration, on issues with which I disagree. I will continue to do so.
One of the things that I've noticed is that Andrew Sullivan comes in for a tremendous amount of criticism from both sides of the 'sphere. Even the tone of the criticism is the same, whether on Eschaton or any number of righty blogs. Since he blogs, Sullivan obviously spends time out there reading at least some of the very harsh stuff that people write about him. It can't be easy to take that kind of heat from both sides, and I'm sure that this morning's post was to some degree an expression of his frustration at being on the receiving end of so much flak from both directions.
Sullivan's capacity to irritate a lot of people is a reflection of the independence of his thinking, and that is tremendously to his credit. I do not agree with Sullivan on any number of issues, but I respect the fact that he does not engage in an ex ante calculation of the partisan consequences of his writing.
5 Comments:
By 
Unknown, at
Wed Jan 19, 10:18:00 AM:
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jan 20, 07:04:00 AM:
Thanks for the comment, Patton. Certainly food for thought, well-expressed as usual.
If it isn't already obvious, nobody need apologize on this blog for long-windedness. It's what we do.
By K2ENF, at
Thu Jan 20, 10:55:00 AM:
Sullivan complaining about partisanship.
The mind boggles.
By 
, at
Thu Jan 20, 11:10:00 AM:
I suppose one could look at this either as partisanship or thinking from a principled and rationally consistent viewpoint. If one operates from a consistent set of principles, I suppose one will tend to look 'partisan' in the sense that one may come down on one side or the other more often than not. Sullivan is not consistent. Is this true "independence of thought"? Or merely intellectual confusion?
My beefs with Sullivan have been twofold:
1. That he is intellectually inconsistent. He went out of his way to paint the WOT as an issue of primary importance to voters and then decided it took a back seat to gay marriage. My POV is that if you decide there is a genuine threat, it doesn't do one much good to be married if you're dead :) He admits all of Kerry's shortcomings in fighting the WOT and then backed him anyway.
Conservatives were outraged because their pet jumped the reservation fence. I criticized that - he can say what he likes on his own blog - it makes no sense, but it's a free country.
2. That he is capable of better. But then he really doesn't "owe" us anything, I suppose. He's not a public utility.
- Cassandra
By , at
Thu Jan 20, 11:31:00 AM:
another thought (because I can't stand it...)
People tend to assume I've always voted Republican, but ironically this is the first election in my adult life in which I was a registered R. I have actually voted Democrat several times (to my eternal shame, I voted for Jimmy Carter :)
I'm fiscally conservative, but socially quite liberal, more of an Arnold Schwartzenegger RINO-type Republican than anything else. If there were a third party, I'd probably be in it, if the Libertarians made any sense, I might well be one of them, but if you tell KJ, I'll kill you.
It's just that when I reason my way to an opinion, 9 times out of 10, I end up in the R column by default because I can't stomach where the Democrats are.
And honest people can (and do) differ on the value of honest criticism during wartime. My opinion is (and continues to be) that there is way too much carping going on - public opinion is being warped and distorted - the average person has no idea how things are really going over there.
And I'm simply not going to add to the madness. So although I, too, have some doubts, you won't hear me talk about them often. I don't see as much value in it as you do, although I respect your opinion.
Because the truth is, doubt aside, we're there for the duration. We still have to put our heads down and finish the job. And people I know are dying, and the carping often causes more of them to die - it puts heart into the enemy and strengthens their will, just like it did in Vietnam.
And if you don't believe that, ask some of the Marines on the ground about how the fighting picked up when Kerry and his buddies were feasting on Bush and Allawi. They're sick and tired of it. And so am I. Not everything needs to be said. We need to get our heads out of the weeds and concentrate on the big picture - winning. Micromanaging a difficult and complex process is counterproductive and, in the end, a waste of time. We won't know the truth about how this is going for maybe 25 years. Give it time and let it unfold. And have some faith.
- Cass
