Wednesday, November 08, 2006
What does the election mean... for bloggers?
To indulge, perhaps, in a bit of myopia, what will the shift of control in the Congress mean for the tone of the blogosphere?
To paint with a very broad brush, lefty blogs have been far more partisan than righty blogs, at least in the literal sense that the big-traffic lefty blogs have been more explicitly working toward victory for the Democrats than right-wing blogs have done for Republicans. Through the Bush years, conservative bloggers have tended to focus on policy, the war, and "far enemies," including radical Islam and the mainstream media. Around here, we bash on the New York Times and other foreign powers far more than we pick on Democrats, and that is broadly true of most of the well-known conservative bloggers. Sure, there have been eruptions of partisan scorn from the right -- see, e.g., blogswarms around Democratic gaffs during election campaigns (Dean's scream, anything John Kerry might say about the military, etc.) -- but these aberrational moments on most respected righty blogs. The leading lefty blogs, on the other hand, have devoted themselves to beating up on, well, Republicans.
My own view is that this difference is not inherent in leftiness and rightiness, but is an artifact of the historical accident that the blogosphere developed when Republicans were in almost total control of the federal government. Conservatives wrote about policy because they could do something about it or at least influence it, whereas liberals wrote about conservatives with the objective of removing them from office, a precondition to influencing policy from the left.
The question is, will that change now that the Democrats seem to have won control of the Congress? Will the existing large-traffic conservative blogs become more explicitly partisan, adopting the removal of the Democrats from power in 2008 as a core objective? Will the leading lefty blogs begin to talk about the substance of domestic and foreign policy, rather than continuing to beat on the gasping elephant in the corner? Or, is it possible that the patterns established early in the blogosphere will prove tough to break, even with the return of Democrats to power?
Your comments are most welcome.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Nov 08, 08:55:00 AM:
I certainly hope that the level of partisanship in general will decrease! Kos and Americablog would be a lot more pleasant to read if they were a little less shrill. Maybe I can even begin to get along a little better with some of the denizens of this blog, too, now that I don't feel that I have to fight all the time.
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Wed Nov 08, 09:01:00 AM:
TH, with the Executive branch firmly in Republican control for the next two years, with a more conservative Supreme Court after two Bush appointments and with the Senate still a toss-up, Democratic gains in governorships and in the House of Representatives put them back in the game, not in commanding control.
So I'd look for a split between lefty bloggers, emboldened and probably snarky and gunning for the Executive in 2008 with all they can muster, and elected Democrats in Congress, looking to establish credibility with their supporters but also to accomplish something in a closely divided Senate and with Presidential vetos more likely. It won't be enough to be the voice of opposition to Bush policy come election time in 2008 if they haven't been effective at legislating. "Any jackass can kick down a barn", and they'll need to attract centrist voters to build on these gains in that pivotal year.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Nov 08, 09:37:00 AM:
there is not much to add to the greenman's analysis. Well said indeed.
Two general questions occur to me:
First, will the Republicans respond to this is an effective manner?
Next, does this change in the legislature make it imperative that the Democrats more fully state and defend their policy positions?
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Nov 08, 10:39:00 AM:
Conservative/GOP bloggers focused on policy/governance? Is Dave Chappelle writing your material now? Good Lord, all righty GOP bloggers were doing was either (1) directing or (2) chronicling acrimony, finger pointing and name-calling (from "traitor" to worse), etc. etc. The focus was power, and ruling, not governing. There's a big difference. The election results today show that ye who sows the wind, so ye reap the whirlwind. Yes, a lot of intelligent voters apparently DIDN'T think that Saddam Hussein had a damn thing to do with 9-11. Yes, a lot of intelligent voters apparently DIDN'T think that gay marriage was more important than the phoney-boloney aspects of Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Yes, a lot of intelligent voters--other than those rednecks in Tennessee--apparently DID realize that brothers like Mike Steele, Lynn Swan and Ken Blackwell were black humonculi of Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove. Bravo for Hal Ford, Jr. by the way. My golf buddy here in DC. A young black male Democrat who almost becomes senator from Tennessee despite the defamatory commercials and yes, blogger insults. I'd say it's a moral victory, as the new senator from Tennessee will be looking over his shoulder constantly.
In the House, what can I say that you don't already know but won't admit? When you have strident ideologues and rottweilers running things, sooner or later they will overreach and self-destruct and elevate hypocrisy to a high art. It happened in 1996-97, and apparently Gingrich's warning to these bastards went unheeded. But far more sickening and sinister was the utter abdication of Legislative power to the Executive over everything from consumer protection and the environment to the "war on terror" and this morass in Iraq. The House of Representives acted as the Roman Senate ceding absolute power to Caesar. Rome's heritage as a Republic died when that happen, all on the pretext that "security" demanded it. The House urinated away our heritage as a beacon to the world, a nation of laws, of liberty, of due process--all that sets us apart from our daylight enemies and shadow enemies like China or Pakistan.
Righty bloggers, thoughtfully and dispassionately analyzing policy...hmmm...I actually iunderstand why you would say that, as you helped buttress this bubble of orthodoxy that those around the President manufactured, and the GOP- controlled Congress tended so lovingly. Within that bubble, you are kings and princes. Outside the bubble, we're ignorant or savage or carnal or fools. Well, bubbles aren't meant to be permanent, despite your best-laid plans. Maybe the lessons will be learned. Cooperation, diversity, discussion, fruitful debate and leadership will become the hallmark of our government. Somehow I doubt it, though...
By Cassandra, at
Wed Nov 08, 10:54:00 AM:
I think Tim's right.
I'd also look for people to continue to behave the way they've been behaving.
There are people on the reich...err...right who enjoy bashing for the sake of bashing but contrary to what my dear friend Screwy thinks, for the most part I can't get exercised about the 'throw the bums out' school of blogging. It's a bore.
If someone is in office I presume that absent some REALLY EGREGIOUS offense they are staying in office and I'm not about to harrass them. I may snark every now and then but I'm not going to try to bring them down.
Just about the only exception to that in my book is John Kerry, who anyone breathing knows I detest. But when a man is running for president his record is fair game. Period. Especially when he keeps bringing it up while saying 'can't we all just forget about Vietnam?" while flashing his medals in your face. :)
The problem is that neither side wants to admit that the other side has a point, as the comment above's remarks illustrate rather well. Apparently only his side has the 'right' err...'left' of it :D
Ah well. Back to lobbing digital spitballs at the loyal opposition! Who, by the way, don't know what they're talking about. Thank GOD I am here to talk some SENSE into those Godless immoral Blue State Commie heathens!
Sheesh.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Nov 08, 11:01:00 AM:
PS...in case there is a recount in Va, I'm holding you to your "Sore Loserman" rants from Florida, 2000.
Oooooh...why can George Allen (who is just Rick Santorum with more weight on him, and slightly dumber at that) just concede? Why put the commonwealth through this pain? Blah blah, blah blah. hahahaha
By knighterrant, at
Wed Nov 08, 03:19:00 PM:
A democracy requires an active dialog between opposing sides and that has been missing in the hyper-partisan government we have had for the past four years. As a small traffic left wing blogger I welcome the chance to discuss rational policy changes and have a chance of being listened to. I won't stop being critical when it is required - I will continue to give out my monthly Ugly American award - but I prefer using my intelligence for more than picking at flaws.
But, give me a week or so to savor victory. It has been a while. And, as you may remember, winning is fun.
By , at
Wed Nov 08, 04:38:00 PM:
I agree with Chris Chambers in principle, but not necessarily in all the detail.
In 1994, before bloggers but at the height of online newsgroups, I heard G. Gordon Liddy say: "God has lifted a plague from the nation!" After 14 years, the party has neglected the fields, abused the livestock, and squandered the seed corn. So, it's appropriate that the electorate has brought a new plague upon the nation.
I'm sure we'll survive this plague and perhaps learn something from it.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Nov 08, 05:55:00 PM:
For the record, I very much hope that George Allen, who I have never supported, does not litigate. A procedural recount is one thing, but litigation is another. That's a very dangerous road to go down, and I hope Republicans avoid it.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Nov 08, 07:01:00 PM:
Eventually as power corrupts we'll get to see a split between the Democrats, the uber-liberal, and the anti-authoritarians (The hacks, the quacks, and the flacks). They may have unified against the Bush agenda, but it's something else entirely to move on from there. Even so, I think that's healthy.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Nov 08, 09:02:00 PM:
I think much of the future behavior of the Democrats depends on if they get the Senate or not. A lot of them made very bold (and nasty) promises for if they got power, like cutting off funding to the military until they are withdrawn from Iraq, or seeking impeachment hearings and special investigations into this, that, and the other.
If they only win one house, they might still try to pursue these things (i.e. pander to their idealogues) which will make the next two years very long and gruesome indeed; especially, I think, with a communist like Pelosi in charge.
If they win both houses, I suspect that they will not do such things (to the dismay of said idealogues) because with party majorities they might conceivably pull them off and cause real damage to the country. I'm betting that patriotism (which I can't dare question, recall) will outweigh petty vengeance. Which it ought, if they want to keep their majority.
I think tossing Rumsfeld was a great political move by the administration. Whether by accident or design he had become the focus of criticism against the war; by removing him Bush has yanked the carpet out from under one of the Dems' biggest issues. Hopefully, by shutting down their single biggest screaming point this will make the next couple of years somewhat more bearable; can't call for the sacking of an unemployed man, after all, and we've got to give the new guy time to try his ideas, clean up Rumsfelds obviously monumental mess, and turn things around, right?
By Cassandra, at
Thu Nov 09, 08:05:00 AM:
Actually Dawnfire, it will be interesting to see how much difference that really makes in the end.
How much time and effort have we spent going over decisions made three years ago rather than what we ought to be doing going forward?
I think, rightly or wrongly, part of Bush's reluctance to sack Rumsfeld was his perception (an accurate one) that getting rid of him would do precisely NOTHING to stem the flood tide of criticism. Now it will be "but you should have done it sooner", or, "mistakes were make, and you must apologize for them," or, "yes, he is gone but you still have not atoned for your role in this mess".
Rumsfeld was a useful lightning rod for criticism and I think many ostensibly smart pundits fail to see that with him gone, the scalp hunters will now go directly for Bush's jugular.
God help him now, for there is no one standing in the way to draw off their ire. He's not as "dumb", nor as politically tone deaf, as some of y'all seem to think.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Thu Nov 09, 05:33:00 PM:
"A lot of them made very bold (and nasty) promises for if they got power, like cutting off funding to the military until they are withdrawn from Iraq..."
If you're gonna fling mud like that, at least fling it at the person responsible. Let's have some names (if there are any).
By Tom the Redhunter, at
Thu Nov 09, 10:40:00 PM:
Ok, all you silly lefties can just relax, bad 'ol George Allen conceded earlier today. But he's a better man than your chicken little Al Gore will ever be.
By , at
Fri Nov 10, 01:12:00 AM:
This election will have a significant effect on bloggers. The calculation is eay. Ultra-left wing control of the traditional media has weakened because the media has weakened.
The internet (and talk radio) have increased in power and have given normal folks an opportunity to communicate and inform. The is unacceptable to the neocommunists.
What will happen is that the dems will argue that the internet is similar to the 'phone system and should be taxed like the 'phone system. Once taxes are in place, rules for "offense language" and "hate talk" will develop and bureaucrats will make sure that free expression becomes a left wing activity and normaldiscussion becomes offensive and hateful.
The dems will work to ensure that never again is an objective researcher allowed to spread the poison that a well respected, award winning journalist forged documents to support a lie.
