David Frum has an article in the new National Interest about the blogs and the foreign policy community.
Michael O’Hanlon, as readers of The National Interest will know, is the editor of the Iraq Index, a source relied upon by people of almost all points of view. He served in the Congressional Budget Office during the last Democratic majority and has strongly criticized the Bush Administration almost from Inauguration Day. What makes him such a detested target?To find the answer, revert for a minute to a key point in Gideon Rose’s above-quoted paragraphs: The bloggers’ attacks are generally aimed at the think-tank world. Which is to say: at members of the FPC who are currently out of power. Which is to say: at Democrats. Especially at moderate Democrats, internationalist-minded Democrats, Democrats who in 2002–2003 expressed support for the Iraq War. The bloggers hurling the invective are Democrats too, usually more liberal Democrats.
The blogosphere of 2007 is a predominantly liberal and Democratic place. This was not always the case: As recently as 2005, former Vice President Al Gore castigated “digital brownshirts” who bullied and intimidated critics of George Bush. He would have no such complaint today. Today, it is the critics of George Bush who do the brown-shirting.
This has some bearing on a question that I have been discussing a lot recently: what will happen to the blog world after the election?
Assume, for the nonce, that come January 2009, there will be a Democrat taking the oath of office. What will the blogosphere look like?
Compared to the netroots, right now, the rest of the political blogosphere is a demoralized and listless place. Libertarians are abandoning their mild preference in favor of Republicans, not for the Democrats, but for despair. On the conservative side, even ardent supporters of the president have tired of him. Everyone is out of plausible policy proposals. What is there to be in favor of? More tax cuts? An even more aggressive foreign policy?
Meanwhile, the netroots is ascendant. They feel their hands closing around the reins of power, and they like the way it feels. The war in Iraq may be a bad idea, but they're preparing to kick some ass in the political battles to come.
But what happens when power shifts over? The netroots is fundamentally an opposition movement. They argue among themselves, to be sure, but they have solidarity built on their common hatred of George Bush. The move from never-never policy proposals to actually having to talk about things that might get done will be somewhat disconcerting. And as executing policy starts to require compromise and not a little hypocrisy, the pure ideological fervor that animates the netroots will start to dissipate, as it has among the disillusioned conservative blogs.
Meanwhile, I expect the handover will actually be good for the rest of the blog world. We may not agree on much, but we can probably unite around hatred of our new presiden'ts policies. I would wager a fair amount that the libertarian flirtation with the Democratic party doesn't last much beyond March 1st, 2009. As libertarians know too well, being in the opposition can be fun. Having full range of motion on one's opinion muscles feels surprisingly good, especially if you've spent years assuming contorted positions in order to support the last administration.
I don't know how much you read Daily Kos, but they seem pretty set on continuing to improve the quality of Democrats (in their eyes, and I tend to agree) by trying to get rid of some DINOs and "corporate" Democracts people with long, sordid histories who are generally unresponsive to the idea of "people-powered" democracy. Think Joe Biden (Mr. Credit Card Industry), Jay Rockefeller (Mr. George Bush rubber stamp) and Jack Murtha (Mr. Pork Barrel) and even Robert Byrd (also Mr. Pork Barrel). Hell even Harry Reid (Mr. Can't-manage-a-Senate).
They want a less-corrupt, more honest Democratic party.
Also, there's going to be a new brand-face, indeed a whole new vanguard of Republicanism out there once the Administration is gone. And these people will be making stupid statements and ridiculous accusations for time eternal. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (if he survives the election) will be around to kick around, so to speak. There wasn't really a blogosphere circa 1994-1999, so we have no data about how the blogosphere will act when the party the majority of it supports is in power.
Am I reading this right, that McArdle's politics is dedicated not to producing desirable outcomes, such lower taxes, but simply to having something to say? So that she would prefer to have a Democratic president in office, raising taxes and giving her something to complain about, rather than having a Republican president doing the same old boring tax cut thing?
People like that make me sick. I want to be left alone to work in the productive sector of the economy and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I don't want my taxes raised so that pundits have something to talk about.
"what will happen to the blog world after the election?"
I'm thinking that as web traffic declines, bloggers will lose interest. At that point, a blogger job fair will be held. It will be assumed that those who show up will not be missed, and they will be drugged and abducted. Suitable specimens will be frozen and periodically harvested for organs.
"Libertarians are abandoning their mild preference in favor of Republicans, not for the Democrats, but for despair... On the conservative side, even ardent supporters of the president have tired of him. Everyone is out of plausible policy proposals. What is there to be in favor of? More tax cuts? An even more aggressive foreign policy?"-MM
There's some truth in this, but only some. When Hillary Clinton advocates a "sharing society" instead of an "ownership society" or "on your own society" it should be clear to libertarians whom to support.
As for conservatives, I'm not sure they're out of "plausible polcy proposals." Fred Thompson has some good ideas about the big entitlements and many of the Republican candidates are talking about tax cuts. Why not cut taxes? The economy seems to be softening, so tax cuts would offer both short-term stimulus and long-term growth (through improved incentives). John McCain has been talking about reducing spending and, unlike many Republicans in Congress, he means it.
As for foreign policy, most Republicans of substance agree that we ought to continue to wage the war on Islamofascism aggressively but conduct our diplomacy with more finesse.
ROFL, Njorl. I'm reminded of the old "imminent death of the Net predicted" cliche'.
Totally wrong. It's not about hating George Bush, which is a popular RNC/right-wing talking point (and they thank you for promoting it, Megan). It's Bushism, not Bush himself, that is hated. Bushism as in this administration's style and policy choices. Bush the man is more a figure of ridicule than an object of hatred.
Much as it looked in December, 2008. Look, here's the deal. If the election were held today, we'd be inaugurating President Clinton in January 2009. If you go through all the "netroots" sites scouring posts on Hillary Clinton, I bet you'd find a (perhaps surprisingly, to you) large proportion of them being critical of Clinton's policy proposals. She is not the preferred candidate of the "netroots," Edwards is. So while the "netroots" will be happy that a Democrat has taken over the Presidency, by no means will they then turn around 180 degrees and be as supportive of President Clinton as they were negative towards President Bush.
Wanna bet? Because I am virtually certain that precisely the opposite will happen: every compromise, every "little hypocrisy" in the name of "executing policy" will generate the same howls of protest that happen TODAY. I give you the FISA bill fiasco this past week as evidence. You could not be more wrong in your analysis. Atrios, digby and Kos are not going to close up shop come January 2009.
If the MSM has taught us anything, it's that bad news sells. If there's a Democratic president in '09, there will be more activity on the internet's right wing, but I don't think the left will diminish altogether. There will still be Republicans for them to hate, but more than that I think that there will be plenty of leftist hate against the Democratic president -- especially if Clinton wins. The blogosphere is here to stay, in all its vitriol and snarkiness.
Since when has there been an administration close enough to a libertarian viewpoint to inspire libertarians to assume "contorted positions in order to support the last administration." I'd think libertarians need more exercise in those positions.
Megan, you need to dust off Jane's law and start promoting it again. There is a whole generation of blog readers who have never seen it and haven't had the chance yet to marvel at its profound yet simple message.
Why not cut taxes? - rwe
Who says the right has no new ideas?
National Review did well circulation-wise when Bill Clinton was in office; it has done poorly with Bush in office. The Nation did poorly circulation-wise when Bill Clinton was in office; it has done well with Bush in office.
I predict that the opinion blogosphere will see shifts in traffic and fervor that reflect the similar shifts that happen in opinion magazine circulation.
Now, why do we see this effect? Two reasons:
1) It is fun for someone with limited wealth to imagine what they would do with the money if they won the lottery. Similarly, fantasies of what you would do with power are fun when you don't actually have the power. But it is quite rare for multimillionaires to sit around and fantasize about what they would do with their millions of dollars. Opinion writers can spin fantasies, but they can't exercise power.
2) When you criticize the opposition, you're criticizing people who aren't (likely) your readers; when you criticize your allies for being too compromising, moderate, or backsliding, you're criticizing your readers who agree with the compromises. So, either you have to let the fervor out of your writing, or you'll alienate many of the readers you gained in the opposition . . . or both.
"McArdle's politics is dedicated not to producing desirable outcomes, such lower taxes, but simply to having something to say? So that she would prefer to have a Democratic president in office, raising taxes and giving her something to complain about, rather than having a Republican president doing the same old boring tax cut thing?
People like that make me sick. I want to be left alone to work in the productive sector of the economy and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I don't want my taxes raised so that pundits have something to talk about.
Posted by y81 | December 19, 2007 4:24 PM
y81, that's the way it seems, and yours is a position I'd underwrite.
The blogosphere's excellence comes not from its partisanship as much as from it's highlighting and uncovering of stories not covered by the main stream media. There is little of worth in the mainstream media today. It is too compromised.
I enjoy left wing blogs now, perhaps after the election and the democrats win, I'll read more right wing blogs.
I want the truth telling you can find in the blogs. Sure you have to work to sort out the real from the not so real, but it's there.
Let's hope it's vibrancy remains, that it is not censored or co-opted out of existence. It is such a joy to see the pompous, the self-righteous, and the liars caught and hung in the light of day.