Chest thumpin'
Matt Yglesias, as usual in my book, gets it right when it comes to the reality of the power of the liberal blogosphere. He pretty much says 'not so much.'
My main critique of the netroots would be that I sense a large degree of willingness to elevate shrill rhetoric over actual policy. Dick Gephardt, having done more than any other member of the Democratic Party to land the country in Iraq, was able to recapture the hearts of many bloggers by calling Bush a "miserable failure."
It warmed my heart to hear that line, too, just as I thrilled to Hackett's Bush-bashing. But I'd much rather live with a moderate tone and an an anti-war policy than live with the reverse. Liberals need to be clear about what our priorities are.
Yglesias cites the example of Paul Hackett, the wonderboy of Daily Kos and other liberal bloggers. That, in reality, Hackett's criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy was mostly words and that, contrary to what many liberal bloggers believed, he was actually more in tune with the oft-bashed moderates of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton by saying 'we really can't just leave right now, things would get worse and not better.'
My problem with some elements of the liberal blogosphere is their self-inflated sense of ego and importance. Granted, the netroots has come a mighty long way and has done wondrous things (the fundraising efforts for Hackett were staggering and sites like Daily Kos deserve praise), but they seem to take it a tad too far. I've seen more than one post from places like Daily Kos implying the reason Hackett faired so well was solely because of the blogosphere's support, when I would argue it was the candidate and his positions that connected with the voters.
I'm with Yglesias on his rationale - demanding ideological purity and harsh rhetoric isn't the best course of action when it comes to fielding the best candidates across the country.
My main critique of the netroots would be that I sense a large degree of willingness to elevate shrill rhetoric over actual policy. Dick Gephardt, having done more than any other member of the Democratic Party to land the country in Iraq, was able to recapture the hearts of many bloggers by calling Bush a "miserable failure."
It warmed my heart to hear that line, too, just as I thrilled to Hackett's Bush-bashing. But I'd much rather live with a moderate tone and an an anti-war policy than live with the reverse. Liberals need to be clear about what our priorities are.
Yglesias cites the example of Paul Hackett, the wonderboy of Daily Kos and other liberal bloggers. That, in reality, Hackett's criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy was mostly words and that, contrary to what many liberal bloggers believed, he was actually more in tune with the oft-bashed moderates of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton by saying 'we really can't just leave right now, things would get worse and not better.'
My problem with some elements of the liberal blogosphere is their self-inflated sense of ego and importance. Granted, the netroots has come a mighty long way and has done wondrous things (the fundraising efforts for Hackett were staggering and sites like Daily Kos deserve praise), but they seem to take it a tad too far. I've seen more than one post from places like Daily Kos implying the reason Hackett faired so well was solely because of the blogosphere's support, when I would argue it was the candidate and his positions that connected with the voters.
I'm with Yglesias on his rationale - demanding ideological purity and harsh rhetoric isn't the best course of action when it comes to fielding the best candidates across the country.
posted by Jmac at 12:20 PM
5 Comments:
Why, Johnathan, to your last claim that ideological purity is not what a party needs?
Just my humble opinion. It applies more to a candidate, rather than party. It's going to be incredibly difficult for a person to find the 'ideal' candidate out there. There are lots of folks who I'm high on - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. - but I don't agree with them on everything.
My poke at ideological purity is because many regular posters/readers at sites like Daily Kos often strongly denounce different candidates and/or politicians because of one issue or one vote (Obama, for instance, got ripped for backing the Bankruptcy Bill earlier this year). It just seems a little short-sighted in my book.
It probably is short-sighted, but compromise candidates one feels ill about voting for don't always do better.
Bringing ideological purity into the game of power is like bringing honor or moral scruples in. You'll sink like a brick with that kind of baggage.
My problem with some elements of the liberal blogosphere is their self-inflated sense of ego and importance.
Exactly. Who gives a FUCK how many eyeballs see your blog, what does your blog motivate people to DO is the operative question here.
Post a Comment
<< Home