Trevino: ....And your enemies closer.
By trevino Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries - MartinAKnight
This piece originally appeared at joshua.trevino.at.
Longtime participants in the political-blog world know that I began my sojourn there with the now-defunct tacitus.org. It was a broadly conservative blog, but unlike most, it attracted a mostly left-wing commentariat. When I turned over the site to the users in summer 2004, it went increasingly left, till much of its content was indistinguishable from that of its spinoff, the hard-left Obsidian Wings. This didn't bother me much in the 2002-2004 period, as I believed in the possibility and potential of right-left collaboration and communication. After 2004, the left wing became increasingly bitter and paranoid, and things soured: especially after that November's reelection of the President, the tone and intent of the online left veered towards unrelenting hostility. In hindsight, it is clear that this was the same period that the command and coordination mechanisms of the self-proclaimed “netroots” coalesced. By the first half of 2006, things had changed dramatically. Multiple events convinced me that there was no further point in engaging with a milieu that claims to own reality.
The most prominent involved the online-left-driven harassment of friends and their families; and the final nail in the coffin was the online left's reaction to Online Integrity. Presented with the opportunity to shape and direct a general commitment to basic decency, the left refused, partly on grounds of paranoia, and partly on an unwillingness to divest itself of its potent arsenal of cruelty and threat. (Not to exaggerate -- most antagonistic blogging is something like this; but there are the unpleasant exceptions.) Whatever the merits of particular individuals, then, this is all one needs to know about them as a group: they are angry, they are without restraint, and they see themselves as engaged in a frankly eliminationist struggle.
Read on ...
All this is prelude: the intent here is not to reiterate, for the umpteenth time, the sins of the online left. The issue now, all the above having been established, is why we continue to see well-meaning and intelligent members of the online right engage with, and thereby legitimize, the key figures in the opposite camp. Two examples from the past week spring immediately to mind.
First, there is Republican consultant David All's newly-announced collaboration with Jerome Armstrong, the “DomeNation” YouTube show. The first episode, featuring a softball interview with John Kerry, is predictably banal. “If you're dealing from the truth,” intones the Senator, “you're dealing from a position of strength, and you don't have anything to hide.” He then launches into a rant about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. “Tell me about your Harley-Davidson,” responds All. “I'm on the internet all the time,” affirms Kerry. Hard-hitting stuff: watch out, Moyers. The problem here is not merely that a self-proclaimed Republican activist is promulgating -- to his self-proclaimed Republican activist peers -- gauzy and unchallenged self-promotion by a leading Democrat. Beyond this, is is that he is doing so with Jerome Armstrong. Armstrong, as one may recall, is the “blogfather” of the hard-left, pro-Democrat DailyKos; he is a known stock tout who has been disciplined by the Securities and Exchange Commission; and he is a known proponent of astrology as a means of political prediction. (Rather hilariously, he describes his astrological endeavors here as an exercise in “predictive mathematical discipline.”) Armstrong dropped out of online activism for a while after his disreputable past came to light last year. Whether he should or should not have is irrelevant: what is relevant is that a Republican activist is helping rehabilitate him. David All wants to be a leading light of the Republican renaissance online (see, for example, his TechRepublican effort, based apparently upon the default WordPress template); so why not, say, work with and promote Republicans, instead of partnering with -- and legitimizing -- a man who is the font of so much of what's wrong with the left?
Second is the astonishing sight of Matt Stoller as a listed guest of the Heritage Foundation, at an event to be held on Thursday, 10 May. The event is a promotion of the Open House Project, which seeks to exploit the areas “where the internet and Congressional procedures come together.” It's a worthy goal, and the press conference for the release of its inaugural report did, in fact, feature House GOP Leader Boehner. It also kicked off with a personal note of thanks to Nancy Pelosi; and the OHP touts itself as a fulfillment of Pelosi's vision. (That press conference video, by the bye, was uploaded by PoliticsTV, a pro-Democrat, left-wing outfit.) This is all vaguely unwise in itself, but it is the addition of Stoller that pushes things into farcical territory. It's not merely that Stoller is routinely pompous, condescending, and dishonest in his public activities, nor that be believes “that the left is correct on most of the policy issues of our time; we’re smarter, fairer, more thoughtful, and more republican (little r) than the right-wing.” Even as Stoller gorges himself on hors d'oeuvres courtesy of Heritage's donors tomorrow, keep in mind that when the tables are turned, he is not nearly so gracious to us and ours. My movement colleague Rob Bluey, who is heading up this event, is a good and generous man, who shows his better nature in inviting a left-wing hack to a right-wing institution. But when other right-wing institutions reach out to leftist luminaries, Stoller pitches a fit: exhibit A being his leadership of the successful campaign to force the cancellation of a Democratic debate on Fox News, the latter being part of the VRWC in Stoller's mind. The difference between Fox, with its debatable advancement of the GOP, and Heritage, with its definite advancement of the GOP, is simple: Heritage helps advance the cause of one Matthew Stoller.
Where, then, does this leave us and our rules of engagement with the other side? Unlike them, we should not fall into the self-serving fiction that they have no morality, sincerity, or justice on their side. Individuals are individuals first, and members of a collective second: that much is conservative, and we should hew to it even as they do not. But we should adhere to a rule of reciprocity and self-interest when we work together. That means not giving publicity and legitimacy to amoral operators like Stoller, who will drink our wine and then kick us in the shins; and it means not lending credibility to thoroughly discredited men like Armstrong, who benefits immeasurably by the sanction All gives him. Once upon a time, the blogosphere was supposed to bring a new measure of openness, honesty, and collaboration to public life, and we would all be able to work together and reach out across ideological and partisan lines. That future never came. It's time to live in the actual present, where we are in a sort of war -- and our foes come to us only as prisoners, converts, or under flag of truce.
Inoffensive, lets-get-along, reasonable, mild-mannered Moe Lane.
That's the point at which the turn toward collective insanity became irreversible.
We are but warriors for the working-day.
you're done now.
I admire your fortitude in having stayed in the fray, for having dueled with the dimwits for so long, but to reverse Koestler's remark about Chambers, you have come back from hell empty handed. This was and is inevitable.
I'm not sure how decline is measured in left wing sites. What sort of barometer or measurement can capture the incessant bombardment, the fascinating combination, of blindness, moral filth, beast like stupidity, and neo-natal self congratulation.
Some trend may be visible over time in the leftroots but the seeds were always there, if anything they are just digging a little further down, bit by bit, in the muck.
Politics has become vengeance. For now it's restricted to investigations, law, the creation of non-scandalous scandals and the like. But the future is well worth thinking about.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Charles, you're welcome to stay or go -- I, for the record, would rather you stay -- but worrying about the three, six, twelve, howevermany folks in the commetariat you with whom you can't agree politically is kinda silly. Indeed, Trevino's one of the smartest cats I've met online or off, but this whole post and topic is kinda silly.
Obviously, there will be folks with whom you will have passionate disagreements on political issues. There will also be folks who adopt an online personae of ultimate assholitry. Some will be quite clever about it -- e.g., Harley on the left or Macallan on the right (both formerly of the lost, lamented Tacitus.org). Some won't. And I say this having mixed it up with both Harley and Mac: One of the benefits of having opinions that don't necessarily fit a right-left divide is that you have plenty of enemies.
When I post on ObWi on a political topic (full disclosure: I'm last remaining of the original three), I expect nearly all heat. For instance, of the 300-400 comments generated by my posts on Somalia and Ethiopia, probably 4 or 5 backed my position -- which was the Administration's position -- and 5 or 6 others were mildly sympathetic. A similar revolt occurs when I mention that I think RvW should be overruled, or that gay marriage should not be imposed by judicial decree. So what? It's freakin' words on a page, and they can be quite insightful. Sometimes, they even make your arguments better or cause you to change your mind. (Admittedly, just-as-heated disputes have occurred here when I note that I don't favor a total abortion ban or post in favor of legislatively-created gay marriage.)
Indeed, the only real sin in the blogosphere is to take yourself and your side too seriously: to accept dispensed without examination or froth-at-the-mouth without reason. Don't get me wrong: that certainly occurs on ObWi. Trevino's also right that it almost always occurs at ObWi from the left. We're a left-leaning blog, even though I'm not a particularly left-leaning kinda guy. But I don't think that the answer is simply to close the conversation.
Heck, I've seen posts here that -- political merits aside -- are as frothy as any at Daily Kos. It's also been clear to me that, sometimes, the poster(s) in question has no idea whatsoever that he or she hasn't written an erudite defense of conservatism, but a cheap polemic. If I have to read one more piece comparing a political cause-du-jour to the Lord of the Rings -- yes, Mr. Cella, I'm looking at you -- I may very well come out in favor of book burning so I can add Tolkein's oeuvre to the pyre. Yet, the same folks (including, of course, Mr. Cella) have also written very thoughtful, well-reasoned pieces. Do I decide I wanna lave the field, take my ball home, and never read and/or engage with such persons again? Absolutely not. You gotta take the good with the bad. As it is with the left, it is with the right. And if you're seeing a particular dislike of the Bush administration's policies, it flows from the general divisiveness that's been around since the Clinton battles -- as well as the fact that Bush has had a number of unambiguous screwups (not counting what you might think of his handling of the Iraq war).
Incidentally, I'm not so proud as to think that I haven't, from time to time, worshipped at the altar of mediocrity, assholitry, or both. Indeed, I keep a special shrine to that effect in the corner of my bedroom.
von
p.s. Far as I'm concerned, Moe Lane's reasons for leaving ObWi are his own. It may be precisely as Trevino claims, but it's not for Trevino to claim.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
The point can be expanded from the blogosphere -- the narrowish context of my post above -- to Trevino's broader claims that polemicist/partisan X is dishonest, stupid, wrongheaded, etc. and thus should not engaged. If they are those things, what's the fear in engaging them with eyes open? And isn't it fairly self-defeating to leave the field when the games about to get on? Really, folks, the Heritage Foundation is not the legitimacy-creating body that Trevino seems to think it is. It does some good work and some bad, and it has its own agenda like everyone else. But Heavan forfend if they invite disliked Lefty X to their party!
This post is taking the whole matter far too seriously.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
This post is taking the whole matter far too seriously.
Irony much?
By the way, I'm tempted to think this and its overlong kowalski parent are the result of a lack of sleep -- you listed the singular as personae. More accurately, Thomas Crown has deliberately adopted a completely obnoxious online persona, because he finds this helps him in what he does so much more.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
As an institution, it's about as close as there is to such a thing on the right.
We are but warriors for the working-day.
The only thing that happens is that you get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I did write "just about" for a reason. I haven't shut the door all the way, mostly because I've gone through the very reasoning you laid out. But I have recently made a conscious decision not to engage with an increasing number of the hardline intolerants. With those, conversation has closed because of the content of what they've written. In a way, because of their tone and incivility, they're the ones who are really closing the conversation, not me. I'm always willing to meet a reasonable fella halfway.
The other reason for my infrequency there is that when I write a post that doesn't conform to their accepted mindset, comments spill over, and reading and responding to the worthwhile and semi-worthwhile comments is time-consuming, laborious and not very fun, and I do this for fun. So the topic has to be an important one for me to be motivated enough to post there.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
For all that we regularly castigate GOP'ers in Congress for their lack of a killer instinct and slavish devotion to "bipartisanship", we don't help matters by things like this.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
No interaction with libs, no communication, no compromise.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
When I read a quote like this:
"That means not giving publicity and legitimacy to amoral operators like Stoller, who will drink our wine and then kick us in the shins."
I would then posit that all libs are "amoral operators." Disagree with me if you like, but no need for name calling.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
This is one of the few sites that seems to be able to stand up to lefties. The typical pattern is lefties show up, pick fights and call names. When they are responded in kind, they whine to the host, demand an end to the ad homs by the vile redneck racist buhitler scumbag supporters. Host obliges. Lefty continues picking fights and complaining until site is destroyed or even better from the lefty pov, host resigns and allows a triumvarit to enforce behavior rules that only seem to censor the conservatives.
What is different here is the strictly enforce drules by conservatives.
I would submit that Josh, who lost his site as described above, is on to something in the larger public square. This fight between left and right is only close because we grant the lefty hacks access, standing and power they will never grant us. The President exemplifies this. Instead of calling the demohack poultroonery on this war early and hard and clearly, he declined to lower himself to the fight.
Now we have corrupt democrats like Pelosi Feinstein and Reid declaring terrorist victory in this war and cramming defeat down our throats.
The lesson is to take no prisoners and to tolerate no slime form the left.
thank you.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
You are spot on.
Stoller, Armstrong and others will use the graciousness (or perhaps naivete??) of those on the right to advance their own agenda, which is of course, distinctly at odds with ours.
When entering into such partnerships, conservatives need to have realistic expectations regarding the potential progress that can be made.
I've responded to this helping of criticism.
And so has Redstate contributor, Robert Bluey.
===================
David All
David All Group
===================
Whatever the merits of particular individuals, then, this is all one needs to know about them as a group: they are angry, they are without restraint, and they see themselves as engaged in a frankly eliminationist struggle.
Here's what nobody gets on the right, and what George Bush never understood. We are dealing with people who are Leninists. Not that they think of themselves as the heirs to the throne of V.I. Lenin, but they shamelessly use his tactics to achieve power. Jeff Goldstein had a rather dry take on the situation in this post at Protein Wisdom. Money quote:
In the course of my proddings over the last few years, I’ve extracted, from the likes of (Glenn) Greenwald(s) and Mona, confessions that they, and many of their supporters in the ranks of “true conservatives” (read: progressives who started out in the blogosphere as cutout conservatives in order to claim a convenient political epiphany), are willing to do anything and everything—including lying (which they would reframe as finessing the narrative)—to achieve their ends.
People at Kos, MyDD, AmericaBlog, and other websites of that ilk are not merely engaged in argument. They want to destroy their opponents and drive them from politics altogether. They are driven to this by the self-righteous anger that criminalizes all opposition to what they believe. They reserve unto themselves the right to alter behavior and reality to serve their ends.
And so, Joe and Val can make up stuff about Yellowcake to create a legend in front of a Congressional Committee. The fact that the British still stand behind their intelligence about Saddam's efforts to find uranium hexafloride in Africa does not stop same Waxman from asserting that the Secretary of State is lying to the country. The larger Democratic Party chooses to destroy a Presidency by any means at its disposal rather than play any constructive role in the excercise of foreign policy.
Anything is possible when the object of the excercise is not the truth, but the excercise of Lenin's Great Question: "who rules over whom?"
Bill Clinton once said something rather telling: "It's hard for your opponent to talk when your fist is in his mouth". One look at the hapless, clueless Bush White House should give truth to that maxim. Republicans must learn to fight without remorse, and must learn to put the fist in, figuratively of course.
This is not to say that we cannot cooperate with Democrats, but the present activist base is too filled with anger and hatred to merit anything but the most extreme caution in any approach.
Only when we learn to fight relentlessly, to organize relentlessly, and to get out the vote better than the other side, will we learn to win.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
my working life dealing with the Left's stormtroopers, public employee unions. The first five years or so after AFSCME acquired our largest unit, most of their reps were DC staff or "professional" organizers. Negotiated our first agreement with them with all the reps being DC staff, including their general counsel. One of my prouder achievements is my role in the fact that that first contract cost them over two years and almost $20MM for a 7K member bargaining unit; they'll never make it back and still haven't been able to elect a member of our Congressional delegation, their true motive for coming here, after twenty years of trying.
These people are unrelentingly nasty and completely amoral; the revolution carries its own morality. You cannot "do business" with them; they lie, they backbite, they try to set you up, and they do it all the while telling the world what good people they are and how they're only interested in the "working people."
Ann Coulter has one thing (at least) wrong, you don't talk to liberals: you screw them before they screw you. There was no point in trying to settle anything with them; any move to compromise was just seen as a sign of weakness and they upped the ante. Even when they were right, and sometimes they were, if you just tried to give them what they wanted, they'd try to find some way to pick a fight over it or up the ante so that they could take credit for taking it from the employer rather than the employer having just done the right thing.
You NEVER engage in real discussion with them and you NEVER admit anything. It is easier in the collective bargaining arena than in the world of political action or political discourse because collective bargaining is a Marxist dynamic that has formal methods by which disputes can be resolved. I could, and did, just refuse to discuss things with them; I'd just tell them to file a grievance or unfair labor practice if they had something to say to me.
Whenever anyone on the Left tells you that you should "reach out," what they're really saying is that your hand is still too far away to bite. And yet our fools in DC still insist on being "bipartisan" with these people.
In Vino Veritas
As for me, I'm just about done with ObWi. The commenters have gotten nothing but worse over time, and there's more than a handful where there's no possibility of civil discourse, unless I have a Road to Damascus moment and become a liberal, which ain't gonna happen.