“There’s something happening here
What it is ain’t exactly clear
There’s a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down.”– “For What It’s Worth”, Buffalo Springfield, 1967 (written by Stephen Stills, emphasis mine)
i·con·o·clast (n.) One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions; One who destroys sacred religious images.
After we got back from the trip, I buried myself in finishing up the latest project, and only got time to spend wandering the blogs this weekend.
And today, I find myself, in the jargon of 1967, kinda bummed.
I’ve met “Calpundit” Kevin Drum and his lovely (and tolerant – blogger’s partner has to be) wife, and I’ve corresponded with “Instapundit” Glenn Reynolds, who strikes me as an interesting and more than smart fella; sometimes I’ve agreed and sometimes not with each of them.
But this weekend I went back and looked at the last few week’s posts from each of them, and my heart fell a little bit.
And then in the gym this morning (I’m rehabbing an injured shoulder so I can go back to martial arts), they played the Buffalo Springfield song above (one of the hits from my high school years). And something hit me.
I want to outline what I saw, and toss the question out there as to whether it’s an artifact of my own impressions and memory, or something that other people see as well.One of the things that I admire intensely about both Kevin and Glenn is that when I started reading them, I read them both as fellow iconoclasts – that while Kevin was liberal, he wasn’t interested in playing to the party line and while Glenn was libertarian-conservative, he was equally disinterested in playing for one team or the other. Each of them, it seemed to me (and I ought to go do some kind of analysis of posts but don’t have time), spend a nontrivial amount of their time poking at the stupidities of their own sides.
I felt like there was the germ of a Third Path kind of movement here, a chance to create a Party of the Sensible. We might disagree about certain aspects of policy, but we’d agree that it ought to be reality-based, instead of living within the soap-opera world that constitutes political life in America today.
But going back over the last few week’s posts, it just seems to me like each has joined the chorus of people saying “hooray for our side”; maybe it’s just l’affaire Plame, but it just reads like Kevin is out to nail the Bush team and Glenn is out to defend them – and all of the lesser issues they talk about start to fall into place according to that force field.
Maybe this is who Glenn and Kevin have always been.
Maybe it’s an unavoidable consequence of being taken seriously, as I think both Kevin and Glenn are.
Maybe it’s all in my head.
But if you share my belief that the biggest threat to the Republic is the crystallization of our politics into something too inflexible to deal with the problems we’re facing today and will be facing in my son’s time, it’s hard to look at this without worry.
Hey AL, I thought so too. But then I read Glenn’s post, rather than paraphrases. He wants Bush to fire the leakers. I think that’s the main point; what is to be done.
Does Kevin want “something else”? I don’t think so, exactly, but his commenters want to use Plame to lambast all lib-cons. (I call myself a Liberty Dad.)
But pushing any opinion is polarizing. Kevin is perhaps the most open-minded liberal blogging, but he hasn’t/won’t (? quite, not certain here?)accepted the fact that booting Saddam was good.
His critiques of Bush, and the probs of Bush’s team’s arrogance are true. And I, too, am increasingly afraid of growing corporate statism. I’m thinking Bush is terrible, or bad (tax cuts pretty good though) in many, many ways, EXCEPT on Iraq & terror. Which is the most important isssue.
I would disagree A.L., at least with respect to Glenn. I have taken his theme to be neither “Yah Bush” nor “Boo Bush”, but to question whether or not something in broken in journalism.
Glenn seems way more willing to look and listen to all angles on something, but not afraid to say he agrees or disagrees with a side. If that happens to agree or disagree with Bush, he makes no apologies.
However, Kevin seems little more than a shill for the Democratic party these days. At least that how I see it from his recent posts. In comparing the two, Kevin seems much less balanced and so much is already taken for granted in a political context that does not allow for constructive conversations. *shrug* My two cents, and you get change.
I will agree that few places allow constructive discussion that overlooks the politics and will discuss a subject simply on its merits. Maybe it is just that the culture wars are more in the open now…
Historical note:
The song was about a drug bust at “Pandora’s Box” on the Sunset Strip.
As luck would have it I was in the Navy at the time (’66) and visited the strip during the demonstrations. The demos made me want to visit Pandora’s a place I probably wouldn’t have gone to otherwise.
Cute waitresses but not too interested in Navy guys in uniform.
The song was a pretty accurate description of the demos. Peaceful outrage.
The thing to rememberr is that politicians are salesmen determined to cheat you out of your money.
I agree with your perception, but “not to worry,” as I believe the inflexibility (intolerance? passion?) is more due to fatigue and/or frustration. Example: the now-famous 16 words from the last SOTU speech. These words cite a British report, and taken literally do not assert specific “deals.” But some would read between the words, seeking and finding “intent” or the “real agenda.” I tend to side with Andrew Sullivan, but cannot fault those who are frustrated with the political outcome. I see it as part of the process, which does get tiring at times, but is just another (albeit small, see http://www.oliverwillis.com/entries/1003/deflating_the_blog_bubble.html) reflection of freedom of expression in our country.
Rx: Get your helmet and jacket, take a couple of hours, and RIDE.
Armed,
My thoughts exactly. Frankly, on issues as a whole, I have probably tended to side more often with Glenn Reynolds than Kevin, though I respect both. The issues “in play” now have maybe changed that. Reynolds sounds like a braindead shill for the Bush administration. I’ve remarked on the same pattern with Roger Simon (to a much lesser extent), Michael Totten (who I don’t think has really had time to weigh in), and Jeff Jarvis. It sounds like they have a personal investment in their issues and they can’t adjust the same no-nonsense worldview to a changing landscape.
But I don’t feel as though it’s a partisan thing. It’s more a straightforward reality thing, as you said. I’m going to vote AGAINST the LA Times tomorrow, ie, for Schwarzenegger. And I think the smear campaign against him is just as appalling on the part of the Democratic machine.
But maybe I’m overlooking something. Someone, please enlighten me. But the Plame whodunnit is just not rocket science. There’s definitely a “who” and an “it”. We know basically what the “it” is and we know they know who the “who” is. What, am I supposed to play completely dumb à la Glenn Reynolds? I don’t get it.
Oh, forgot to mention. Great song! You’re showing your age (guess I am too).
I mean jeezuschrist! The freakin’ Weekly Standard and the Washington Post are ahead of the curve on these guys, way ahead! They’ve at least made a basic concession to reality that Glenn Reynolds frankly hasn’t. I think Kevin Drum’s characterization is spot on.
From the center-left leaning end (ie myself):
In comments at Calpundit yesterday:
“On WH conduct … I frankly couldn’t possibly put a better face on it without descending into complete idiocy…
Criticism of Reynolds is not “faux moralism”. Reynolds derides Bush critics as treasonous, mocks administration and anti-war critics (“more crushing of dissent blah blah blah”), while putting on the pretense of no-nonsense calling-it-like-it-is candor. To be fair, he often gets it right. But here we seem him going into denial as he sees the value of his investment in his bread-and-butter business of bashing the Bush-bashers seriously undermined as “market conditions” change dramatically. Hence, the pathetic display of congnitive dissonance, followed by extreme obtuseness, and now barely conscious apologetics.
I don’t think this reveals his “true colors”, so much as the serious limits of Mr. I’m-above-the-fray Uberblogger’s own capacity for intellectual and moral consistency. His own faux moralism. To suggest that he is beyond criticism because he’s just a blogger is ridiculous – he can sure dish it out when it suits his purpose. As has been famously said in a related context, he’s “fair game”.
At this point, I don’t think he is so much spinning for the Bushies, as he is spinning for himself.”
I also posted at Roger Simon’s:
let me put it to you this way without mincing my words: You, and Michael, and Jeff are getting blindsided in blogworld – no, dragged through the mud. And based on the impression created, I can hardly blame those who are doing it. You probably could care less, but I’m going to get this off my chest.
The widespread perception is more or less as follows: You guys are the left-of-center, would be liberal, contrarian, there-is-no-left-or right – whatever – “warbloggers”. I am entirely with you guys up to this point. There has, to all appearances, been truly outrageous conduct carried out in the heart of the Whitehouse. That saddens me greatly. This will no doubt be exploited by the looney left – indeed, by the centrists in the Democratic party – for partisan gain, and that’s tragic. But the real, or at least first level tragedy, is that some level of improper conduct has occurred at the White House and George Bush is obviously engaging in a cover up at some (probably less than felonious) level.
As you can spin left, you can spin right. The Wall Street Journal, NRO, the White House press machine, etc. are doing what they are expected to do: muddy the watters, it’s about Wilson, it’s about the CIA, it’s about partisan politics, it’s about payback for Clinton. That is false: conduct that appears to be treasonous has occurred and the White House is involved at some level. They are trying to obfuscate and change the subject. The problem: You guys appear to be doing exactly the same thing and it is making you look downright ridiculous.
We already have Glenn Reynolds in his real or feigned I-am-above-the-fray they’re trying-to-discredit-the-war-effort disconnect from reality, which will – and should – damage his reputation for even-mindedness.
The generally accepted interpretation in blogworld with respect to you, Michael and Jeff is as follows: You guys are, perhaps unconscious, brainless apologist for Bush. Alternatively, you’ve become so wrapped up in your worldview that you can’t keep two thoughts in your heads at the same time. Alternatively, you guys have so much invested in Bush that you have become pyscho-rigidly incapable of criticizing anything related to the War or the administration’s policy in regard thereto. Alternatively – and this is the most charitable interpretation – you’ve become so inured to “leftist” (sarcasm quotes intended) mindless criticism of the administration’s foreign policy, that you’ve simply lost perspective. The comments are all over Blogland and they point mostly to you and to Michael. (Advance warning: I don’t intend to reply to the right wingers who will pounce on this.)
Now, I realize that you are you’re own man, and the same applies to Michael and Jeff (et al). You may not care, but the reality is that you are public figures in the blogworld. I also realize that you have a life – at least I hope so – away from your blog. You’re probably working on your novel, maybe Michael’s painting the porch of his house, I don’t know. But the perception is there.
To quote Michael: “Say it ain’t so”.
(I’m not sure how to link to the posts to show the comments, replies and surrounding discussion in the interests of completeness.)
I think one of the more effective ways to view political debate in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is to compare it to the religious disputes that have plagued much of the world over the last millenium.
In much the same way that people of centuries past worked themselves into a frothing rage at heritics and papists, we see the same kind of knee-jerk bitterness written across the face of political debate today.
It would seem (although it is far too early to tell) that the inquisitions and witch hunts of centuries past are mirrored in the purges and Watergate scandals of today. With time, these too will pass, and perhaps my cynicism is unwarranted, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for rational, balanced discourse to come pouring forth in a steady, uninterrupted stream anytime soon.
And you can probably infer my guess as to the political future of Islamism.
Anticipatory,
My problem with your (otherwise interesting) analysis is that I concur with AL that there are certain inescapable basic facts and even common sense interpretations of conduct that reasonable people should be able to agree on whether or not we know in advance that it’s good for one side or the other. I can’t reduce all politics, at least at the level of basic characterization of the facts, to fantasy ideology.
GG –
Anticipatory’s comment actually makes a useful point about the way that politics has somehow transcended fact and become a matter of faith and alliance.
…I’m thinking about it…
A.L.
AL (and Anticipatory) –
Well, there are two questions: Is that how politics is actually conducted? I think the answer is yes, politics has become very partisan.
The second question is sort of two-fold: Is the possibility of a Third Path an illusion – are we all postmodernists now? – and if such a Third Path is possible, are those who appear to advocate such an approach actually following that path? (Based on your and my respective examples, and I’m sure there are others.) And since each individually agrees that he/she is a third-pather, then I guess maybe the test fails right there.
And I assume that “third path” doesn’t imply agreement on actual policy only on the elimination of complete idiocy?
… also thinking …
As far as the whole Plame Affair is concerned though, I really, really, honestly, in my heart of hearts think that this is an acid test for what political pantheon one is invested in.
Far as I can tell, based on the available evidence, I think there is very good reason to belive that there was no “leak” per se. It seems that her employer was a widely-known secret among the cocktail circuit in DC. That means that it wasn’t a malicious leak to get some poor woman thrown in the hoosgow in rural, remote Kerplunkistan. But regardless of the leak mechanics, it is still a counterintelligence problem and somebody will have to answer for being the idiot to spill the beans to a reporter. (A whole lot more on the mechanics of the Plame Affair *HERE*.)
Folks on one side of the aisle seem to argue that this was worse than the Rosenbergs, while others tend to regard it as being no bigger a faux pas than eating an entree with the salad fork.
The degree to which people want to either make a mountain or a ravine out of a molehill, and the degree to which they claim they are tapped into diving, revealed truth, says a lot about which pantheon they give allegance to and the degree to which they’ll happily demonize opponents and beatify their comrades-in-arms.
On the plus side, it’s good old fashioned human nature – so things, on an absolute level, aren’t necessarily getting worse.
Right (I mean Right!)
Seriously. I’ll grant you your analysis (merely for the sake of argument). But there are, as you concede, a great deal of people who are quite concerned, rightly or wrongly, that serious wrongdoing has occurred. This appears to include the CIA, many members of congress, including some Republicans, the Weekly Standard and the Washington Times, that is – it is not merely a partisan issue even for some on the B-team.
If I adopt this extremely-charitable-to-the-White-House interpretation, it still leaves me with the problem of lack of reaction by the White House. Do we agree that the failure, not so much to satisfy my curiousity (let alone – I think ! – any tendency to assume the worst) as to reassure me, in itself, at a minimum, does not reflect well on the Administration? For me, that is a basic bottom line position for having a common mental reality even making those assumptions.
AL & GG
I guess, to take sort of a strange view, that the facts are relevant. Even if they’re “factual” disputes like disagreements on transubstantiation, the dual nature of God or the vailidity of the Holy Trinity.
There is always a way for a third path. Martin Luther, the Jacobins, the Calvinists, the Copts, the Monophysites and Maronites all have their own variations on the third path.
I suspect that all that will really happen in the long run is that the core “factual” disputes will wander away. A couple of centuries down the pike, it might seem trite to kill each other over Marx and Adam Smith, just the same way that the Crusades and the Wars of Reformation seem baffling and nonsensical to us.
So, the debate itself will change, I just don’t think that there’s anything intrinsic to the debate itself that has the power to shift the particular classes of belief and faith under question. Perhaps down the pike it’ll be fights to the death over open- versus closed-source code that will inspire people to shrill declamations and histrionic violence.
GG,
If (a big if, indeed) my guess on events is correct, the reason that there might not be a big reaction to the “leak” is that there may have never been a “leak”.
If neither side can agree on that basic item, then the hope for quick resolution is quite slim.
If Christians, Muslims, and Jews can’t agree on the basic fundamental identity of Jesus or Mohammed, then of course all debate will be fractured. Apparently there are deep, abiding conflicts in worldviews between parties that make it darned near impossible for anyone to see eye to eye on the most basic of facts.
In the particularly cynical worldview I seem to be occupying today, I submit that debates revolving around the Way The World Works, will always be reduced to radically different interpretations of basically objective phenomina in such a way that agreement is impossbile (comprimise, thankfully, may be a different issue).
Looking for divisions among either Republicans or Democrats as vindication seems about as hollow as Christians claiming that Islam is fundamentally flawed because there is a division between Shia and Sunni, or between mainstream Suni and Wahabbi.
You could probably make a list of basic more or less not-too-contentious propositions regarding issues over the past few years, propositions that do not always “favor” one side of the debate. You then try to determine whether a core group of people, regardless of political affiliation or leanings, might agree on the propositions themselves even if they draw quite different policy implications. Now, since the underlying premise is that most people are fairly partisan, you would expect a rather small percentage (maybe 25% optimistically) to agree on them. You could probably start with something like “Saddam Hussein was an evil man” and then work your way through “There was a great degree of international consensus on the existence of a WMD threat” over to “Bush did in fact exaggerate somewhat the extent of the WMD threat”, through “U.S. intentions in the War regarding the Iraqi people were not, at bottom, malevolent”, etc.
I think the list eventually includes “some serious degree of misconduct, as yet undetermined, appears to have occurred at the White House” as well as “the White House, through its actions and inactions is consciously trying to control the communication of intrinsically negative information, both as to its substance and its characterization”, etc.
I’m sure I’ve lost about 90% of my audience. (Let me go see how Descartes did it again…)
Anticipatory-
Let me concede that there may not have been any leak. Boy this White House is either exceedingly clever or exceedingly stupid and does not appear to be acting consistently with past behaviour in terms of covering its derrière! I’m still left with that question.
As for disputes over facts being trite or not trite a couple of centuries hence, there are still two issues: (i) the facts are nevertheless the facts and (ii) under present agreed norms of behaviour those facts are more or less grave. For purposes of the second question, I would blindfold those judging as to whether the person “guilty” of the facts is on their side or not and maybe take the views of the more moderate half of those on either side of the issue.
Anticipatory,
I still have a basic problem with your reducing perception of behavior, filtered through the lens of politics, to theology. If that were the case, then murder is subjective and others will discuss in future centuries whether murder should even be a crime or whether it even happened. (On second thought, I can well imagine that this will in fact occur as to certain categories of homicide, such as forced euthenasia.)
Anyway, the question is different: It’s not whether OJ is guilty or not. Let me assume reasonable people can disagree (and in fact I do not), can we agree that appearances were such that some explanation, inquiry, acknowledgment of the problem of perceptions concerning blood-stained gloves, etc. was justified?
“Maybe this is who Glenn and Kevin have always been.”
Yup. At least Glenn. I started reading him in part because of the “above-the-fray” schtick and in part because I’m a UT-K alum. The aloof persona doesn’t survive close inspection. He’s basically a conservative. A sometimes-interesting, sometimes-articulate conservative (a less hyperstylized George Will), but a conservative.
“But if you share my belief that the biggest threat to the Republic is the crystallization of our politics into something too inflexible to deal with the problems we’re facing today and will be facing in my son’s time, it’s hard to look at this without worry.”
On the contrary.
Let’s admit it. Glenn Reynolds, Kevin Drum, and you, dear AL, are NOBODIES without the internet. Get over your bad selves. NONE of you is a threat to the Republic. Most voters I know have never even heard of you.
Lets talk about crystallization. What’s required for a crystal to form? Purity. Homogeneity.
What breaks up crystal packing? Impurities. Heterogeneity.
Bloggers are the impurities that break up the crystallization of political thought.
Not to slight anyone, but I suspect Joel is right: the plebe’s a lot smarter than us web junkies.
Couple of quick points: I disagree with Joel that Glenn is simply a conservative. He’s pushed some substantially libertarian ideas that couldn’t be described as conservative. I wouldn’t argue that he’s generally on the conservative side of the fence, but I don’t believe that’s the full story as to his ideology.
Regarding the Plame affair: I continue to think that more heat than light has been shed on this issue. Maybe it is reflective of my biases, but I am inclined to reserve judgement for the moment.
Here’s where I sit:
1) It seems like the whole issue boils down to a small cluster of factual issues. First, specifically who said what? Second, was this illegal? As support for the second point, what exactly is Ms. Plame’s status?
2) I think the answer to each of those questions is factual and verifiable. While many people have tried to pull out the answers by the implied meanings of various statements, I’d rather have them clarified with definitive certainty.
3) The Bush White House has historically taken a very strong anti-leak position. If there was a leak in this case–an unproven point, as I am somewhat cynical as to the credibilities of those concerned–I think whoever leaked will lose their job, whether or not the leak was illegal.
Sam,
Basically agree, but:
Reynolds’ political leanings are less at issue than his methodology: Is he the open-eyed non-partisan he represents himself to be? Even George Will is looking more credible (not to mention William Kristol).
Process: You lay it out well. But I’m not accusing Bush of obstruction of justice, I’m accusing him of willful inaction and a strange lack of curiousity. That causes me to suspect strongly (and not unreasonably, I suggest) that the gravity of the actual conduct at issue is greater than I would have been inclined to think. Further, that absention in and of itself counts as “conduct”. Is this view controversial? I can’t see how.
The charge against Bush of inaction is a completely bogus one. One of the lessons of Iran-Contra was that the White House shouldn’t investigate itself – that such merely leads to accusations of more coverup.
The upshot of all of this is that Winds of Change is a pretty good site. First, it has balance while excluding raving maniacs, altho’ one could argue whether the equilibrium is perfect (and I’m not going to go there). Second, people here barely disguise their political leanings. Ultimately, this probably results in a more interesting dialectic.
Gabriel,
Most of the Plame/Wilson story seems like inside baseball–I’m not saying it is unimportant, at all, but it feels to me like most of the focus is on the gossip of the Beltway hothouse. There is a factual linkage here, since one of the points of debate is whether Plame’s status at the CIA was common knowledge in Washington.
It is well-known that Bush doesn’t follow the mainstream press himself. I have no doubt that he’s got people that stay on top of the current media and report to him, but his personal uninterest might extend to the Washington gossip scene–and whoever organizes his news summary would probably leave out that stuff. (Of course, I am not implying that the President is generally uninformed, just that he chooses not to receive his news through the filters of the mainstream media, which is an arguably legitimate position.)
Also, Bush usually takes the month of August off, to the extent possible. That may be responsible for some of the delay in personal Presidential attention to the issue.
Sam,
I have no special beef with Bush’s policies, personality or anything else. I support him on some things, and don’t on other. So, I don’t think this is merely a partisan matter.
If Bush wanted to, he could solve this in less than the forty-five minutes it would have taken Saddam to make his WMD strike.
Fine. I’ve maybe sexed this up a bit. But you get the point. My capacity for self-deception is limited.
GG –
“My capacity for self-deception is limited.” Umm… but how would you know? Sorry – I’m not trying to imply that you are deluded by yourself or otherwise, but that’s one of the underlying premises behind a lot of this business about post-modernism.
But more seriously, looking at the religion/political analogy, I think we’re not altogether that far apart. One can look at a given act – i.e. Generic Person A Blew Generic Person B’s head off with a big gun. That may be an issue of little factual dispute.
The point that I’m trying to make is that as long as that act devolves into cries of “Terrorism!” on one side and “One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter” or “Militant Resisting Illegal Occupation” then I don’t hold out a lot of hope of a happy median in most situations.
I certainly have my belief system which has grown out of whatever basket of experiences has shaped me, as have most people. But nobody ever wakes up and says “Gee, I’m wrong, I love it, and I’m going to continue to fight against what I think is right!” And even if there is some motion on the edges of big movements where people change their minds, the vast bulk of political discourse is driven by people engaged in Incestuous Amplification driven by group identity and politics.
I’ve run into a lot of folks who will conceed that the guy on the other side of the aisle may mean well too (even if they’re wrong and ill-informed). But nobody ever looks at themselves and applies the same analysis. But nobody has a lock on the gospel truths of politics. It’s like looking at people trying to take the second derivative of a sonnet. Fear of paralysis by analysis is the only thing that makes the tendency of people to assume their right anything but an unmitigated disaster.
Much of that has taken on new shapes on the internet where people can deliberately seek out like minded people without regards for geographical distribution. I’m not sure what that means in the long run, but I’m still trying to figure it out.