website statistics

Archive for the 'Libertarians' Category

Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood II: CFRed and the Globalist Conspiracy

Published by William Beutler on July 24, 2007 in 9/11 Attacks, Comment Sections, Conspiracy Theories, Fred Thompson, Libertarians, Republicans, Ron Paul, Sock puppets and White House '08. 24 Comments

Earlier this month, Blog P.I. tracked a multi-monikered Internet troll whose sole enjoyment in life appears to derive from supplying blog comment sections with underwhelming arguments against Fred Thompson (disclosure).

I promised then to look a little closer at the identity of this dedicated anti-Fredhead, and while I later thought I had thought the better of it, Christopher Caldwell’s piece in the most recent New York Times Magazine afforded me the opportunity to re-rethink that decision.

And so this post exists… in three interminable parts. I don’t often use the below-the-fold feature on WordPress, but this post won’t appeal to everyone, and I don’t want it to get in everyone’s way. But if you’re game, then follow me…

Continue reading ‘Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood II: CFRed and the Globalist Conspiracy’

Blog P.I. 2008 Disclosure Form

Published by William Beutler on June 6, 2007 in Barack Obama, Democrats, Fred Thompson, Libertarians, Metapost, New Media Strategies, Online Campaigns, Republicans and White House '08. 26 Comments

Since the very beginning, Blog P.I. has put an emphasis on transparency in online politics, and now comes a point where we, the bloggers who keep this website (more or less) updated, think it best to apprise you of who in 2008 we are are supporting/working for.

William Beutler:

New Media Strategies, my employer and the folks who pay the bills around here, has been contracted to advise on Internet outreach for Fred Thompson’s nascent presidential campaign. I’ll be working under Howard Mortman (aka Blog P.I.’s Higgins) alongside Jon Henke (he’d be our Face Man, if Blog P.I. was named for The A-Team; see his concurrent announcement at QandO) and others from the crack Public Affairs staff here in scenic Rosslyn, Virginia. As everybody knows by now, Fred’s campaign is putting an emphasis on using new online tools in innovative ways, and we’re honored to take part in the effort. I generally keep my own politics off Blog P.I., but I’ll make an exception here: Thompson will have my vote, even though I live in the District, where the Republican party might as well not even have a presidential primary. For what it’s worth, I’d describe my politics as right-libertarian; I’m a pragmatist with a preference for limited-government solutions. And as Cato@Liberty wrote of Fred last week, “On federalism, there may be no better candidate.”” Not to mention his strong record of fiscal conservatism, something the GOP could stand to stand for again. He’s also been realistic about Iraq, that we are left with no “good options,” the war was a good one but done badly, and leaving it to the Qaedists is the worst option. He’s a solid conservative and a “happy warrior” with more ideas than he’s given credit for (so far) and is already running a whole new kind of campaign. If you’re at all inclined to cast a Republican ballot, Fred Thompson is definitely the best choice. Regular readers (I assume you exist) will notice that I have mentioned Thompson a few times over the past few weeks. For most of that period, I knew it was a possibility that we’d be working for the campaign — though we certainly weren’t being paid. Even so, I only mentioned him where the analysis would suffer for his absence. And for what it’s worth, I did write about him (favorably) before this even started. What does this mean for Blog P.I.? The site will remain “an ongoing series of investigations into, studies about, and commentaries on uses of the Internet in U.S. politics” where “the writers have their ideological blindspots like anyone else” but “aim for observation and reason, not assumption and opinion.” You may start noticing more overtly positive comments about Fred Thompson, but they’ll stay rooted in analysis — and I’ll post a disclaimer whenever his name comes up.

Not Paul Begala:

My choice for president and the only candidate that I want to work for is Barack Obama. It comes down to a simple formulation championed by his main opponent: change vs. more of the same. This country is in desperate need of change. I am not one of those Dems that says Hillary Clinton cannot win the presidency. If she is the general election nominee in fact, I’ll guarantee she will win. There is no more strategic and ruthless political family in the country and 2004 showed that the mechanics of campaigning can win elections regardless of issues and facts. As a serial campaigner, I can admire that. But I don’t want to win on a technicality. I want change, I want a movement, I want a governing philosophy and a majority that implements it. Obama’s mantra — that individual achievement is amplified when done through collective action is the antithesis to the “every man for himself” mantra of conservatism in the past 20 years. I want a nominee who will not only battle for people’s votes, but their hearts, minds and souls.

Olly Ruff:

I am not an employee of New Media Strategies, and I don’t aspire to work for the Obama campaign. In fact, as a non-resident alien, I don’t think I’m supposed to do things like endorse candidates for President. So, in what is either a principled ethical stand or simply a craven attempt to preserve my visa status, I pledge to carefully maintain my neutrality and objectivity throughout, and to eschew the cheap partisanship of my colleagues as I advocate for what I hope will become the moderate consensus position.

Games Ron Paul Supporters Play

Published by William Beutler on May 17, 2007 in Asymmetrical Media, Blog Fights, Libertarians, Ron Paul, Social Networking and White House '08. 37 Comments

At what point does the online support for libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul do his candidacy more harm than good? That is, when does his obviously devoted online fan base start to turn off uncommitted voters, rather than provide an example to follow? I think we might just be getting to that point.

In few communities has the outsize influence of the Ronbots (borrowing more from “Romneybot” than “Rahmbot” here) been felt more than fast-rising social news website Digg. Digg is a prize target for manipulators — getting listed on the front page all but guarantees a tidal wave of traffic headed toward the submitted link. After repeated revisions to the algorithm, it apparently remains no less vulnerable.

Paul supporters have been moving stories onto the front page for a couple weeks now, and while I found it curious and somewhat amusing, Diggers are quirky and I didn’t find it illegitimate or overly distracting — that is, until this morning.

Check out the top five stories, as of about 7:30 Eastern time:

Ron Paul's outsize Digg support

Those top three are not quite all the same story, but they are certainly variations on a theme. Note also the separation in digg totals with the next two, non-Paul submissions. And considering Paul’s negligible support in meatspace, one gets the distinct impression that the system has been gamed.

Others have suggested that his online support is manufactured. I don’t think that’s the case. Click through the headlines (here, here and here), take a look at the comments and the digging (voting) histories of the users submitting them (here, here and here). They may all be acting in concert, but there’s no reason to believe these are not legitimate members — two of the three submitters signed up last summer.

But even if they are acting sincerely, this is simply not what the vast majority of users go to to Digg for. The website is at its best when it provides variety. Forerunner Slashdot has codified this as “The Omelette,” but Digg manages to create this organically. Most of the time.

To cherry pick just one comment out of the third story, here is user 9Digits throwing up his hands:

I’m an anti-war Republican, and I still find your candidate’s campaign to be goddamn annoying. If these are the type of supporters he’s got, there’s not a chance in hell I’ll vote for him.

This follows the Ronbots’ success in compelling ABC News to add their candidate to an online poll. That doesn’t bother me so much, except as ABC knew well, the poll was about to be freeped. But it also follows Charles Johnson’s decision to delist Paul from his online poll at Little Green Footballs. To whatever degree ABC News has an obligation to create a level playing field, even one that they know will be gamed, Johnson has less of one.

And yet that still says more about the general uselessness of online polls than about Paul’s supporters. Is the backlash unfair? Perhaps it would be, if they didn’t seem so prone to the same kind of vitriol that sometimes still causes trouble for their counterparts on the left.

If Paul’s supporters are willing to take the effort to game online communities not already predisposed to isolationist libertarianism they should be willing to accept the consequences. That certainly means their own ostracism — but it also risks creating the impression that Paul’s support is manufactured. And especially in politics, people don’t like being played.

The Libertarian Wallflower

Published by William Beutler on December 13, 2006 in Academic Blogging, Blog Fights, Daily Kos, Democrats, Internecine Battles, Libertarians, Rhetoric and The New Republic. 2 Comments

A week has now passed since Brink Lindsey’s so-called “Liberaltarian” essay for The New Republic (also available from Cato, where Lindsey is VP for research) hit the web and became an instant conversation piece around ideo-journalistic Washington.

One can trace the excitement surrounding Lindsey’s essay, and perhaps even the piece itself, to an early June post at Daily Kos, by site founder/show runner Markos Moulitsas. That entry, which he later described as “a throwaway blog post,” drew plenty of snickers from Beltway conservative types, but it certainly wasn’t ignored.

In October, the Cato Institute — typically identified with Republicans far more than Democrats — made Moulitsas’ arguments the centerpiece of the October edition of Cato Unbound. Just before the election, Moulitsas made his pitch for libertarians to pull a lever for the Dems in Reason magazine.

These articles drew plenty more attention, of which Lindsey’s article could be considered the latest entry. One need not buy into the notion of an uneasy left/libertarian fusionism being at all likely to replace the uneasy right/libertarian one to find it interesting — and indeed, for all the kind things said about Lindsey himself this past week, almost everybody’s wallets are staying firmly in pocket.

That’s a lot of pockets, too. Among the libertarians, liberals and conservatives who have weighed in on Lindsey’s essay:

Of course, not everyone who might be expected to comment has done so. Among those who have not weighed in since Lindsey’s article went up:

It’s not that he’s been away from the site. In fact, he’s posted 55 times (at the time of this writing) and on a wide array of topics, from the inevitability of Obama to general site maintenance. I realize that the pat response to these questions is “don’t complain about the free ice cream.” But I’m curious as to why Moulitsas has abruptly disengaged from the debate.

The cynical view would be that with the election now in the past and Democrats victorious, there is no longer any need to reach out to potential new voters. The slightly less cynical view, and the one I endorse, is that Moulitsas was using the term “libertarian” too loosely in the first place. Go back to his seminal post, and notice that he literally begins by seeking to describe why he likes rugged, outdoorsy, sometimes Mountain West politicians such as Senator-elect Jon Tester — and it goes on to deliberately ignore the profound differences between liberal and libertarian philosophies of government. Altogether, it sounds less like argument born of principles, and more like searching for a coherent way to describe his favored candidates.

Moulitsas’ influence currently runs strongly to matters campaign-related, but the interest surrounding his “Libertarian Democrat” post suggests that people are willing to give him a shot as an actual thinker as well. Alas, now that the liberaltarian concept has “crashed the gates” (if you will) it would seem he doesn’t have much more to add. (He announced in the June post that his “next book” will be about the libertarian Democrat. Is that still a go?) Unless he has the conviction to defend his arguments in the public ’sphere — or a whole lot more “throwaway” ideas — he may again find himself relegated to being just what he says he doesn’t want to be: An ATM for Democratic campaigns.

P.S. Does anybody else remember that at one time, Brink Lindsey was a blogger? His former site remains where it always was, the blogroll still a who’s who of the early right-libertarian blogosphere. His his final post in mid-2003 should be considered a classic of the genre. Excerpted:

I’ve lost the will to blog. Actually, I lost it some time ago, but I’ve been trudging along in hopes that I would find new inspiration. I haven’t. So enough. I’m hanging it up for a while. I plan to take the summer off — at least. Maybe I’ll come back in the fall, maybe I won’t.

I’ve argued before that one need not actually be a blogger to be a part of the blogosphere, and three years later, Lindsey’s currency reinforces that.