website statistics

Archive for the 'Rhetoric' Category

Tim Noah, Fire Your Fact Checker

Mickey Kaus has joked that the upshot of blogging is “no deadlines and no editors in exchange for no money and no readers.” I guess that may be more than a joke:

Tim Noah, Dec. 14:

My Slate colleague and fellow Washington Monthly-style neoliberal Mickey Kaus (we also attended the same high school) will likely feel queasy when he discovers that his weblog is included in TomDeLay.com’s “Blog Roll” of linked sites, otherwise all hard-core right. Better shore up that left flank, Mickey!

Mickey Kaus, Dec. 9:

Welcome, Hammer readers!

Not only does Noah not read Kausfiles, but apparently Slate’s copy editors don’t either.

P.S. Blogroll is one word, it isn’t capitalized, and it doesn’t need scare quotes. Let me also direct your attention to:

The blogosphere and its impact on politics/the media/the arts/American life has been discussed to death. There is nothing left to say, particularly within the blogosphere itself. I propose that this topic be banned from all future public discourse.

Translation: I don’t have anything useful to say and I don’t want to bother thinking about it. Kaus may have ghettoized himself at Slate, but Noah is the irrelevant one.

The Libertarian Wallflower

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.

Newt Gingrich is Not Running for President

No, that’s not exactly what he said, but whether he meant to effectively drop out of the presidential race or not, that’s just what he did this week in New Hampshire. Amidst the controversy surrounding his calling the Iraq war a failure this week, this tidbit has fallen through the cracks. So let’s get down, reach as far as we can, and maybe we can knock this back into reach:

A few minutes ago, the MSNBC chyron announced that Gingrich won’t decide on a presidential run until next September. The sound was off and they’ve moved on to other segments, but I believe they’re referring to this report by James Pindell:

Gingrich said he is more concerned with injecting ideas into the campaign than himself. Monday night at a First Amendment dinner in Manchester and again Tuesday morning he said he will not consider running for president until September 2007, a relatively late date.

The third quarter of 2007 is way too late to start playing the staffing game — by that point every other candidate will have already signed up the top rung of advisers. That’s not to say a candidate couldn’t get in late and still succeed; if Wes Clark had been a better candidate, he might have pulled that off. But it’s not clear Gingrich is this kind of candidate, either. If Gingrich is waiting that long, then he’s not seriously thinking of running for president. Worse, he doesn’t even realize he should be making people think that he actually is.

NY Daily News 1995 Newt Gingrich Cry Baby coverThis must come as a disappointment to the thousands of conservative blog readers who made him their top choice in the latest GOP Bloggers straw poll, but it couldn’t have come as much of a surprise. Like the liberal bloggers for whom Russ Feingold was a runaway straw poll favorite but would probably have ended up supporting Hillary (not likely) or Edwards (more likely) even if Feingold hadn’t dropped out, by September of next year conservative bloggers will likewise be deciding to reluctantly support McCain (see: Hillary), Romney (see: Edwards), or Rudy Giuliani (it depends), regardless of what Gingrich does.

Gingrich’s candidacy — in the works at least since Mr. Clinton’s Wild Plane Ride — has always been premised on the idea of promoting conservative ideas within the context of the election, not on actually winning electoral office. Issue candidates are a time-honored part of presidential politics, so this is not duplicitous in of itself.

But issue-based candidacies only work if you actually make moves like you’re going to run — see Dennis Kucinich in the last cycle, who ran a threadbare but earnest campaign through 2003, or Duncan Hunter (who has already announced that he will run) on the GOP side this time. But Gingrich won’t even think about putting a team together until nearly a year from now, which at that point will be less than six months from the Iowa caucuses.

Running a credible presidential campaign is about creating a presence — momentum, or the appearance thereof. Newt Gingrich, needless to say, will not be creating any of this. If Gingrich won’t even bluff, the media won’t play along.

Update: Via Political Wire, the suspicion that Hillary Clinton might not run for president gets a boost from a QC Times report saying Clinton isn’t staffing up in Iowa. If true, then this wide-open free-for-all nomination race only continues to thin out.

In The Land Of The Blind, The One-Eyed Item Is King

Michael Kinsley, former editor of The New Republic, Slate and most recently the Los Angeles Times editorial page, pens a whopper of a blind item in his latest column, for the Washington Post and Slate:

The first person I knew who had a Web site of his own was a fellow Washington journalist. This was when many journalists were still just getting into e-mail, but the URL for this Web site quickly circulated around town and around the world. Why? Well, we were all impressed by the technological savvy. But we were absolutely astounded by the solipsism. What on earth had gotten into Joe (not his real name)? This was a modest, soft-spoken, and self-effacing fellow, yet his Web site portrayed him as an egotistical monster.

The list of possibles is vanishingly small. There’s Kinsley’s fellow former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan… maybe fellow neoliberal contrarian Mickey Kaus, and… there’s Andrew Sullivan. Kinsley offers a few more clues:

Or so it seemed at the time. All of the elements that struck us as obnoxious maybe eight years ago no longer seem that way. In fact, they are now virtually required for any writer’s Web site. The Web address, of course, was his name: JoeJournalist.com. It’s hard to recapture why that even seemed pretentious. But it did. Then there was his deadpan list of books he’d written and awards he’d won. And quotes from other journalists about how wonderful he is. It all seemed totally out of character, and terribly immodest. Poor Joe! Had the World Wide Web driven him crazy?

All right. Is there seriously anyone left who doesn’t think this is Andrew Sullivan?

Update: Mickey Kaus says it’s neither, citing Sullivan as an unlikely to have possessed the virtues Kinsley ascribed to this Washington journalist pre-AndrewSull… er, JoeJournalist.com. Now, I don’t know Sullivan personally, but at least on television — debating on “The Chris Matthews Show” or those old C-SPAN mornings with Brian Lamb and Christopher Hitchens — he is all of those things. Perhaps Kinsley was simply being generous, and besides had a column to write.

Updated again: This blog post is mentioned briefly in the latest episode of Bloggingheads. As the comments here indicate, Kaus strongly implies to Robert Wright that Kinsley’s subject was James Fallows. Meanwhile, Gawker thinks it’s Malcolm Gladwell.

I can’t add much more here. I don’t know the parties involved, and while I don’t think there’s enough content at the early Fallows site to convey anything like solipsism or egomania, I suppose I will defer to Kaus’ certainty.