Sunday, August 24, 2008
Unfit To Print
It's sad when you take a break from something you once enjoyed and respected only to return and find its current iteration so unimpressive and disappointing that you immediately understand that it has not just degraded over time, but that in reality it never rose to the level you thought, and you had been blinded by some minor aspect of its (now less understandable) appeal.
For me this happened recently with Instapundit and Powerline, two of the 5 or 6 political blogs I used to read regularly. I was, for a long while, of the opinion that the level of discourse and insight on the Right wing of the blogosphere was generally superior to that on the Left, despite the fact that I disagreed with many of their fundamental approaches and conclusions. It seemed like there was much more of the "so is your mother!" level of argument emanating from the Left, and because of my desire for actual analysis and rational application of logic to pressing political questions, I am willing to accept some degree of open bias in commentators (in whichever direction) as long as they give me something of substance to think about. These two blogs were specifically appealing in part because they are written by lawyers, and I both am and think like one.
Which is why it is painful to return to them after a few-month hiatus (got bored, other things to do, etc.) to find that, in fact, they are both just simple knee-jerk organs of partisan hackery. Worse, their onetime saving grace - a self-proclaimed devotion to intellectual rigor - is so markedly absent that I find myself angry not over their slavish application of conservative principles, but their abandonment of those principles in the service of mindlessly supporting the Republican party against the Democrats, come what may.
As an Independent, I have been a strong supporter of Obama from the beginning because I felt like he alone among the potential presidential candidates was able to actually give credit where it was obviously due across the aisle - to Reagan, to aspects of the 1994 congressional "revolutionaries", to the hard choices being made in the struggle with Islamic terrorism - without losing his principles or pandering. He seemed, basically, like an intelligent, principled, courageous adult. And after 7+ years of the Bush administration, it was this quality that I felt was most important in our next President. Not surprisingly, then, my second choice (over all of the Republicans and most of the Democrats) was McCain, as he seemed to be the only other politician of any stripe willing to actually say things that were obvious but politically unpalatable. So even though I strongly disagree with him on the war and the judiciary and a host of other topics, I am not one of those threatening to move to France if he gets elected. It is exciting that we finally have a choice between people who represent unpsychotic conservatism and not unhinged liberalism, despite their flirtations with representatives of both those groups.
So when I go trolling the web I am looking for nuanced, thoughtful opinion that will help illuminate the differences between these two adults championing these two great philosophies. Which is what makes the junk currently flowing from the esteemed law professors on the right so very, very disappointing. I understand that Glenn Reynolds has become obsessed with his own importance in relation to the "mainstream media", which he is ever more convinced is a frenzied hive of anti-Republican conspirators. But I was hoping that on the Biden choice he would have some kind of, y'know, insight. Instead what we get is 24 hours of nonstop posts hammering home how Biden is a horrible, awful, terrible choice, and one that only proves everything damning Reynolds has been saying (or implying via plausible deniability, since he rarely stops linking to actually say anything himself) about Obama's own horrible awful terribleness. Not because Biden is insanely anti-war (he's not) or has no foreign policy experience (he does) or because he's too young (he's old). Those are the damnations Reynolds was going to use on Kaine or Bayh or whoever else Obama may have picked. Because, you see, anyone Obama picks is by definition the worst choice, one that shows his weakness/inexperience/overconfidence/lack of confidence etc. and, frankly, a terrible person because they are his running mate and also a
terrorist
communist Marxist atheist foreign agent criminal Democrat. Same stuff over at Powerline, which has turned into a swamp of unremitting smarm and scorn about every single thing Obama is, does and says, double standards be damned. They are currently raking Obama over the coals for daring - daring! - to say that we may want to consider our recent history when upbraiding other countries for choosing invasion over negotiation. Traitor! Moron! And proof that Obama is, and I quote, "unqualified to be a middle-manager in a well-run company, let alone President of the United States." Wow. Thanks for the insight, guys. Maybe I'll head over to DailyKos for some ranting about how McCain eats black children for breakfast.
I'd like to think that this level of thoughtless, centerless, endless bile will end after the election, but it's pretty clear that this is the new level of discourse from the Right, one that matches the worst excesses of the loony Left and leaves an Independent looking for insight with nowhere to go.
For me this happened recently with Instapundit and Powerline, two of the 5 or 6 political blogs I used to read regularly. I was, for a long while, of the opinion that the level of discourse and insight on the Right wing of the blogosphere was generally superior to that on the Left, despite the fact that I disagreed with many of their fundamental approaches and conclusions. It seemed like there was much more of the "so is your mother!" level of argument emanating from the Left, and because of my desire for actual analysis and rational application of logic to pressing political questions, I am willing to accept some degree of open bias in commentators (in whichever direction) as long as they give me something of substance to think about. These two blogs were specifically appealing in part because they are written by lawyers, and I both am and think like one.
Which is why it is painful to return to them after a few-month hiatus (got bored, other things to do, etc.) to find that, in fact, they are both just simple knee-jerk organs of partisan hackery. Worse, their onetime saving grace - a self-proclaimed devotion to intellectual rigor - is so markedly absent that I find myself angry not over their slavish application of conservative principles, but their abandonment of those principles in the service of mindlessly supporting the Republican party against the Democrats, come what may.
As an Independent, I have been a strong supporter of Obama from the beginning because I felt like he alone among the potential presidential candidates was able to actually give credit where it was obviously due across the aisle - to Reagan, to aspects of the 1994 congressional "revolutionaries", to the hard choices being made in the struggle with Islamic terrorism - without losing his principles or pandering. He seemed, basically, like an intelligent, principled, courageous adult. And after 7+ years of the Bush administration, it was this quality that I felt was most important in our next President. Not surprisingly, then, my second choice (over all of the Republicans and most of the Democrats) was McCain, as he seemed to be the only other politician of any stripe willing to actually say things that were obvious but politically unpalatable. So even though I strongly disagree with him on the war and the judiciary and a host of other topics, I am not one of those threatening to move to France if he gets elected. It is exciting that we finally have a choice between people who represent unpsychotic conservatism and not unhinged liberalism, despite their flirtations with representatives of both those groups.
So when I go trolling the web I am looking for nuanced, thoughtful opinion that will help illuminate the differences between these two adults championing these two great philosophies. Which is what makes the junk currently flowing from the esteemed law professors on the right so very, very disappointing. I understand that Glenn Reynolds has become obsessed with his own importance in relation to the "mainstream media", which he is ever more convinced is a frenzied hive of anti-Republican conspirators. But I was hoping that on the Biden choice he would have some kind of, y'know, insight. Instead what we get is 24 hours of nonstop posts hammering home how Biden is a horrible, awful, terrible choice, and one that only proves everything damning Reynolds has been saying (or implying via plausible deniability, since he rarely stops linking to actually say anything himself) about Obama's own horrible awful terribleness. Not because Biden is insanely anti-war (he's not) or has no foreign policy experience (he does) or because he's too young (he's old). Those are the damnations Reynolds was going to use on Kaine or Bayh or whoever else Obama may have picked. Because, you see, anyone Obama picks is by definition the worst choice, one that shows his weakness/inexperience/overconfidence/lack of confidence etc. and, frankly, a terrible person because they are his running mate and also a
terrorist
I'd like to think that this level of thoughtless, centerless, endless bile will end after the election, but it's pretty clear that this is the new level of discourse from the Right, one that matches the worst excesses of the loony Left and leaves an Independent looking for insight with nowhere to go.
