Lock-Step

JustOneMinute has an excellent article on Peter Daou's leftist view of the blogsphere. Basically, in his view, blogs, media, and pundits form a political machine, a "triangle" that pushes its views into the center ring. The main goal is (snicker) keeping the left from getting "the truth" out (like it did with Katrina--what do you know, yet another on the left praising the coverage of Katrina, I wonder why?) It brings up something I cannot stand. Check it:

"With a well-developed echo chamber and superior top-down discipline, the right has a much easier time forming the triangle. Fox News, talk radio, Drudge, a well-trained and highly visible punditocracy, and a lily-livered press corps takes care of the media side of the triangle. Iron-clad party loyalty – with rare exceptions – and a willingness of Republican officials to jump on the Limbaugh-Hannity bandwagon du jour takes care of the party establishment side of the triangle. The rightwing netroots, therefore, is already working within the triangle on most issues. Their primary strategic aim is to prevent the left from forming its own triangle, as occurred with Katrina."

Top-down, echo, bandwagon, well-trained, iron-clad party loyalty, bandwagon!!!???!!! (Throws Coors Light can across secret bat-cave-like bunker) I hate it when conservatives are painted as lock-step. No, my dear friends, no.

JustOneMinute does a fine job of discrediting these conclusions:

"Getting proper conservatives elected in 2006 and 2008, and finding someone (anyone!) to provide credible leadership on Iraq specifically and terror generally - that will excite right wing bloggers. And yes, that goal may overlap with defending certain Bush legacy projects, such as Iraq, but let's not confuse tactics with objectives."

But let me address more throughly the lock-step issue in what I'm sure will descend into a string of obscenities. There are two types of, for lack of a better word, "informed" liberals you meet. Determining which type you have on your hands is crucial to understanding if you're going to vigorously disagree or if the word "fascist!" will be screamed in your face. Type one is the Clintonian Democrat: a mix of the new left and LBJ; think Joe Lieberman. Type two is the self-named "Progressive" (although I can't see what's progressive about returning to the failures of communism): part new left and new new left; think Howard Dean and worse. The Progressives want to scream "fascist!" at conservatives. Probably the reason they think we're lock-step is that from where they stand, holding hands with George Galloway, it's hard to see the differences between Republicans and Democrats much less the full, richness of the conservative blogsphere. Well, allow me to disagree. I, for example, disagree with JustOneMinute's dismissal of the Progessive's agenda. Sure it will make Democrats a minority, but, as I've written before, I think a minority party of that kind of politics is dangerous and, frankly, useless. I want a strong, honest, and moral opposition party; not a bunch of crazed Marxists--all they can do is ruin things. And there's more disagreement: I don't agree with Reganite Fukuyama even though I loved his book. I break with the NRO on marijuana. I'm not for gay marriage, but I also don't know if we can win the issue. Now, I'm not saying these are earth shattering divergences, but the idea, pushed by both type one and two, that I can't think for myself and that all my views are the result of some Orwellian machine really burns me up. When I think of all the leftist bunk that I've had to watch on TV, and hear in the classroom, on the radio, in music, the net, and the flippin' network news--you name it.

To the left, from my political bondage in the "echo chamber," I hear you! I think about your "ideas." I choose carefully my positions and I re-examine them. And I love to argue both sides. (you should hear Garm and I go at it--wait that sounds bad).