BLOGISM

Kevin Drum observes:

The political blogosphere is far more partisan than any organ of the mainstream media, more partisan than most op-ed pages, and most of the time more partisan than even the overtly political magazines. The blogosphere is about the most partisan and least independent voice this side of talk radio.

Aaron Radcliffe, in a thoughtful gloss on this, bemoans “that peculiarly blind, unthinking leap to defend the positions — any positions — of one’s ‘man'” that he finds throughout blogdom:

The initial stand on an issue is not the product of a little bit of thought, it is always the instinctive leap to the Man’s side of the debate. The position is chosen first, the thinking comes much later (if at all), and then only to provide justification. This piffle is tiresome — and unfortunately here to stay. I haven’t noticed much post-election willingness in the blogworld to depart from the conventional stances and talking points.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, but it’s largely right, and there’s no better illustration of it than the tarradiddle spewing forth from blogdom over the Douthat-Ledeen dispute, including silly and irresponsible charges of racism that spread through “a self-replicating echo chamber.” (The phrase belongs to Hugh Hewitt, who applies it to the “old media.” But a network of interconnected websites that link to each other can function more effectively in this manner.)

Which brings up the question of the sort of political debate that blogs promote. Here’s how the “blog of the year” describes the “fundamental political debate of our time”:

It is between those who are willing to roll up their sleeves and try to make the world a better place, and those who offer no alternative but prefer to stand on the sidelines and sneer.

Which means that the “fundamental political debate of our time” isn’t a debate at all (there isn’t even another alternative), but a test of partisan will. As Noah Millman notes, in a post on American intellectuals, “We live in an increasingly fragmented culture, which makes it hard to speak to the culture as a whole.” A blogosphere that incessantly screams “Don’t go wobbly!” doesn’t seem to help matters in this regard. Which is why, though I’m not in charge of things around here, I like Mr. Millman’s idea of a Ponnuru Award “for principled opposition to a partisan position.” That sort of award seems targeted to correct blogdom’s worst tendencies. I can even think of a few nominees.

TEXT FOR THE TIMES: In related news, Arts and Letters daily links to this review today: “The point of public argument is not to be right, but to win.”
— Steven