Among the more bizarre notions gaining traction in the blogosphere is that there can only be two positions on the Iraq war: a) that it’s all good and that the critics are spineless anti-Americans (or, worse, reporters for mainstream media) or b) that it’s a calamity from Day One and will surely end in disaster. So those of us who have been critics of aspects of the occupation – from insufficient troop members to deployment of illegal torture, for example – are accused of being fair-weather pro-warriors. Or, because we still back the goals of the original invasion and want Iraq to shift toward democracy, we’re deemed Bush lackeys. The problem with this way of looking at things is that the stakes are far higher, it seems to me, than the question of whether you are pro-Bush or anti-Bush. The truth, it seems to me, is that Bush is a very mixed blessing. On the one hand, he gets the fundamental issue – the war for survival against Islamist fascism, and the critical importance of establishing some democratic space in the Arab world to undermine it from within. I’ve criticized this president for many things. But never for these two vital objectives, which I share and have always shared. But – again – it’s perfectly legit to criticize the methods of the war, while supporting its goals. In fact, it’s unavoidable if you’re being more than a cheer-leader for one side or the other. You can, of course, dismiss the mistakes, ignore them or say they’re not a big deal. Or you can argue genuinely that they aren’t mistakes. Or you can say that you disagree, say, with the troop level critique but agree with those who want accountability (and not just an “accountability moment”) for the use of torture by some American troops. But the notion that our debates have to be about whose side are you on in terms of domestic politics strikes me as depressing. I understand that partisanship isn’t always bad, and indeed inevitable. But the way in which the blogosphere has become more partisan over the last few years, rather than less, strikes me as a disappointment.
WHAT BLOGS CAN DO: Why? Because part of the point of blogging as a medium is that it empowers the individual. In big media, the pressures of conformity can be as great as they are subtle. At the Boston Globe or the Washington Times, you know what you’re getting. How many columnists in the mainstream media can be described as unpredictable in partisan terms? How many “liberal” columnists ever praise the president occasionally? How many conservative ones tear him a new one from time to time? (This is a moment to thank God for Tom Friedman, by the way.) The reason is subtle pressure from suits and colleagues and readers. But the point of blogging is that it can liberate you from such pressures. A political hybrid has a secure outlet at last – his or her own. So why, then, the preponderance of the partisans? I know that’s what happens more generally in a polarized polity. But the blogosphere had the potential to be a solvent of this rigidity. Instead, it has become yet another reflection of it (with a few honorable exceptions). Or have I missed some blogs in this regard that deserve more exposure?
The Dish 