We have met the enemy, and he is us.

As the 2008 elections move into the arena of partisan gladiatorial combat, the potentially unique features of both candidates are already getting lost as the political chattering classes return to their old worst habits. And while its leading lights love to congratulate themselves on the new power of the blogosphere, the reality is much more mundane…and much more depressing. The blogosphere in 2008 is largely populated by tired reiterations of very old partisan scripts.

Chief among these is what I would call the presumption of bad faith — the idea that those who disagree politically are not only in error, but are actually bad people. (more…)

Once again showing his famous tolerance for dissent, TMV’s Shaun Mullen charges “libel” in response to criticism of his earlier post. (Apparently TMV has repealed its policy against posts that attack people instead of responding to issues — or maybe it is just an exception made especially for the terrifying “poli kids”.)

As a public service, we would like to note the legal definition of “libel” in case Mullen would like to actually follow through with his latest tantrum. And to help Mullen (and his “Secret Squirrel club” of fans who run to him to tattle whenever Mullen’s views come in for any criticism) tell what is a real personal attack instead of just a disagreement, we’d like to post a link to an example.

At least this time he didn’t email us with an order to “get the f*** out of my thread”.

Over at The Moderate Voice (TMV), Paul Silver posts what amounts to an advertisement for TMV as the exemplar of the moderate blogosphere. In doing so, he calls into question about what really constitutes a “moderate” form of politics. And I honestly cannot agree that TMV represents it within the blogging world. More important, however, the false advertising of “moderate” says something broader about our dysfunctional political culture. (more…)

One of our favorite conservative blogs has always been Captain’s Quarters, authored by the famous Captain Ed. As of March 1st, however, Captain’s Quarters will be shutting down and Captain Ed moving over to another of our favorite conservative sites, Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air. (more…)

If we can’t get the candidate himself, we’ll ask a former debater and current supporter.

On PoliGazette next Friday at 1pm Central time, Michael will ask his questions and your questions about why anyone would support Obama. And Jason will answer those questions.

Log on to the PoliGazette radio web site for interactive chat during the show or call in directly to (646) 200-0656.

Having already used this space to launch an unprovoked attack on movie stars (and with some very shaky numbers, I might add:  do not ever trust me with numbers,) I’ve decided to pick a fight with literary agents.  Here first.  Then here, if you’re interested.  And I can’t imagine why you would be.

Glenn Greenwald and the projection of political vice. (more…)

Due to the receipt of death threats against PoliGazette staff and their families, the post discussing a Dutch movie critical of Islam made by an anti-Muslim bigot has been suspended and its comments thread closed. I am sorry to have to do this and I detest bullying, but this is just blogging and it is not worth risking innocent people’s lives, even if the threat is low probability.

Here above the fold, I must say this: Islam is a great religion with a justifiably proud tradition. Those who claim to be acting in its name while making threats or acting with violence are the only ones who taint it. They do more damage to Islam than Geert Wilders ever could.

(more…)

MMMMMMMM…Lunch!

Well, it could have been worse. I could have gone with Edwards for second place like I did in Iowa.

The capacity of the American voter to surprise, delight, and madden was on full display last night in Hillary Clinton’s win. It reminds all of us the lessons that socialists, communists, and liberals have never learned; there is an infinite capacity in human beings to defy expectations and act in their own interest without regard for the opinions or diktats of “experts.” (more…)

Robert Wright has been testing our patience, but this week a revamped and as expected a decidedly less green Bloggingheads.tv emerged on our screens. The length of the various diavlogs on Bloggingheads are not exactly commensurate with our fast moving and quick linking culture, but Wright and Kaus’ brainchild is proving to be the antidote to what passes these days as political commentary on regular TV screens. A mandatory bookmark.

I’ll be doing some guest blogging at The Democratic Daily, to help out Pamela Leavey (who is taking a three-week long break.

Quite a strange situation to find myself in: guest blogging at a progressive blog but I received a very warm welcome and am delighted to be able to debate in a respectful and reasonable manner with The Democratic Daily’s readers.

Dave “Mudcat” Saunders - who works for John Edwards - wrote a post for Time’s Swampland in which he lashes out to (certain) progressive bloggers. He writes:

I have bitched and moaned for years about the lack of tolerance in the elitist wing of the Democratic Party, or what I refer to as the “Metropolitan Opera Wing”. These are the people who talk of tolerance but the only true tolerance they ever exhibit is for their own pseudo-intellectual arrogance.

If you want a perfect example of how this “intolerance” is helping the Democrats lose national elections, check out the responses to Joe Klein’s post on Paris and Libby. To be clear, I have no problem with incivility. After all, I’m in the political business. However, as a pilgrim in the blogosphere, I thought blogging was for exchange of ideas, not personal attacks. Like his post or not, Klein in no way compromised the integrity of the fourth estate. This was not a news story. He was simply stating his opinion. Unless fourth estate integrity has been compromised, there is no rationale for calling him a “jackass”, “fool”, or “elite white guy”.

Dave, Dave… Dave. You don’t understand: the ‘liberal’ blogosphere is all about personal attacks. It is something like a hobby for these people; perhaps even a calling. It is what they do best. They are - normally - bad writers (with bad ideas of course), so they have to distinguish themselves from the pack by something else. Usually that results in the use of the f-word every other sentence and insulting those who might disagree with them on certain issues.

Oops: I think just did the same as I accuse them of doing.

Progressive bloggers responded to Mudcat’s post and… they’re not happy. For an impression visit:
- Taylor Marsh’s blog
- Daily Kos
- MyDD

Of course “Mudcat” has a point. Lord knows that I do not agree with progressive bloggers on many issues and I am also well aware of the aggressive nature of quite some progressive bloggers, commenters and readers but… if you want to deal with this, if you want to address this issue, it is probably best not to tell them to “go to hell.” Besides, as someone working for John Edwards, perhaps it is best not to address the issue at all - at least not publicly and not by insulting them. After all, the progressive blog community supports Edwards.

Well. It did.

As everybody who has more than one friend knows, sometimes one’s friends get into a fight with each other. The third friend, you, find yourself caught up in the middle. Well, there is something similar going on right now: there are two bloggers who I greatly respect (although I disagree with both on just about every issue one can think of) who are having some kind of blogwar. One is Ron Chusid, the other one is Pamela Leavey.

Ron was, once, a contributor to The Democratic Daily which he left because he did not want to be associated some opinions expressed there (by commenters and co-bloggers). This is, of course, perfectly fine.

What is not fine is that, after leaving TDD, Ron chooses to go after Pamela on quite a regular basis. I understand Ron’s anger, or frustration at least, but it seems to me that two people who are great bloggers, who are both progressives, and who are both very reasonable human beings, should be able to debate issues, not characters.

In this particular case, this is especially true because both individuals are good natured, reasonable, and intelligent.

I know that I often disagree with Pamela (and with Ron) but I would like to ask both to stop attacking each other. Am I something like a judge? No, of course not.

I am merely a blogger and a blogreader. I visit and read both blogs involved and it greatly decreases the pleasure of reading their blogs if they are fighting. There is more going on than meets the eye, probably, but still - I would encourage both to treat each other with respect.

Personally, I am not very fond of blogwars (although I respond to idiotic criticism every now and then) and I think that the far majority of readers aren’t either (nor do they care).

So - my question: can’t we all just get along?

Libby Spencer wrote a post a while back in which she referred to Jeri Thompson as a “trophy wife.” This was, of course, stupid of Libby. However, she did not intend it to be insulting, she wrote in a follow-up post in which she apologized. Seemingly, this was not enough for some people: dr. Helen published a post in which she attacks Libby. Dr. Helen writes:

This is yet another example of a woman who deep down believes that men have no right to leer at women, lest it be considered a sex offense. …In their eagar quest to control men’s sexual rights, some “feminist” women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface.

Libby’s response is here.

Now, I am not choosing sides in this catfight - Lord knows that when two women are fighting, a man should not get in the middle of it - but I just want to say the following: break it up ladies. No need to go at each other’s throat over this. I respect both women a lot; Dr. Helen is one of the most intelligent women in the blogosphere, same goes for Libby who is also a very gifted progressive blogger, and on top of that a good friend (the kind you almost always disagree with).

Ladies; lets make love, not war.

Or was it peace?

Yesterday, I published this post about American Liberalism. I linked to the post at TMV, writing:

For an interesting discussion about American Liberalism, I suggest going here. The post is based on this article at the New York Times, by Patricia Cohen. She writes that there is a discussion going on in American Liberal circles, about the essence of Liberalism, what policies Liberals favor. Should Liberals talk about morality in society? What about foreign policy? Should the US adopt an interventionist foreign policy, or more of an isolationist one?

A little while later, three great bloggers, Pamela Leavey, Libby Spencer and Ron Chusid answered (some of) the questions raised in my post. I strongly recommend all those interested in this issue to read both posts in their entirety.

Some points.

Pamela writes:

I would on a whole disagree with Michael on his assertion that “liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the government should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.” That choosing of which moral values to defend is clearly in my opinion something that both conservatives and liberals do. Particular values are relevant to each of us and to claim that one side of political ideology has a higher standard or one side of political ideology is better than the other is exactly what divides this nation today.

And so again, I will assert as I did above, that the notion that “family values” rest solely in the conservative party is hogwash. As an only parent and a liberal, I have raised a daughter on my own, who graduates from high school this month with a 3.9 grade average and high aspirations to make a difference in the world. I’ve taught her the very values that I live by and there is no standard that says children raised by two conservative parents have done a better job raising their children than I.

The standards by which we live our lives are what define us and our children, political ideology and “values” are an aside to that. No one holds a lock hold on values. When we stop debating whose values are better, like whose God is the “only” God, this country and the world will be a better place.

Imagine all the people… living for today… I am sorry I could not resist.

Pamela’s approach - lets stop fighting about whose morals are best, lets focus on whose policies are best / most effective - is one most people could, principly, embrace. That is, if only it were that simple. Sadly, it is not so.

This is not a debate about whose moral values are best in one’s private life. I know very moral progressives, I know very moral conservatives. I also know very immoral progressives and very immoral conservatives.

The question is, does one believe that society as a whole benefits from certain moral values? If so, doesn’t it make sense for the government to promote these values? And if so, what moral values exactly benefit society and how to promote them?

Also, it seems to me that a lot of political questions revolve around the question of ‘what’s right.’ More about that in my response to Libby’s post below.

Libby takes a radically different approach than Pamela:

Michael says it’s not that simple but I have to disagree. It really isn’t that complicated. I think he is confusing morals with religious values. The two are not necessarily inclusive and shouldn’t be conflated to make the point. Lying, cheating and stealing for instance are moral issues and not only do most of us forgo such behavior as a matter of conscience, it’s also a rule of law that no liberal or conservative would think of opposing. The morality is secondary to the public safety issues. These are behaviors that harm others…

Even an issue as emotionally fraught as abortion is not really fought on moral grounds. Although the religious right would have you believe they are battling to prevent the murder of unborn children, it’s not really about that fetus. Terminating a pregnancy does them no harm, but again, the choice to do so offends their religious values. They’re fighting to prevent a woman from making a private decision about a medical procedure and label the “wrong” choice immoral, because it is — according to their religious rules. We could look to Teri Schiavo and see the same dynamic at work.

Libby, however, forgets one thing. Firstly: most moral values ruling in Western society today are ‘Christian values.’ By that I mean that they are, in their esssence, rooted in Christianity. Secondly: for many people morality and religion are intertwined. Libby believes that they are not, but others believe that they are. Libby looks at certain moral values, and tries to determine whether values are accepted by secularists and Christians alike; if they are, no problem, if they are not, they are labeled ‘religious values’ and thus irrelevant to political discourse. This might make sense to Libby, but many religious persons would strongly disagree with it.

Thirdly, despite Libby’s characterization of those who oppose abortion, my experience is that abortion is a moral issue for most pro-life’ers. Libby believes that pro-life’ers do not really care about the unborn child. Again, in my experience she is completely wrong about that. She then goes on to contradict herself by explaining that, according to these people’s beliefs abortion is murder, and therefore wrong and should, therefore, be illegal. To these people it is about morality, it is about right and wrong.

She goes on to write the following:

But perhaps I belabor the point. The short answer to Michael’s question is every choice we make as human beings is a moral choice and all our laws are to some extent based on moral correctness and are necessary because individual moral values differ and some people do lie, cheat and steal. The government should regulate behavior that harms others. It shouldn’t regulate behaviors that don’t, no matter how offensive they may be to another’s moral values. That is the very definition of freedom.

I completely agree, and I bet most people, yes, most conservatives as well, would agree with that. However, in the case of abortion, Libby believes that no other person is harmed because she does not consider the fetus to be a human being. But if you do believe that the fetus is a human being, what then? Doesn’t that drastically alter the situation? In that case one does hurt another human being, in this case even an innocent child who has no say whatsoever in whether he (or she) should live or die.

In other words, Libby believes that it is very easy to separate morality from religion, but I do not agree with that. It is not that easy at all, especially not in the case of something as complicated as abortion.

Libby uses the same methology to decide whether something is acceptable or not as John Stuart Mill did. However, one question to Libby: does she think that Mill would have supported abortion?

I highly doubt it.

And as far as taxes go, providing for the common good is a moral responsibility that the government should shoulder and that includes helping those less fortunate. Liberals support the social safety net and are willing to pay for it. If we’re going to be assigning hypocrisy, it belongs to those social conservatives who fight tooth and nail for the “right to life” and then begrudge sharing a bit more of their own wealth to improve the quality of life for those who are then born into households of lesser priviledge.

What we see happening here (as in her entire post), Libby says that she disagrees with my thesis when she, in fact, agrees. My thesis was exactly what she wrote, that, in essence, all, or at least most, decisions are moral choices. American liberalis too, I argued, adhere to certain moral values, but pretend they do not. Therefore, I wrote:

It seems to me that liberals who say that the state does not have anything to do with morality, are a bunch of hypocrites: they do talk about morality when they talk about taxes, helping the poor, etc. Then, suddenly, it is about ‘helping’ the other and not being overly selfish. That is, of course, a moral value. In other words, liberals too pick and choose moral values they believe the goverment should defend, and criticize those who want the government to defend moral values they’re not happy with.

So, the question is, I guess, what kind of morals do liberals believe in and what kind of morals should the government defend?

And this is exactly what Libby did in her post. She labeled helping the poor a “moral responsibility” of the government and then attacked conservatives for not being willing to support the social safety net necessary to do so.

Lastly, I would like to respond to this post by Ron. Ron first explains why it is very difficult to come up with a clear definition of ‘liberalism’ in America, he then writes:

Liberalism stems from liberty, and above all else liberalism stands for individual liberty. Therefore liberals are united in opposing the violations of civil liberties seen under the Republicans who believe that the Bill of Rights is limited to the Second Amendment and see the American Civil Liberties Union as their enemy. Liberals defend both the basic liberties defended by the founding fathers, and seek to restore the checks and balances on government power were eroded under Republican one party rule.

This sounds like European liberalism, not American liberalism. Last time I checked, American liberals strongly opposed the views of Barry Goldwater, who actually wanted to do what Ron describes: limited government, more power to the states, constitutionalism.

More:

Liberals support a free market economy, but this leaves room for a variety of interpretations ranging from classical liberals supporting laissez-fair capitalism to those supporting increased government action. Liberals oppose both socialism and the system of government/corporate collusion promoted by conservatives, and I see neither as capitalist system. If not for the many other negative connotations of the word, fascism would be a far more accurate description of the economic policies being promoted by many Republicans, but using this label would denote an extremism which even the Bush administration has not reached.

Wait. Liberals support a free market economy, but oppose conservatives who support a free market economy?

Isn’t this what traditional American conservatism is all about? When I read Ron’s post, I feel like I am reading Goldwater, Burke or Hayek, not Al Gore et al. That post could have been written by me, replacing the word liberalism with conservatism. It seems to me that Ron forgets that the word ‘liberalism’ has radically (d)evolved in America.

In reality there is considerable pragmatism as opposed to ideology on economic issues among liberals. Liberals do not necessarily desire higher taxes as conservatives would argue, but neither would liberals accept a Grover Norquist pledge against raising taxes regardless of the situation. While Cohen considers a support for proactive government to be a fundamental belief of liberals, this is more a matter of pragmatism. Liberals will utilize government where necessary, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism about government. Liberals neither must advocate bigger government in all cases as conservative propagandists would claim, or oppose government in virtually all situations as many conservatives do. Liberals can support the necessary social safety net for those who need it without supporting a net so big that it strangles us all.

Again, most conservatives (and European liberals) would agree with that. The question is, when is it necessary and what role does the Constitution play in this? Also: what does Ron exactly mean with ‘the government’? Is he talking about local government, state government or the federal government? How is one weighed to another? If both the state and the federal government can solve an issue, which one should do it? The state? The federal government? Again, how about the Constitution?

Oppose socialism? What about moderate socialism? It seems to me that most Democrats would be member of the Labor parties in Europe. They almost always favor a bigger government (as in more programs to ‘help’ the poor, ‘improve’ education, ‘distribute’ wealth, etc.).

Holly,

Thank you for answering my questions yesterday. You wrote:

I do good deeds in memory of my late father - that’s enough of an afterlife for me, although I can handle the the idea of becoming a part of the Mind of God (no self-awareness). I don’t believe in or expect an afterlife but would rather be buried in my current synagogue’s cemetery. I’d be in good company!

And:

some believe in reincarnation and others believe in resurrection but most believe that after death we live on in our good deeds and, if we have them, children.

An afterlife is not nearly as important in Judaism as it is in Christianity. The ancient Egyptians (from whom we fled in the Exodus) were obsessed with Death - we Jews are focused on Life.

Fascinating. I bet that not many people knew that Jews do not believe in an afterlife like Christians do.

For Christians, the afterlife is an important part of life, so to speak. We believe that when we die, we will be saved and we will live eternally. Jesus, of course, died so that we could have eternal life. This gives the Christian a reason to live, and to live good: if we live good, if we focus on God, if we live a Godly life, we will be rewarded in the hereafter.

You do not share this belief. I wonder, therefore, what the role of God is in your life? If there is no (or doesn’t have to be a) ‘heaven’, why live, why live a Godly life? Is, then, Judaism a very material religion? Is it all only about life on this earth? And why suffer so much?

I am happy to announce that TMV co-blogger Holly agreed to have a ‘bloggersation’ about religion. Holly is, as most of you will know, Jewish; I am, as most of you will know as well, very much interested in Judaism. Therefore, I thought, an interreligious conversation could be highly interesting. If not for any of you, then at least for me. So I asked Holly whether it would be alright if I asked her certain questions at my blog, and that she would answer those questions at TMV, then I would respond to her answer, etc., etc. As said, she agreed and this is the first post in this series.

Holly,

Quite a while ago I watched a movie about a man and a woman who were married, but were now divorced. The woman was Jewish, the man Christian. During the the custody battle for their daughter, the subject of religion came up, and the Jewish woman explained that Judaism does not believe in ‘an afterlife.’ I was unaware of this: I thought that both Judaism and Christianity believe in an afterlife.

Was I wrong? Do you personally believe in an afterlife or not and what do they teach about this in the synagogue?

What do you believe happens when we die?

UPDATE I
Holly responded.

My thoughts and prayers are with Joe Gandelman and his family: Joe’s father, Richard, “has had terminal lung cancer at 88 coupled with — as of this week — two forms of pneumonia.” As of today “they’re removing the respirator tube from him.” This means that he has an incredibly short amount of time left on this world.

If you are able to help Joe out financially, please do. He will have to fly to his family in “Connecticut for the funeral and a few days there with [his] 86 year old mother, brother and sister.” That means that he has to cancel a view shows, so he will not have any income. Combine that with the make-over of The Moderate Voice and the picture becomes clear: Joe could use your help.

Please show why the blogosphere is often called “generous” by bloggers, by all of us.

It’s not often that I plead for financial aid for anything, I don’t ask you to support me, I don’t want your money, I am happy that you all are reading this blog and commenting on it. However, in this particular case, I believe that it’s not wrong for me to ask you all to donate some money (not to me, but to Joe).

Say hello to the best blog in the entire blogosphere, solely dedicated to foreign affairs: Foreign Policy Watch. The two contributors, Jeb and Dave, are both students at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

Out of curiosity: how many blogs do you visit per, say, day? If you don’t visit (a lot of) blogs on a daily basis, per week. And, what kind of blogs do you visit? Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative blogs? Final question: what role does this blog play in your ‘blogging life?’ If you visit, say, 4 blogs per day, is this the 4th on the list, the 3rd, 2nd, 1st?

Again, purely out of curiosity. I’m wondering about your blogging behavior.

My own blogging:
- I think I visit… 15 blogs per day. Not all the same blogs every day, mostly related to specific articles although I do have a few true favorites.
- All sides of the political universe. Conservative blogs, such as Captain’s Quarters, LThomas and NeoMugWump, but also Moderate (The Moderate Voice of course, The Populist and Central Sanity) and (moderately) Liberal (Gun Toting Liberal, The Impolitic and Crooks and Liars for instance).
- This blog and TMV get the most attention. On both I try to post and actively participate.

Parachutec published an article at the Huffington Post containing seven tips to build a blog community / improve one’s blog. Para writes:

Tip #1: Post Fresh Content Every Day, Multiple Times Per Day

Tip #2: Enlist a Group of Writers

Tip #3: Build a Brand and Exploit a Niche

Tip #4: Cultivate Reader Participation

Tip #5: Do Consistently Great Writing: You can’t be great all the time, but you can try.

Tip #6: Make Online Friends

Tip #7: Know Yourself and Why You Want to Blog

They are good tips, so let me take a closer look at how I operate (your comments and thoughts are welcome):
#1: that I do
#2: this is a solo blog, so no
#3: I try to, but I am wondering whether you all, my readers, have any idea what this blog is about and whether this blog is different from all other blogs
#4: I try to: both by encouraging comments, reacting to them and sometimes by ‘frontpaging’ commenters. Enough?
#5: consistenly great writing: the English language is a constant source of frustration to me. My English has, and will continue to, improve, but I wish that my English would be as good as my Dutch
#6: do it very actively, albeit not because it might help me, but because I like it / helping others
#7: I know myself and I know why I want to blog: to add a truly liberal conservative voice to the blogosphere, one that is critical of everyone, while adhering to an ideology nonetheless. It will also help me expand my knowledge, keep me updated, improve my writing skills and benefit my future (I am still only a student after all).

Thoughts?

More at Liberty Street and Rubber Hose.

UPDATE:
Also more at The American Street: Kevin Hayden writes:

Ultimately, if you wish to succeed at blogging, the eighth point that almost always gets left out can be summed up in two words.

Get lucky.

I disagree. I strongly believe that one determines one’s own success, be it either in blogging, or in one’s study, be it either in one’s health, or in one’s relationship. If I did not, I would not be where I am at right now. I would be sitting in a coffeeshop all day long, smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol and explaining why Marx was right all along.

Pete writes at his blog Central Sanity, that he is trying to find more co-bloggers. If you are interested in joining Pete, Dennis, Chuck and yours truly at CS please consider sending Pete an e-mail at abel.reply@gmail.com to offer your services. Central Sanity is a great blog, with a growing readership.

CS’ mission statement: “To consider and comment on a broad range of social and political issues – rationally but honestly, with equal parts skepticism and optimism – and thereby give voice to people everywhere who are attempting to stumble as surely and safely as they can through life’s confusion.”

If you can recognize yourself in that mission statement and if you would like to be part of Central Sanity, send Pete an e-mail: there are, of course, no rules as to how often you should post. My contributions to CS are, sadly, for a variety of reasons, limited to pointer posts, but I am a proud member of CS nonetheless.

It truly is one of the best, most reasonable blogs out there.

EDIT: added link to Pete’s blogpost

Heh. Ali seems to have received quite some, umh, not so friendly comments, after criticizing Islamist(’s supporting) organization CAIR.