Asymmetrical Information

Coleman's diatribe reminds me of Shakespeare:

Jealousy... the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on...

It was a really dumb idea for Coleman to start this fight. Hindrocket destroyed the column before the newspaper even hit the street.

Something about powerline annoys the fuck out of me, so I found his column gratifying, if not particularly insightful.

And here I thought I was the most hated quasi-conservative blogger on the web. Well that's what my e-mail keeps telling me. When you go beyond the left and the right and attack materialism at the source you are bound to p--- a lot of people off and it does not seem to matter a whit whether they voted for Bush or Kerry.

SDAI-Tech1

PS. Megan I hope someone bought you Twain's Daily Calendar put out by Barnes & Noble. If not...buy yourself one. You deserve it. ;-)

So the guy has a Puritanical non-sense of humor. Coleman's column should get him more frequent library and green tea dates with Welsleyan bra burners.

His central point - that any right-winger claiming to be underrepresented, oppressed, or "speaking truth to power" is either lying or delusional - is absolutely valid. So valid it's not even up for discussion

Great minds think along the same wave: Power Line has an advance look at Chris Muir's Day by Day strip on Coleman.

His central point - that any right-winger claiming to be underrepresented, oppressed, or "speaking truth to power" is either lying or delusional - is absolutely valid.

Now, is this because:

1) Right-wingers cannot speak "truth"?
2) Right-wingers already are power, therefore cannot speak to it? or
3) There's no such thing as an under-represented or oppressed right-winger? That is, if [GODWIN ALERT] Adolf Hitler turned up, no one in power (define that as you like) would point and laugh, or shriek.

Oh, pardon me. This is not up for discussion. My mistake.

How about this: why is it when people "speak truth to power" they never say, "Attaboy, power. You're doing a good job"? Does power never do a good job? Does having power render you incompetent? Will being powerless somehow make you more competent? Or do only the incompetent become powerful? Or is it just that 'truth' is defined as 'whatever power is not doing at moment'? If I keep this up, will I turn into Andy Rooney?

Actually, I think Auguste has the idea. Coleman says something in his column about the purpose of journalism being the "service of...the downtrodden". That's what it's all about, see. It's not about gathering and reporting facts, it's about activism.

I think Coleman's anger at all these conservative johnny-come-latelies in his eyes is real, and doesn't have much if any of a hidden agenda.

On the other hand, James Wolcott, with his posts over the last few months about rooting for hurricanes to hit southern states and his attacks on people like Glenn Reynolds and James Lileks, appears to be actively trolling for retaliatory comments, as if his goal is to be be blog world's version of some WWE villan-of-the month to the conservative sections of the Internet (since Wolcott's website was basically introduced to most bloggers by Jeff Jarvis, I don't know if this qualifies him for the Vince McMahon role or not in the current battle).

2) Right-wingers already are power, therefore cannot speak to it?

Well, as the United States Constitution defines power, yes.

Executive? Check.
Legislative? Check.
Judicial? Check...and if not to the extent that some Right-wingers want, see a) and b) above and check the actuarial tables.

Lots of checks. Not many balances.

I think - 1994-2000 included - the country benefits in general (see 1998 for an exception) when legislative and executive are divided. That doesn't mean I'll vote for a congressional or presidential candidate I'm in complete disagreement with...but it does mean that I have trouble feeling sorry for anyone whose ideological allies are in control of the entire federal government.

Double Godwin Alert: And as far as Adolf Hitler turning up, those whose voices echo his early rise to power are out there and, if not universally accepted, also not being laughed off the stage.

Ugh, August, the system of checks and balances addresses the branches of government, not political parties.

My point, Auguste, was that not every conservative or Republican agrees with the administration's stance on every topic. Therefore, if you believe (for example) the "truth" is that we need to tighten up our borders, and loosen up our deportation laws, then to say so is to "speak truth to power", even if you are (gasp) a right-winger.

Frankly, I am firmly of the belief that anyone who seriously uses the phrase "speak truth to power" is a posturing ninny.

And as far as Adolf Hitler turning up, those whose voices echo his early rise to power are out there and, if not universally accepted, also not being laughed off the stage.

Maybe you'd care to offer an example.

I work for a dopey old newspaper committed to covering the news fairly - Nick Coleman

[right-wing bloggers] toot their horns in the service of ... what? The downtrodden? No, that was yesterday's idea of the purpose of journalism. - Nick Coleman

I'm confused. Is he saying journalism should be about covering the news fairly, or serving the "downtrodden"?

I haven't read anything else by this guy, but based on this article (at least, the part I could read without having to register with his newspaper), I get the feeling that any old agitprop serving to manufacture victimhood, instill a sense of entitlement, breed contempt for the succesful, or otherwise push an agenda he agrees with would earn his stamp of approval, while any editorial expressing an opinion he doesn't agree with would earn his contempt as an extremist hack-job. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Brett,

When two branches of government fall all over themselves to assist the third, those aren't checks and balances.

Angie,

I understood your point. My original point was not to denigrate one phrase or another; and of course I understand that not everyone falls into one camp or another. As a Quaker pacifist, I am quite familiar with the concept of compromising one's political beliefs. However, the fact remains that for right-wingers to cast themselves as underdogs in either politics or discourse is disingenuous in the extreme.

As to who I have in mind on the Hitler comparison, I would say that anyone suggesting the degrading of civil liberties of American citizens based on race, religion, or skin color - up to and including registration, forced relocation and/or imprisonment - those voices can easily be said to "echo his early rise to power." I didn't suggest that the end result is automatically the same.

Well Auguste, you're still defending power, not its absence: you want the policies you wish to force into action to prevail, just as your political opponents do.

Those who believe the republic is intended to promote individual liberty rather than partisan coercion want the system of checks and balances to prevent most legislation. Free people don't need most of it and all of it diminishes liberty. Your complaint arises from the fact that your side is losing for the moment. Your political premises are the same as your opponents': the people must be ruled, not governed. A plague on all activist politcs.

...anyone suggesting the degrading of civil liberties of American citizens based on race, religion, or skin color - up to and including registration, forced relocation and/or imprisonment ...

And who would this be again? And they are listened to by which people in power?

quaker pacifists...

their used to be good and useful quaker pacifists.. some of them served in WWII as medics... now it seems to be more of a denomination of posturing leftists...

you sit there and we'll defend the free world... or you could just go offer yourself up as a sacrifice to the janjaweed now...

Well Auguste, you're still defending power, not its absence: you want the policies you wish to force into action to prevail, just as your political opponents do.

Never denied it. However...

Those who believe the republic is intended to promote individual liberty rather than partisan coercion want the system of checks and balances to prevent most legislation. Free people don't need most of it and all of it diminishes liberty. Your complaint arises from the fact that your side is losing for the moment. Your political premises are the same as your opponents': the people must be ruled, not governed. A plague on all activist politcs.

I think you will find that in my first post in this thread, I quite clearly stated that I am in favor, under our current two-party system, of one party controlling the executive branch and another controlling the legislative. I do not believe that the people must be 'ruled' in the slightest; that is, in fact, the central idea of the United States. It is for that reason that I oppose the patriot act and the war on drugs support the entire bill of rights (Second Amendment included, believe it or not) - but I also believe that our social contract brings obligations as well as opportunities, and perhaps the main difference between our views lies in the extent of that obligation. As far as "preventing most legislation", I am in at least partial, if not necessarily full, agreement with that, too. Not sure what I've said that contradicts any of that.

...anyone suggesting the degrading of civil liberties of American citizens based on race, religion, or skin color - up to and including registration, forced relocation and/or imprisonment ...

And who would this be again? And they are listened to by which people in power?

I'm not going to single them out by name, although I do a lot of talking about at least one of them, but they have written books, columns, and had quite popular talk shows on the very subject. I have no idea who in power listens to them. What I do know is that they aren't being laughed off the stage, but rather appearing on the mainstream media quite often. This whole discussion began with the Godwin alert, claiming that righties would react to a new Hitler the same way lefties would. And yet these particular pundits are getting quite a bit of play these days in discussions about immigration security and the war on terror.

their used to be good and useful quaker pacifists.. some of them served in WWII as medics... now it seems to be more of a denomination of posturing leftists...

you sit there and we'll defend the free world... or you could just go offer yourself up as a sacrifice to the janjaweed now...

There was another important quaker pacifist during WWII named Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was driven to act directly against his religious beliefs by the events of the day. I don't know if there's another Bonhoeffer out there, but here's the difference: He turned to violence because what he saw led him to believe that it was absolutely the only answer remaining to a man of good conscience.

There have been precious few moments in my lifetime, if any, that were or could have been better solved with violence than any other answer. Sadly, no one - Democrat or Republican - seems to be willing to adopt this world view. I was too young to really be a judge, but Carter seems to have come the closest. Now he was laughed off the stage.

Clarification: I certainly don't agree with every single one of Carter's policies, nor, for that matter, do I claim to even know most of them. I was five in 1980, so it's basically hearsay. If my reference to the most hated president in recent memory distracts readers, please feel free to ignore that particular sentence.

Comments are Closed.