The syndicated talker Neal Boortz chuckles at the human collision along an advanced border fence. ?I don?t care if Mexicans pile up against that fence like tumbleweeds in the Santa Ana winds,? he said on Monday. And two hosts of something called the ?Patriot Radio News Hour? here mocked the Hispanic Games, held last weekend in Phoenix. They suggested ?jumping the fence? and ?leaving the scene of an accident? as competitive events for Latino athletes. Ha-ha.
Democrats are laughing all the way to a new Western majority. In 2004, they picked up a Senate and a Congressional seat in Colorado, with two Hispanic brothers in cowboy hats. And they did it with counties where an NPR liberal is hard to find.
?Arizona is in play like never before,? said David Waid, chairman of the state?s Democratic Party. ?And the Republicans are literally handing it to us.?
Some Republicans know this. Nationwide, Hispanic support for Republican candidates dropped 10 points from 2004 to 2006 ? to about 30 percent of the vote. Yes, this state?s two Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, favor the comprehensive immigration bill. And yes, President Bush is the bill?s chief proponent.
But pragmatism is being drowned out by the bullies with electronic bullhorns, who?ve got their party leaders running scared.
?If they get their way and the bill dies, so too may Republican electoral prospects for the foreseeable future,? wrote Clint Bolick, a conservative scholar, in The Arizona Republic this week.
Remember that prediction on Election Day 2008.
I wonder if blogs are more prone to navel-gazing than the other media because tuning in a blog seems a bit more solitary than tuning in a tv or radio talk show. Is said seems because I dont know if it is. I can picture myself putting on a Limbaugh or OReilly show but I cant picture myself tuning into a right-wing blog very often. Maybe it is because a blog is more active vs the passive broadcast media. There is social pressure on blogs, ie we all have to have contempt for McCain etc.
<
p>
Just riffing a little—-It’s interesting to think about where blogs fit in and what they will become. If net neutrality is lost it will probably have a big impact on content.
I hesistate to respond to you here. As I understand it (please correct me), you think:
Putting aside for the moment that I may have misrepresented your views, there is growing evidence that all of these theses are counter-factual. The national Democrats, if anything, have been beset by timidity not extremism; they lose people’s trust because of that. (“If Kerry — or Dukakis in 1988 — cannot stand up for himself, how will he stand up for us?”) Polling shows erosion of support for the Congress not because it is extremist but because it is timid on the issue of Iraq.
<
p>
Polling also shows that the bipartisan center is vanishing. For example, on immigration reform, it has been very hard to forge a bipartisan middle. Further, polls frequently show that the electorate heavily favors Democratic positions but not Democratic candidates. That suggests a problem not with positions but with communication.
<
p>
Glenn Greenwald has been pointing out for a while the manichean tendencies of conservative thought. We now have a whole book from him on that score. Liberals have nothing like that. Nor do we have something like historical materialism to which we all swear fealty. Instead we have a huge cadre of academics spending a lot of time wondering whether what we all believe is really true.
<
p>
I am frequently amazed that you think ideology leads to intolerance. Liberals by nature love to sing Kum Bye Ah. We want everyone together and happy. Liberal organizations frequently seem to suffer from someone a business organization or a conservative group would have shown the door years ago. An ideology that values inclusion so highly is going to have a difficult time being intolerant.
<
p>
The biggest aspect of conservative success since 1980 has been ideological. That’s what it means for them to own the frames. (Government is wasteful; govenment is always inefficient.) A pragmatic politics, one that avoids ideology, i.e., that avoids articulating a world view, is incoherent, unmoving, and unappealing. Weren’t, in fact, Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 attempting just such a politics? It doesn’t work. It doesn’t roll back the Reagan Revolution. People seem to expect Democrats to be partisan and ideological anyway. Republicans make that accusation often and they do it for a reason. Voters don’t expect non-ideological pragmatism. They expect ideology and when people like Hillary Clinton try to express non-ideological pragmatism, they are accused of being “slick” or “political”. So if we’re going to be accused of being ideological, it seems like a much better strategy to accept that and to make our ideology (or world view) something useful and attractive.
There’s another different aspect on blogs that I think Bob misses…
<
p>
Despite the seeming echo chamber, bloggers are far more accountable than the other listed groups. We are constantly berated by our readers, challenging our viewpoints and forcing us to think harder about how to defend them (or, even, in some cases, to abandon those viewpoints).
<
p>
The other point by cadmium, about everying being on the same page (ie everyone hating McCain, etc), generally speaking, when we do start to come to consensus, it’s actually meaningful. Any reality-based person should take one look at McCain or LIEberman and find them contemptuous.
<
p>
Even among bloggers, there’s serious disagreement. For instance, Kos took a war out on Meehan after his support for the blog campaign finance rules. However, on several occasions after that, some (including me) defended him, because even if he goofs up on some things, he by no means is a monolithically bad legislator. This is what I mean by there being a conversation, and true echo chamber viewpoints don’t often hold up very long. The blogosphere, unlike talk radio and other venues, is a meritocracy, and always will be, because those who start to go off the deep end into talking points will quickly lose audience.
<
p>
The last point I will make is that adhering to an ideaology isn’t bad in and of itself. I honestly can’t remember the name of the author, but there’s a very convincing commentator out there who says that the reason we lost our way as a nation was the loss of ideaology and loyality to the political parties. That things were actually less polarized when the political parties held more sway with voters and activists. Certainly, you can definitely see the # of independents rising…is that a symptom of the polarization, or perhaps part of the reason for it? I will have to try and see if I can find this guy…I think I heard him on NPR or PBS a while back…
that, as has been said, it is pragmatic to stand by progressive principles — right now. And even if it weren’t, it’s the right thing to do anyway. More, we have a long way to go before we can worry about progressive overreaching. I’m still waiting for Democrats in Congress to reach, period.
<
p>
That said….
<
p>
The main difference between something like the national radio/TV model and the blogosphere is that the former is by nature top-down, 1-way conversation whereas the latter is two way interaction and participation.
<
p>
While it is true that DailyKos and other blogs are decidedly progressive in a particularly rough and chaotic mold, there is actually quite a bit of discussion and disagreement on that and other blogs. On MyDD, one of the best parts (for me) has been to read posts that posit a general idea about an issue or nuts and bolts problem and then read how people react. The way I see it, blogs that would be the sites “dogging,” the politicians are inherently participatory, else they lose readership.
<
p>
Radio, by contrast, isn’t just an echo chamber — it’s the voice of one person or one editorial board. The feedback radio hosts get is from ratings and advertisers. Sure, there are e-mails/letters, but such “conversations,” generally aren’t the same kind of back and forth of ideas that one can flesh out on the internet. The same holds for TV.
<
p>
Ultimately, it depends on the website. No one or even group of several websites could possibly come close to being called “the blogosphere” or “the progressive blogosphere.” What that means is, you can have several sites that are fundamentally partisan/ideological activist (DailyKos, MyDD), other sites that are about creating good discourse, others which are informative (pollster.com), others that serve as a community center and more. I think BMG seems to have become a good combination of community center, activist space, and debate house.
<
p>
More, if we find that the blogosphere is becoming to vitriolic, to “echo-chambery,” a new site can fill the void to create that introspection and calmer perspective. Unlike TV or radio, which is a zero-sum-game, the internet is only limited in time or space by what people want to read. What this means is that if we become politically “bigoted,” it’s not out of the question for a new site to emerge to call us out. And if it has quality progressive content with a smart group of people at its helm, it can become more attractive than the sludge.
<
p>
So put these three threads together: blogs give instant feedback and create two way dialog through a diverse web of sites with different communal purposes; and should the blogosphere ‘lose its way,’ there is the easier potential for new growth and stabilization.
<
p>
Finally, I’d go one further: the MSM is actually more of an echo-chamber than the blogosphere, and that’s in part because of the way its funded, the culture of journalists today, and because it’s easier to have two-way conversations online than on TV or the radio.
Jinks!
ECHO CHAMBER!
This very thread is a great example of what you and I are both talking about! LOL
People who are tired and/or busy with family and work probably have more energy and attention for one way more passive media. So too, are people like a salesperson on the road, a carpenter or mechanic who are occupied with their hands at work. They can listen but no opportunity to type.
<
p>
People who are able to interact with their news and entertainment are more likely to like blogs. Also blogging is a way of beating “bowling alone” syndrome.
<
p>
I know I am being overly simplistic as my wife sits next to me on her computer doing email and horse websites and I am toggling between BMG and an artist blog. It’s less isolated than the common arrangement of couples with two TV’s which they have to watch in different rooms.
Even if you’re too tired to contribute to BMG, you might still read it. Is that active? It’s no more or less passive than reading the Globe online, but then you’re reading more vigorous debate, especially if you read quality content as produced by the wonderful stars of BMG like Charley or stomv or Cos etc.
<
p>
<
p>
This got me thinking. There are two things I’d like to hammer out, so bear with me if I seem a bit rambly.
<
p>
Passive online media vs. active online media: By passive online media, I mean sites like boston.com where a user might only read text that’s been upload. Or, perhaps a better example is the consumer end of YouTube — most people I know have never uploaded a video onto YouTube but go there all the time to just watch. That’s as passive as watching TV. By active online media, I mean blogs like BMG or MyDD, or sites where participation means some sort of creation or perhaps “conversation.” The other end of YouTube–creating content–is active.
<
p>
It seems that even passive usage of the internet depends on active usage. Some private person had to have the energy to upload a YouTube video without the incentive of ad revenue or anything like that. I can’t watch the video of the cat playing the piano unless somebody has the energy to create that phenomenon. So even when people are “passive,” online, they’re dependent upon those who aren’t to give them the content they need.
<
p>
There’s a reason why sites like YouTube, facebook, myspace, etc. are popular — and not just for the energetic. It’s because people do have the energy to contribute something to the public sphere, and it’s addictive. And they’re just not that technical for the consumer. Any college student chugging a 40 can easily work facebook and it’s not considered a “chore,” or work. It’s actually the opposite, and people I’ve talked to say how “addicted,” they are to facebook because there’s always something new to add or they can see what other people are up to.
<
p>
And campaigns, issue groups, etc, are rapidly encroaching that sort of space as well. So even the passive online media is suddenly not so passive anymore.
<
p>
As for active online media, I agree with you. A smaller percentage of people will actually be the people uploading content or creating new facebook applications or participating in blogs. But those numbers are still going up, and the entire system of the two-way political conversation depends on them.
<
p>
It seems to me that people have a whole lot of energy, even if they’re tired from work, to contribute to the internet, because it’s just so much fun to do something rather than do nothing. That’s why the most successful shows want you to vote (American Idol), or spur actual discussion about what will happen, and other shows are trying to become more direct (Comedy Central will text you jokes!) So I don’t get the sense that people are too tired for interactivity.
I do find it take a little more energy to read the Globe online than the paper ,but not much. I must really sound anemic or lazy but that is how I think it works. On one hand you gravitate to what is easier and on the other hand what is more exciting. Many like me, I’m sure, read/surfed BMG for months on end without posting but once getting into the swing of the first post you want to get more active.
Because every blog is the same?
<
p>
I mean, really. There are two reasons why the media is dead wrong on this mythical left-wing nightmare that we’ll turn the Dem party into poison.
<
p>
First, not every progressive blog is the same. There are good ones and bad ones. The bad ones, interestingly enough, I don’t think are the highest-trafficked.
<
p>
Second, unlike talk radio, we’re a “reality-based community.” We’re the community that looks at the facts, not just the stirred emotions.
<
p>
Lastly, I’d like to point out that the progressive netroots have already proven themselves as highly potent in being able to WIN elections: we beat Joe Lieberman in the primary, (and, if they didn’t have such bizarre rules in that state, it would have been the general too). We got Jim Webb through a primary and a general. We almost got a Dem elected in friggin WYOMING – within 2-3% there. We swept New Hampshire, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention, we definately helped a certain Governor from a certain N. England state that starts with a M and ends with an S.
<
p>
Now, far more went into these races than the netroots. Deval Patrick ran an excellent campaign. Ned Lamont ran a decent campaign pre-primary and had lots of bucks to spend in the race. Jim Webb’s general election opponent utterred one very ill-concieved slur (though, that doesn’t explain Webb’s victory in the primary – when the DC establishment went for the other guy). Etc. etc. etc. Certainly, all the Republican candidates (and Joe Lieberman) had to contend with Iraq. But, at the end of the day, would most of those candidates have won if not for the netroots? Unlikely.
First, thank you all so much for your very helpful comments. Well, they helped me anyway. Second, a few quick thoughts.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
Your diary should mention the people who are trying to get progressive talk back on the airwaves in the Boston area.
<
p>
I’ve blogged about the Save Boston’s Progressive Talk Coalition in this diary and others.
<
p>
As for your self-described “navel-gazing”:
<
p>
<
p>
I’m one who doesn’t support that approach. I’m heavily involved in politics, not because it’s fun, but because the Republican party is running the planet into a hole at breakneck speed, and this must be stopped. Groups who are trying to stop this multidimensional catastrophe need to get the message out to each other, and this is impossible without the progressive blogosphere. It becomes difficult when the progressive blogosphere becomes yet another place for ineffectual talk. And that’s what things degrade into when Blue Mass Group becomes Colorless Mass Group. When I post diaries about progressive talk radio, I’m really not interested in what conservatives have to say about it. I’m interested in getting out a message to progressives, because they’re the ones who are going to make it work, or not.
<
p>
So I see the progressive blogosphere as a place to spur action. Not debate. And we should only be so lucky as to have so much success that we need to be reined in. If that will ever happen, it won’t be for a long, long, long time.
May I make an observation?
<
p>
I see progressives, so called, as essentially very young or young adults, who are essentially decent, altruistic folks who have a cause(s)and want to make the world a better place and want to make a difference doing whatever.
<
p>
As you get older and get kicked around a bit, you learn that you have to choose your battles. We will never make stupid people smart, we won’t make the poor rich, we will not cause misery and suffering to end. People will die in conflict, criminals will forever be amongst us, evil people may live right next door etc. As you get older. and beat up and beat down, you focus on issues that have a more immediate result and focus not so much on the future.
<
p>
It’s OK to worry about twenty years from now, but some issues are more pressing.
<
p>
Who listens to talk radio? The working stiff, Joe Six Pack, the man and woman who have kids in the service, the average taxpayer. People who have real issues in the now—tomorrow and next week. Who reads progressive blogs? People with time on their hands. Very likely someone who isn’t finishing up one job and getting ready to go to the next. That’s where the democrat party is going to go down the drain. They are more worried about what’s going on in Sudan than what is going on in Detroit. Something for everyone who is deserving, the pocketbook and the coffers are limitless. The average Joe just wants to pay his bills and take care of his family not save the world. The average Joe believes that Americans through hard work and sacrifice, and a Judeo/Christian ethic allowed this country to succeed. Progressive’s seem to find a reason to caste that ethic in a negative light. It turns people off.
<
p>
And until you have witnessed the birth of your own child (and this is my own opinion) abortion is bad medicine/karma, partial birth abortion is a clever word for murder. Since many Americans are responsible mum’s and dad’s, regardless of SSM and the rest of that,and they experience the joy and delight of their children, point being—–this abortion business will forever be a millstone hung around the neck of the democrat party. I think that every woman has the right to an abortion just as any individual has the right to commit suicide or engage in self mutilation or destroy their mind or body in any manner they see fit. Destroying life is destroying life.
<
p>
But what do I know?
Who listens to talk radio? The working stiff, Joe Six Pack, the man and woman who have kids in the service, the average taxpayer.
<
p>
A few months ago, an article in the Globe mentioned that the median age of listeners to WRKO (you know, Rush Lamebrain’s and Howie Carr’s station) were 59 for men and 63 for women and that they were primarily white. It would seem that “who listens to talk radio” is primarily old embittered white people.
<
p>
NB: despite the power of ‘RKO’s signal, their ratings were no better than half of WBZ’s, which has a signal of similar power. And, obviously in an effort to up ‘RKO’s ratings, the station is running sports programming in the evening (oddly, in competition with 850, which is owned by the same company, Entercom). It is the sports programming that might appeal to Joe Six Pack.