The right-wing blogger aristocracy

Chris Bowers has one of his rare, but always awesome, comparisons between the two sides of the political blogosphere. These passages were particularly striking:

Of the twenty-four liberal blogs in the top quintile, Dailykos, TPM Café, Smirking Chimp, Metafilter, BooMan Tribune, MyDD, and Dembloggers are full-fledged community sites where members cannot only comment, but they can also post diaries / articles / polls. By comparison, there are no community sites among the top twenty-four conservative blogs. None, zip, zero, nada. This is particularly stunning when one considers the importance of the Free Republic community to the conservative netroots. While it would appear that there are hordes of Glenn Reynolds wannabe's among conservatives in the netroots, Redstate.org sticks out as the only success story for a community oriented blog within the conservative blogosphere. In fact, of the five most trafficked conservative blogs (over 200,000 page views per week), only one, Little Green Footballs, even allows comments, much less the ability to actually write a diary or a new article [...]

Anyone who spends a significant amount of time on Scoop blogs should not have any difficulty figuring out why this is the case. Because of Scoop's diary feature, it is possible to become at least a semi-famous blogger without having a blog of your own. An entire generation of popular liberal bloggers grew out of the Dailykos diaries and comments: Billmon, Steve Soto, Steve Gillard, Melanie, DemfromCT, DhinMI, Theoria, Tom Schaller, Meteor Blades, DavidNYC, myself, SusanHu, Jerome a Paris, lapin, Maryscott O'Conner, NYCO, Mariascat, and many, many more. I believe that the wave of new talent and fresh voices that the comments and dairy options bring to a blog has been the key factor in the liberal blogosphere outpacing the growth of the right wing blogosphere [...]

There are swarms of new conservative voices looking to breakout in the right-wing blogosphere, but they are not even allowed to comment, much less post a diary and gain a following, on the high traffic conservative blogs. Instead, without any fanfare, they are forced to start their own blogs. However, because of the top-down nature of right-wing blogs, new conservative blogs remain almost entirely dependent upon the untouchable high traffic blogs for visitors. In short, the anti-community nature of right-wing blogs has resulted in a stagnant aristocracy within the conservative blogosphere that prevents the emergence of new voices and, as a result, new reasons for people to visit conservative blogs.

Go read the whole thing if this is the sort of topic that interests you. It boggles the mind to thing that three years ago, the conservative side had about twice the traffic of the liberal side. Nowadays, the liberal side gets about 65 percent more traffic than the conservatives, even though they boast larger numbers of sites.

Hugh Hewitt, at a recent panel discussion, argued that lack of comments made for a more vibrant conservative blogosphere than its liberal counterpart. If by "more vibrant" he meant comparatively lower and stagnant traffic and the power of a handful of top-tier bloggers to control who is heard, and when s/he is heard, then I guess he was right.

•  It boils down to this

  The Right operates in top-down mode, which partially explains the cult-like following behind George W. Bush. Our side operates from the bottom up--something that has to dawn on inside-the-Beltway Democrats such as < insert your favorite example >.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:44:50 AM PDT

  •  E-dittoheads

    Right-wing information producers want to manipulate and control opinion, and consolidate their audiences.  

    Right-wing information consumers want validation in an environment where their fear and ignorance aren't challenged.

    Written communication works against these twin motivations.  Blogs are revolutionary in part because they have struck the first popular blow for the written word in America since the advent of television.  The harnessing and manipulation of visual media have dominated our political discourse since the mid-60s (when color TV became the standard).

    Words harm thoughtless designs.

    by Mogolori on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:16:59 AM PDT

    •  I used to talk @ redstate.org

      but it only took them a month to boot me because they didn't like that I pointed out their "facts" weren't correct.  They do make grat lil bush neophytes though.

      I did enjoy debating with many of them, but many of them live in some parallel universe that I wish would just separate from mine.

      by kindness on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:10:34 PM PDT

      •  Sit down, shut up and do as I say.....

        This pretty much sums up the neocons/republicans today. From the POTUS all the way down to their blogs, apparently. So much for the Land of the Free.

        by clueless on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:03:21 PM PDT

    •  You Ain't Kiddin'

      Right-wing information consumers want validation in an environment where their fear and ignorance aren't challenged.

      Ain't that the damn truth. Clearest example I've run across is the PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood) site and their message board. Post one--just one--message that disagrees with the party line snd you'll immediately bbe branded a "troll" by the Nazi moderators who apparently  lurk there 24/7. Not only will you be barred from the site, they ban your I.P. so that the site effectively "disappears" from your browser. Every time you try to access it after that, you get redirected to microsoft.com. Try to go there from here
      htt://www.pabaah.com and see what happens. You'll most likely get a message saying" you come from a site we don't like, we're sending you back" and you'll be redirected back here. It is absolutely amazing. the longest I lasted was when I pretended to be a member of the White Aryan Resistance.

      by JDRhoades on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:14:58 PM PDT

      •  Shoot..

        It's http://www.pabaah.com

        by JDRhoades on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:16:13 PM PDT

        •  Domain expired

          it says to me . . .

          by DoctorScience on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:07:08 PM PDT

      •  That would be nifty...

        ...go on over there and pretend to be some kind of really extreme white supremacist or something, posting all manner of hateful shit that your buddies at DKos, DU, or whatever can quote on their sites, as if to say, "see what bastards these people are?"

        Well, that's what the right would do to us.  What we might do to them is, "see what kind of bullshit they tolerate over at LGF/FR/whatever?"

        by republicans are idiots on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:28:32 PM PDT

      •  Their registration recently expired

        Just did a whois:

          Domain Name:pabaah.com
          Record last updated at 2004-06-10 14:08:49
          Record created on 2003/6/4
          Record expired on 2005/6/4

        It might be fun to grab it...

        by patop on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:09:28 PM PDT

        •  Hah!

          And HAH! again.
          

          by JDRhoades on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 05:39:56 AM PDT

    •  Brothers Sisters

      We don't need that fascist groove thing

      Winger blogs prevent the emergence of new voices

      by sooner on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:23:34 PM PDT

  •  It is left to the few to distribute

    the talking points fax.  Can't take a chance with that on message posture.  That could lead to dissent, and the mangling of the English language.

    by groggy on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:27:52 AM PDT

    •  Now wouldn't it be nice...

      ...to insert an almost exact version of the talking points to distribute to about half of their faithful? We needn't even change the message, just the language. Just mention President Hussein instead of Saddam once in a while, or "GOP-run media" instead of MSM, or say "prisoners" instead of "detainees".

      Come to think of it, we could even say "soldiers" instead of "troops", "dead" instead of "casualties". Simply send them a version translated back to English. And have half of them parrot the wrong version. Prepare lots of popcorn.

      by DrFairday on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:05:14 PM PDT

  •  The McGovern Rules

      Prior to the 1972 election, the Demos changed to the McGovern rules which were for proportional representation at the precinct level. The Repubs have continued with the 'winner take all' method, which is basically the same 'might makes right' philosophy still empowering the party from the top down.

      I think the very process of these modern (sic) democratic blogs is an outgrowth of that move toward inclusivity. It has been like herding cats at time for the Demos to get all the represented coalitions together as a single force, but I think this particular development blogform has done more to form a cohesive overall party than anything else could have. People needed a forum on a broad scale and the freedom to express their concerns - and to share in the core values that we all share despite our own narrow issues.

      The Republican form is authoritarian.

      As my grandma used to say: "If you can't listen you can feel."  Today the narrowcast Repubs are starting to feel the heat precisely because they won't listen.

      Good catch, kos, of one of the key processes powering our present situation: one has matured, the other is being ensnared in its logical consequence.

    by walkshills on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:11:20 PM PDT

    •  Enforced Republican harmony

      GOP rules enforce harmony most of the time, but the fights they do have tend to be doozies. The Republican Party is long overdue for a showdown of epic proportions. Maybe it's about to come.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:21:25 PM PDT

    •  Winner-take-all makes some sense.

      You train as you fight, right?  What difference does it make if you can rack up big majorities in New York or California, only to lose by a couple percent in a proportionate number of states in the general election?  Do ya think the reason the GOoPers have it over us is partly because their primaries are structured the same as the general election?

      by republicans are idiots on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:31:37 PM PDT

      •  Not the structure, the strategy

          There's something in what you say, but as Ali proved in Zaire, superior strategy has its role, too, but you gotta take the body shots to win.
          The Republicans' ability to lie and sustain those lies with a propaganda machine - something they do even with their own, witness McCain - and with their control over the media and echo chamber gave them a decisive edge, IF you don't believe they just outright stole it.

          So, I do not think their 'winner take all precinct' process is that big a contributor at all. The fact that they have contorted the system to an even greater degree than Nixon did is what gave them the electoral edge despite large Demo majorities in NY and California.
          In a tactical sense they made a flanking run rounding up the less populated states. When Custer did that and was outflanked by Crazy Horse, it was a disaster. The Demos never outflanked the Republicans - and IMHO never could confront the strategy to realize what was going on. That would have taken a continual confrontation as well as a movement to get where the Repubs were heading: war and terror. Even if the Demos and Kerry got there, they had already acquiesed on the issue.

          It wasn't the precinct process, it was the strategy and the lack of confrontation which lost I think. Kerry took the body blows but had no KO punch when it counted.

          Any suspicions you might have of Kerry's training are probably worthy of consideration, but that is almost ancient history. The future is know and there are those here and now who do have KO punches, thank goodness.

        by walkshills on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:03:09 PM PDT

        •  It is largely structure, but not PR structure

          I think that the Gingrich inspired takeover of the House was based on the obvious right-wing media, the echo chamber, and the top-down message discipline. This was on top of the various well-funded think tanks. But that was just the beginning.

          The key since then has been Tom DeLay's K-Street project, in which they grow Republican activists by farming them off to K-Street firms where they direct massive amounts of corporate money that they themselves never touch. This money has been key to electing a lot of otherwise marginal candidates, all of whom owe their jobs to the DeLay machine.

          Tom DeLay exported this system to Texas in 2001 when his Texans for a Republican Majority PAC TRMPAC similarly destributed corporate money to otherwise marginal Republican candidates for the state leglislature and gave the Republicans their first control of the Texas Legislature since Reconstruction. The fact that those actions ran afoul of an obscure Texas campaign finance law (left over from Reconstruction and corporate efforts to control the state in the early twentieth century) is just good fortune for us Democrats.

          What you have is a bunch of Republican staffers working at K-Street firms who get rich by lobbying their Republican collegues on the Hill so that corporations like the Banks can literally write legislation and have it passed for them.

          The money runs in channels sufficiently distant from the legislation that it is hard to make a legal case that the legislation was passed in exchange for payoffs.

          All of this is on top of FOX - Moonie Times - American Standard, etc, the echo chamber, and Gingriches' well-funded training programs for activists.

          Apparently there is a weekly meeting of top Republicans to decide which staffers will be hired by which K-Street firms. The activists get rich while directing the corporations where to donate their money. Read the stories of Abramovich directing the Indian Tribes which organizations to donate millions of dollars to. This meeting is similar to but on top of the central meeting for the weekly talking points to be spread by all Republicans.

          Oh, and I forgot the downgrading of House and Senate Committee Chairmen by the Republican leadership. As Arlen Spector demonstrated last Fall, a Republican Chairman who does not toe the line does not keep his Committee.

          This is what Josh Marshall called the Parliamentization of Congress. The effort to eliminate the filibuster was just one more step in the centralizing of party control over the federal government. Dissention is inefficient, you see. So you strip likely disidents of the power to interfere.

          All of this is an interlocking set of control structures, depending a lot on massive flows of corporate money through and controlled by K-Street.

          So yeah, Strategy matters, but the structure is what gives them the control they have.

          by Rick B on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:10:04 PM PDT

          •  Open avenues and dark corners

              I'm in agreement with virtually all you say about the structure in Washington and the incestuous relationship of power, money and K Street which provides the control of the Congress. It's like watching a cancer grow.

              I will note that K St. will also try to maintain that relationship even if Demos should oust the Repubs. That would be a mistake. To allow such a cronyistic relationship to continue is unhealthy for a stable government and a leveraged guillotine over the rights of the American people.

              The strategy I spoke of was during the election, but the structure behind it obviously empowered, providing not just fundraising but manipulation of Congress.

              I wish someone would deliniate the laws, both those deleted and those made, which allowed this concentration of power to occur. If and when the Demos ever gain control there is going to have to be massive changes because these roaches have laid eggs in every dark nook and cranny of our government. We'll need a different kind of exterminator.  

            by walkshills on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 10:21:35 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to say that this is due to our high

    literacy rate, but it really is because of the top down nature of the right wing. They like to be told what to shout and at who, there really isn't any need for discussion.

    I know that some will say that is a snark, but there's a lot of truth in it. Much of it has psychologically to do with "Daddy Bush", never admits a mistake, never changes his mind, straight ahead... and so on.

    by Flint on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:55:27 PM PDT

    •  Not snark at all

      I believe this is fundamental to the mind-set of many who belong to the right. Many ascribe to a patriarchal philosophy (the man as the head of the household, women should keep silent in the church).

      by marathon on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:18:06 PM PDT

      •  They didn't call it the "Father land"

        for nothin'! It really is patriarchal style unchained.

        by Flint on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:32:40 PM PDT

        •  PS.

          I have been waiting for the administration to "Liberate" Poland. Ya can't be a really good despot unless you get the Poles... its tradition!

          by Flint on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:34:06 PM PDT

•  On the other hand......

  ..... they don't have fights over pie ads.

  contemplates.

  No, I still like our way better.

  by dunsel on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:46:00 AM PDT

  •  You said it, Freerepublic

    doesn't even allow bad news, much less dissent.  Posting a negative, but true, story about a Republican there will get anyone new tossed out quickly. Presenting a nontalking point view, even if it is a conservative view, will get one flamed, doing it too often will cause banning also. I'm of a mind that disruptive trolls should be vetted out of Kops more quickly, but even they have a value. If every different opinion is disallowed what is left is Freerepublic.

    That place has to be boring even to the most rabid Republican. For entertainment there is a daily popular thread that is devoted entirely to finding stupid comments from Democratic Underground and ridiculing them. That thread gets around a thousand posts, likely because Freepers can say whatever they please so long as it slams DU. These people have waaay too much time on their hands.

    On the other hand, the right is very effective because they stay on message. If their people knew there were many perspectives they might start to think. A thoughtful electorate on the right would kill the movement.  
    

    by Thistime on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:47:46 AM PDT

    •  I post at military.com

      You should too.

      There is a kind of double standard over there.  I'm on "warning" over there now over something I said, but whatever it was couldn't have been near as bad as some of the stuff directed at me.

      The good thing about mil.com is, you have a fighting chance of not getting banninated for posting stuff from DKos, for example.  So you get to do actual arguing with people who are not of the same mind as you.

      So, any military members/veterans with me?

      by republicans are idiots on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:44:09 PM PDT

      •  too depressing...

        I have posted at military.com and I should feel bad for conceding it to the nutjobs, but the level of discourse there has been so exceedingly rabid, I have not wanted to even find out whether these jackasses claiming to be Special Forces in Vietnam, but spewing the most bigotted shit are actual vets.

        I want to avoid shame in my bretheren.

        The site should require some sort of verification, like a faxed DD214, for status as a veteran among posters.

        by dj angst on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:53:49 PM PDT

    •  banned on freerepublic

      I recently got banned on the freeper site when I commented on the "Freedom Fries"  Republican who changed his mind about the Iraq war.  I wrote: "I don't understand.  Why would a Republican not support the invasion of Iraq?" -- and I was immediately labeled a "sleeper troll" and banned.  Those guys are VERY sensitive.

      by DoubleBonus on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:00:36 PM PDT

•  Grandpa of lib bloggers everywhere:

  The one and only kos.

  You must be very proud. Seriously. And you damn sure deserve to be. What an awesome vehicle you have created!

  by attydave on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:46:23 AM PDT

•  Keep criticizing them

  The more the liberal side advocates this and keeps criticizing them for it, the less likely they are to make any changes soon as it will become a matter of capitulation if they introduce more community.  This is a good thing as it only impedes the growth of the right.  I think it's important to try and keep the community aspects identified with liberal blogs.

  by kenjib on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:46:24 AM PDT

  •  Actually...

    ...the more that they favor community, the more likely they are to come over to our side.

    Besides, they already have the negative examples of right-wing community blogs/websites:  LGF and FreeRepublic.com.   You'll never see a Republican congresscritter openly posting on those sites, and with good reason.  

    Freepers will bestir themselves to freep online polls and target certain people for harrassment.  But you won't see them organizing for sustained group activity, such as SusanHu's group reading of the ACLU's FOIA docs on the treatment of Iraqi and other prisoners held in the War on Terror.

    by Phoenix Woman on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:59:19 AM PDT

  •  I would love to watch Conservatives

    try to have a community like dKos.  Someone please let us know if this ever starts to happen.  

    by DanielMN on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:59:52 AM PDT

    •  Voila

      The drawbacks of community discussed at RedState.org

      I see MaryScottOconnor made an appearance.

      by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:51:26 PM PDT

      •  Oh. Sorry. I actually did have a look at that.

        But I figured it was only working because Armando was being so reasonable!

        by DanielMN on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:38:17 PM PDT

•  Conservatives fall in line, while ...

  ... liberals tend to fall apart. True. Not a joke.

  Just follow any thread on a conservative site.

  Someone says something, and the next twenty posts are a litany of "With you all the way." "Right on!" "You bet!" "Wish it was so!"

  Follow any thread on a liberal site.

  The second or third post will point you to a wildly diverging POV, disagree profusely, raise an obscure exception that was only valid once, during a typhoon in Malaysia.

  It's just the way things are. Conservatives want ordered predictability as they gather around the standard.
  Liberals want disagreement and discussion as they burn the flag.

  by SteinL on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:47:50 AM PDT

  •  whoa...

    nice, lampooning the respective sides...I'd agree with you, in general...but the only such exception I can recall seeing in the last year was the one for the Lotus Burning ceremony in southern Ru Nan!  The malaysia thing happened about eight years ago and was really just an experiment run by an Ozzie-Imitator trying to get a reality show going

    by floundericiousMI on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:51:05 AM PDT

  •  Here's to disagreement

    Cheers to that. You're right, and I wouldn't change anything about it.

    by VirginiaBelle on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:51:21 AM PDT

    •  I think the difference is about what the goal is

      Someone trying to get something done has to focus on a specific course of action, then convince everyone involved to follow that action. While studying management I came to realze that having "the" right answer is not always important to successfully accomplishing the job. A good manager can ofter batter a poor idea into a succesful project. But disagreement makes accomplishment of the job a lot harder. Engineers, military officers and business managers all live in the kinds of world taht requires quick directed action and discourages discussion and disagreement.

      Businesses work as well as they do because they can pick a market, deal with only that market, and ignore all others. Total understanding is a lot less important than timely action.

      Someone who is trying to understand the subject wants discussion and disagreement. That brings out all elements of the subject and leads to much greater understanding. But it also slows down accomplishment of any achievements. Government tends to require this kind of decision process. The problems government face are not problems that allow rough-and-ready action because too many outside people get caught in the backdraft of ill-concieved actions.

      Government cannot simply choose to deal with a specific market. Government is for everyone in a given geographic area. How do you standardize and simplify a product or service to provide it efficiently if everyone gets that product or service? You can't just deal with an isolated market because you can't isolate it. A community is not a single market. Government provides an inherently a more complex set of problems that cannot be effectively simplified.

      Two different environments that call for two different decision processes. The two processes seem to call for very different cultures, and the members of each culture do not understand the members of the other.

      This is just my best guess, and I am looking for discussion and any disagreement. [Grin]

      by Rick B on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 07:39:22 PM PDT

      •  The other difference is nobody tells us...

        ...what to agree with. We have a general idea what we want and what not, and any practical issue gets beaten around until we see what it is and how does it fit the general idea (or the "non-isolated market" in your paradigm).

        The autoritarian (or we may as well choose to call it totalitarian or stalinist) organization across the street operates as if they have an isolated market, i.e. as if any issue that comes is the nail for their hammer (probably called "talking points" this month). They don't have such a hammer, it can't exist, but in their simplified vision they can see that it works. They have ready answers to everything. Not that these answers are right, not that they actually are answers to real questions each time, not that they hear the question properly, and not that they want to hear all questions. But, within the ramifications of such a limited mindset, they can live in their own Disneyland where they are right about everything. And their isolated model seems to work smoothly.

        It does, in a way - it gains power. But, as Napoleon said "you can do almost everything with bayonets except sit on them". It can't hold, it can't last. It creates more problems than it manages to hide. Which is the usual outcome of any such "after me - flood" attitude: the next one inherits the crisis.

        by DrFairday on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:28:57 PM PDT

        •  Depends on goals to be achieved.

          Economic goals lend themselves to limiting the market and simplifying the process of delivering the goods or services that market needs. In the business organizations, only the guys at the top need to know what  exactly is being done and why. That leads to a culture in the organization of dependence on the hierarcby and acceptance without understanding why, based on trust of the leaders.

          Social goals do not lend themselves to limiting the market served and standardization of the product and services that serves the goal. Democrats are after more social goals, and these are usually not clear (leading to a lot of discussion of the goals themselves) and the methods of serving those goals are not clear and highly complex. Again, you get a lot of discussion of means as well as ends.

          For such social means-ends processes, even when there is some agreement on the ends to be achieved, the means are not usually clear and when attempted usually have unexpected side effects. That means that even if the leaders could agree on something like common goals, it is the people who are actually attempting to meet those goals who know the details of the procedures that work, those that don't work, and those that need adjustment. So you not only get more discussion, you get a lot more democratic discussion.

          The guys across the street act like most new car buyers. Someone will ususally decide to buy a car, look at a few cars. decide taht one is the best choice, and then spend the other 90% of their so-called energy in the decision process convincing themselves they got the best possible deal.

          One of the best ways of convincing yourself you made the ideal choice (when actually you just chose the first adequate solution to your automobile problem) is too ignore all evidence that your decision was less than perfect. This is both an individual process, and as we can see watching the Republican, it can be a group process. I'd guess that Rush Limbaugh performs that function of confirming for the base that they have aleady made the ~perfect~ decision.

          I'll agree that for the Republicans a lot of their decision processes run to the "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" category. This is especially the case for the rabid conservative or Libertarian ideologues among them.

          Anyway, that is what it looks like to me.

          by Rick B on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 06:29:00 AM PDT

          •  I think we're on the same page here.

            ...even if the leaders could agree on something like common goals, it is the people who are actually attempting to meet those goals who know the details of the procedures that work, those that don't work, and those that need adjustment. So you not only get more discussion, you get a lot more democratic discussion.

            And this is what I meant with "their simplified world". They avoid almost all of that discussion, and pretend that democracy is all about picking leaders and trusting your underwear to them.

            Once you discover your leaders are your own screwup, you may show some greatness and publicly say so, or you may play their "we are always right, specially our leaders" dance.

            Frankly, I never understood the obsession of the Western world with leaders. What are we, a brainless pulp? I always saw democracy where the so-called leaders are the grunts who are put there to do the will of the people, not to decide what that will is.
            

            by DrFairday on Wed Jun 15, 2005 at 02:35:20 PM PDT

            •  Sometimes leaders are necessary

              The obsession with leaders comes directly from military and naval experience.

              In both cases large groups of men have to coordinate their actions merely to survive, and the decision of what actions they will take has to be made rapidly by a single leader without discussion from below.

              A ship at sea or a military force in combat are clear cases where the central command system is superior to the slower and often more accurate system of discussion and consensus. One of the principles of war is "Unity of Command." The absence of unity of command has frequently led to disaster.

              That also appears more efficient in the short run. It's not. It frequently works at the time, but in complex situations it can lead to poor long-term results.

              Unity of command applies to situations of imminent peril in which a rapid decision has to be made and everyone has to accept it and implement it. Very few political or social decisions are of that nature.

              In fact, that unity of command is mostly applicable even in the miloitary below Flag Rank. It's one of the reasons a lot of good Colonels are not promoted to General.

              by Rick B on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 07:08:55 AM PDT

  •  I have to disagree

    by Stevo on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:53:31 AM PDT

    •  Megadittos to you Stevo

      ^^

      by Ernest Tomlinson on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:54:49 AM PDT

    •  this isn't an argument

      it's a contradiction.  You want the room 2 doors down...!

      by Silverleaf on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 05:49:58 PM PDT

  •  humor by going over the top

    these comments are crack up !!  

    unfortuneately too many of our lib brethern are going to read it all literally, instead of seeing the humor in the exaggeration

    rmm.

    by rmdewey on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:21:25 AM PDT

  •  community = heterogeneity

    I disagree too. :-) But on strictly factual grounds. Daily Kos in particular is full of "Me too" posts, so I really don't see what you mean.

    What you describe is not a liberal phenomenon; it is a community phenomenon. The larger the community the more people there are who might disagree with any given thing. So as you get into a larger posting community the more discussions and flamewars you get.

    Slashdot is like that. Kuro5hin is like that. All of the old Usenet newsgroups were the same way back in the days when they had discussions and not spam. Hell, even the BBSes I used to hang out on were like that.

    It's easy to enforce homogeneity in a small community. It's much harder to enforce it in a larger community; most people don't bother because it's too much effort. It's possible, but you have to resort to draconian and almost Stalinistic measures -- like Free Republic where the mods ban anyone who even hints at the possibility of discussion. (Slashcode's and Scoop's community moderation sometimes achieves something similar. But it's mostly designed to eliminate individual troll comments, and is pretty good about preserving discussion and dissent in general.)

    When a community grows large enough it necessarily becomes heterogeneous; it's unavoidable. Diversity is the natural state of mankind. It's one of our survival traits, and in a large enough group you will always find it.

    It sounds like what you're really saying is that conservative sites tend not to be communities, or else communities where homogeneity is strictly enforced, while liberal sites tend to be large communities.

    Yeah, sounds about right.

    by drewthaler on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:46:27 AM PDT

  •  right on!!! n/t

    by christhughes on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:37:30 PM PDT

•  Mad props to Kos!

  Hey speaking of Theoria, anyone know how he's doing? He left "blogging" entirely didn't he?

  by DawnG on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:48:13 AM PDT

  •  See

    http://www.liberalstreetfighter.com

    He's still fighting the good fight.

    by lucid on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:01:30 AM PDT

    •  ahhh...

      I knew he had his own blog but I thought he mentioned he was leaving that too.  I'll go take a looksee! :)

      by DawnG on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:30:09 AM PDT

      •  MAybe you have more current info

        His last post there was 5/28, so maybe he is taking some time off. I usually try to check over there once every week to see what's going on, but I havent' been there for a little while.

        by lucid on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:00:38 PM PDT

        •  come visit

          we'd love to see you there. Theoria is alive and kicking hard!

          by wilfred on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:50:24 PM PDT

          •  I'll definitely try to come more often

            It's just cumbersome managing blog-time. I do always enjoy all of your contributing writers. Keep up the good work.
            

            by lucid on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:56:07 PM PDT

•  Pinko liberal scoop sites.

  'Community' sounds too much like communism to them.

  by Dissento on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:48:17 AM PDT

  •  They prize collective...

    ...thinking. We go for independent kind of thought and action which they hate. My criticism of our side is this: we give ourselves arthritis with the over indulgence of handwringing. I think we've lost a few Presidential elections this way...

    by MichaelPH on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:21:54 AM PDT

    •  Indeed...

      Wingers will eat a bucket of turd on a full stomach if it's got a biscuit in the middle.

      Lefties will turn their nose on an empty stomach at a vegan hoagie if the olive is not organic.

      Perhaps getting just a little more tactical in our voting behavior is not a complete betrayal of all we hold dear.

      by dj angst on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:05:45 PM PDT

    •  Which is ironic...

      considering how much they like to bash anything they consider "collectivism."

      by patop on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:29:43 PM PDT

  •  Which is weird...

    ...because it is completely communistic to go to the Party HQ, where you get your own opinion about anything.

    by DrFairday on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 09:41:29 PM PDT

•  Daleks all think alike

  So there is no need for comments.  Besides, you need to have a brain to think up comments more sophisticated that "ditto".
  

  by Caelian on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:49:16 AM PDT

  •  Ping

    eom

    by lapin on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:56:08 AM PDT

  •  Dalek is about right

    What with that need to exterminate all things different and all.

    by Palladiate on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:56:17 AM PDT

•  It fits the Right-wingeer's attitude prefectly...

  
  Namely, "Shut up and we'll tell you what to think.  Then you will go forth and spread our message verbatim."

  The mighty Republican Borg...

  by Bill in Portland Maine on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:49:51 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately...

    ...that approach works, politically. Tell your constituency what to think, give it to them in nice, easy to remember talking points, get them to repeat them ad nauseum, and you can move great numbers of people (mmmmooooo!) where you want them to go.

    It's part of why they are succeeding, IMO, despite all the potential bad press, etc., about them
    

    by OutFar on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:59:45 PM PDT

•  Control.

  Control.  Control.  Control.

  by environmentalist on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:50:37 AM PDT

  •  And staying on message...

    John Cole at Balloon Juice allows comments and he is slowly being swayed to the dark side...uh...I mean toward a more liberal perspective.

    by nmjardine on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:23:23 AM PDT

    •  are you in NM? n/t

      by environmentalist on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:26:49 PM PDT

      •  Nope. MD! -no msg-

        by nmjardine on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 01:28:06 PM PDT

•  Political implications of that

  I'd like to see an analysis of how that correlates with their political structure.  How many of their candidate's campaigns have blogs.  How many use open source tools for campaign sites like www.ngpsoftware.com does for it's clients (we use CivicSpace for all our sites).  How many of their campaigns allow grassroots activits to organize their own events.  Then compare all those with the Dems.  I think you'd find that the Democratic party and particularly the progressive movement within it is very open-source minded in that way, while the Republicans are very autocratic.  Now, which mindset would you rather hae leading this country? ;-)

  by Sean Robertson on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:50:44 AM PDT

•  Well, that's conservatives for ya

  always wanting to talk, never willing to listen. But seriously, I'm surprised at how apparently pliant their readers are, letting themselves be completely shut out of the commentary process.

  Is there so much mindless adulation for "stars" like Assrocket that people don't even want to comment, follow-up or challenge anything they say? You'd think that if the readers really cared, they'd either exert pressure on those blogs to add features, or simply stop trafficking them so heavily.

  Then again, what do you expect from a legion of people whose opinions and passions are summed up with "ditto"?

  by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:51:29 AM PDT

  •  There Are No New 'Facts' For Cons 2 Present Anyway

    But here, despite volumes of topics never covered in the RWCM, I find it difficult to say anything that hasn't already been said.  That, and my lack of ability to turn a phrase well (at least in my own mind) means I'd usually rather sit back and read the great diaries and posts of the large group of fantastic writers that are here.

    That all changes when I go to a conservative or 'non-partisan' blog.  There, I can make heads spin.  There's a new local one in my corner of wingnuttery, and I'll soon be doing just that on a regular basis.

    by Hose B on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:08:16 AM PDT

•  Mighty is the right word.

  Ever wonder why they have Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court?

  Liberals can always go on hoping they'll overreach. (I do). Meanwhile they are working their wonder, scaring people into agreeing with their (in our eyes) preposterous viewpoints, which seem to make perfect sense to their followers.

  The world is such today that anyone contending for political power of any significance has to recognize that what Rove does, unfortunately, seems to lead to power.

  by SteinL on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:52:40 AM PDT

•  All Blogs Are Created Equal, But . . .

  The way they do things on the conservative blogs fits right in with their basic philosophy, or as George Orwell would say today:

  "All bloggers are created equal, but some bloggers are more equal than others."

  It is so much better here.

  by freepress4all on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:52:49 AM PDT

•  I finished reading this on mydd about

  10 minutes ago, and was considering copying and pasting it into a diary here. Its fantastic...I love this stuff.

  I want to see some hard numbers for traffic, participation between dkos and the major righty blogs.

  Also, what do the righties think about this? SOme redstaters mustve read this...

  by ablington on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:53:20 AM PDT

  •  We'll never know...

    they're not allowed to comment.

    by goffnews on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:49:07 PM PDT

  •  Some hard numbers

    that I diaried a few weeks ago:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/11/103710/662

    I couldn't find an easy way to get some number from some of the other right-wing blogs, but this should give you and idea of how things stack up.

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:57:53 PM PDT

•  Seems like "community"

  is a liberal blog core value, but not valued at all by the right wing.

  by marylrgn on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:53:32 AM PDT

•  The Democratic Party - Party of the People

  It just goes to show the Democratic Party is the people's party, where everyone can have a voice.

  by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:54:22 AM PDT

•  Hmmm

  Seriously, I'm wondering.  Is it good or bad that the right wing makes it more difficult to break into the blogging game?  On the one hand, you'll see less  diversity of opinion.  The right wing blogsphere will end up looking like the right wing talk radio - everyone just parrots each other and the party line.  This is good in the sense that a rational individual can only listen to Savage and Limbaugh and the rest for so long before they get full of it.  This is bad because you don't ever see any genuine, ethical, good hearted Republicans (and yes they do exist) break in and mellow out the base.

  On the other hand, its alot less competition.  When only a few big blogs run the show on the right, you have less consumer appeal.  I can find a left wing environmental blog or a left wing gay rights blog or a left wing economics blog, etc etc, but when you go looking for a right wing blog its just straight party line.  No diversity.  Which kinda cuts into the Republican's base of voters.

  Just some thoughts.

  by Zifnab on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:55:23 AM PDT

  •  What I find amusing..

    I find very amusing that if someone thinks to veer away from the generally 'accepted' way of the Democratic groups (ie, Dean) they will be castigated by the Republicans, they will point it out to us as something wrong with us..that someone is daring to think differently, how dare they?

    I view it personally as a strength.  Diversification.  Look at what's happening to the Republicans now...if we can manage to push them over the cliff, they will ALL go, nobody will be clean -- because they're all doing the same thing.  I suspect even some of 'our side' will go with them, because many have been trying to play both sides and have themselves gotten a little dirty...

    I don't know, am I making any sense here?

    by Stymnus on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:11:38 AM PDT

    •  A little.

      Point 1: All Democrats will be castigated by Republicans, but that's not what I really want to say.

      Conservatives think differently than liberals.  And they don't get that. But it also goes both ways.  Liberals think that they can engage conservatives in debate and win them over.  We can't.  What is happening on both sides is that we are applying our values/methodology/mindset to the opponent. That doesn't work!

      So when a Democratic member (an entrepreneur, which IMHO should be the core value of the party) steps out of the mold that Republicans think they should be in, it surprised the crap out of them and they say "you can't do that, you have to stick to the Democratic talking points."  They think that that person is then weak, separated and attack them. But for a Democrat, in many cases that is the point that they are the strongest. (At least this would be the time that they would be strongest, if the rest of the Dems would not snipe at them and welcome new ideas, but there is a conservative section of the Dem party also and that aristocracy does not like competition.)

      Then there is the opposite, there is a Republican that 'breaks out' and most of the time we embrace him/her. This is the point that we should be attacking them, because most likely the rest of the Republican establishment will not back them up. They broke from the mold and now they are on their own. The rest of the Republicans will just look at their shoes while we attack them because they do not fall in line.

      Just my thoughts.

      by sdlohrenz on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:57:01 PM PDT

  •  Not less Competition,

    but message control.  This is fact may be a weakness of the left.  (Not that anyone will agree with me around here!), but we are always trying to get our guys to "stay on message", while the Right does just that, and only that.

    I'm just sayin'...

    by spartan68 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:19:26 AM PDT

    •  Message control - not always

      Message control is required when trying to convince voters to choose your specific candidate in a specific election.

      But diverse discussion is required to bring up and evaluate ideas. Message control eliminates that process. DKos is for discussing and evaluating ideas. We aren't going to find a lot of voters coming here to learn about the candidates.

      The right-wingers seem to be perfectly happy to out-source idea generation and evaluation to their network of think tanks. Then the wingers just accept the product the think thanks put out and act on it. The think tanks make this easy by carefully focus-group testing the ideas for acceptability before mass release.

      Message control is a lot easier when the message is a pre-prepared product and not open to discussion or debate.

      by Rick B on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:08:23 PM PDT

•  The basic methodology

  is just what you wrote, "the power of a handful of top-tier bloggers to control who is heard."

  The conservative side not only disdains a diversity of viewpoints, it is threatened by the same.  And this is true of not only the blogworld.

  This is why Republicans demand lock-step obedience for there policies.  And why they are so punitive to those who step outside the rigid, ideological script.

  I have not been as upset as many on this site by those Dems who have been critical of Dean.  If worked correctly, it is a presentation of the Dems as a party that does not require one to sell one's soul to be a member.

  The Republicans require that to be done.

  Even some of the blogs that do allow comments can be very quick to disallow someone who has contrary views.  

  A new slogan "Keep your soul and be a Democrat."

  by JAPA21 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 10:56:38 AM PDT

•  Marketplace of ideas?

  I think that community sites with full participation will necessarily end up garnering more readers and more participation than "closed" blogs. If you're reading political blogs, you're probably more of an information junkie and more opinionated (on politics anyway) than the general public. Community sites feed those interest far more than a closed site.

  Each idea that is posted is tested, questioned, qualified, debunked, and/or approved. It's a giant, distributed political crucible. Any assertion made by one person can be rebutted or argued by any other, to any degree desired.

  When you have that sort of information forum, lousy ideas will get weeded out much faster, and stronger (or more accurate) ideas will spread more quickly. It's practically self-evident.

  The end result is information and ideas that are more interesting, stronger, and sort of peer-reviewed. It's a good model of how to let everyone have a voice and still make sure that the best ideas get through.

  by Nim on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:00:57 AM PDT

  •  FREE Market of Ideas

    Of course it is up to those who support the community to support a free market of ideas,

    and it is up to those who trash the community to talk freedom while quashing freedom.  

    at least we are catching on to  a playbook in use since ... "getting the government off the backs of the people" ...?  

    if that wasn't one of the great whoppers of all time.

    rmm.

    by rmdewey on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:25:05 AM PDT

  •  Just like Science

    This community works just like the Scientific Process.

    Someone posts a diary or statement (like, say, 9,000 KIA in Iraq).

    Hundreds of community members send their feelers out to test the validity of the statement (Not likely).

    Original diarist is pummeled for their gullibility/willful ignorance.

    No wonder the right wing doesn't like it.

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:05:20 PM PDT

  •  Just wondering

    Does anyone besides me think the liberal community blogs will be a source of political ideas in the same manner that the think tanks are for the 'wingers?

    These blogs provide a rough-and-ready forum to surface and evaluate ideas, but are open to the whole community. The think tanks do the same for the Right wingers, but are closed, bureaucratic and controlled. Fits the difference between a community and a hierarchy.

    Of course, DKos is a lot more than just an arena for developing political ideas. The fundraising and organization functions add a lot of value here.

    Just an idea. Any thoughts??

    by Rick B on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:15:18 PM PDT

•  What stuck out in my mind.....

  At the Personal Democracy Forum, Hewitt seemed to me to be openly contemptuous of the open commenting allowed on some online communities, and he suggested that it was a very likely that outfits which he termed something like the "blog black ops boys" would soon shut down open blog communities through provocations that brought on libel lawsuits.

  That wouldn't be likely to happen - as far as I know - under the current laws governing online commentary.

  by Troutfishing on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:01:52 AM PDT

•  It's easier to control the message when the rabble

  can't participate in the forum.  Just look at Bush's "Town-Hall" meetings with "regular folk" for an example.

  by LionelEHutz on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:06:38 AM PDT

•  The Cathedral and the Bazaar

  
  For an analogy to the open-source movement in the software industry, I recommend this book.

  As has been noted, this is perhaps the idealogical difference between the political worldviews (and it is interesting to see it simultaneously being played out in multiple venues, including the OSS movement and the blogging world):

  Individual vs. Community
  Authoritarian (top-down) vs. Egalitarian
  Control vs. Flexibility
  Unity vs. Diversity
  etc.

  Personally, I think this is fascinating!
  

  by shock on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:07:05 AM PDT

•  Dems actually believe in free speech

  and the right-wing does not.

  They believe in authority.

  by Nordic on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:07:19 AM PDT

  •  That's authoritay

    

    by LionelEHutz on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:10:39 AM PDT

    •  I believe

      it's pronounced "Owthooritaaaah!!!"

      Respect it!

      by keirdubois on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:57:04 PM PDT

•  What ever happened to plastic.com?

  I'm not as talented as the rest of you kossacs (or maybe its that I have to post while pretending to work) but I do remember trying to post on Plastic and getting reamed for my stupidity. No-one here has done that yet - I just get politely ignored. Thank you for you civility.

  by subminimal7 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:08:57 AM PDT

  •  WHY YOU

    ROTTEN STINKIN FILTHY PIECE OFCRAP!

    There, feel better?

    by spartan68 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:22:34 AM PDT

•  Cool,

  am I famous yet?

  by spartan68 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:09:49 AM PDT

•  Nota Bene

  Hugh Hewitt, at a recent panel discussion, argued that lack of comments made for a more vibrant conservative blogosphere than its liberal counterpart.

  Translation:  Right-wing blogs with comments reveal a wee bit too much about our target audience!

  by Phoenix Woman on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:11:01 AM PDT

  •  <nod>

    That's the best explanation for lack of comments that I've heard so far.  I think you hit the nail on the head.

    by MjrMjr on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:28:56 AM PDT

    •  My guess it is a difference in priorities

      We value the diversity of thought and discussion more than we fear that we are giving our enemies the means to interfere with us.

      The wingers value the clean efficiency of getting what they want without interference more than they do engaging in diverse and contentious discussion and learning.

      Both groups are concerned with what their enemies will do if they learn what they are thinking. We just think that the power of our group thought outweighs the risk of damage if it is known widely what we are discussing. Considering the low-quality of their ideas, (Creationism and Intelligent design, anyone) I can understand why they would opt for more secrecy and control.

      by Rick B on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:27:38 PM PDT

  •  I think that is absolutely true!

    When you read some of the comments on right-wing sites, you feel like you have gone back in time to a place where racism, sexism and hate were accepted.

    An example, I just graduated from Villanova University last month.  I received a Master's in History.  Anyway, the summer before I got there (Summer 2003), one of the professors in the history department (Mine Ener) was suffering from extreme post-partum depression after giving birth to a baby girl with some serious health problems.  In Dr. Ener's depressed state, she killed her baby.  She was arrested, and ultimately killed herself in jail.  Obviously, this was devastating for anyone who knew her.

    Fast-forward to January 2005.  The history department wanted to do something to remember Dr. Ener's time and dedication as a teacher.  They decided to put up a plaque in the library and dedicate a study corner to her.  This did not go well(helpful hint:  Villanova is a Catholic university).  A small group of students and members of the "community" took it upon themselves to protest this dedication because it was honoring a "baby-killer."  To make a long story short, the school decided to take the plaque down.

    I wanted to see what people on the internets were saying about this issue (Bill "I'm a Loser" O'Reilly had mentioned it on his show).  I searched her name and came up with these hateful comments by so-called pro-lifers.  They ridiculed Dr. Ener, some commented that this should be exprected from someone like her (her father was of Middle Eastern descent and she taught Mid-East History).  The comments were disgusting, rascist, sexist and horrifying.  This is why right-wing sites often do not allow for comments, because then others can see how hateful they are.

    by earnersparks on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:35:24 AM PDT

    •  Sad story

      Racism and sexism are primarily methods of social control. Define a deviant and punish him/her for the deviency.

      by Rick B on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:31:07 PM PDT

  •  Hugh Hewiit

    Hugh Hewitt, at a recent panel discussion, argued that lack of comments made for a more vibrant conservative blogosphere than its liberal counterpart.

    Hmm.  Hmm.  I might take that observation more seriously if Hugh Hewitt weren't a lying, self-important fucktard.  

    But since he is a lying, self-important fucktard, there's little reason to do anything but request that he kiss my ass.

    So Hugh?  Please, smooch away.

    by chumley on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 04:16:44 PM PDT

•  Re: It's easier to control the message...

  There's something to be said for that.  As a usually democratic-leaning independent with pronounced libertarian tendencies, I find Kos more reasonable than the Kos community.  I'd be more likely to join the Kos Klub if I was less familiar with the membership.

  That said, there are certainly well-known centrist and right-of-center blogs that allow comments.   Off the top of my head, I can think of:

  Althouse, Volokh Conspiracy, Marginal Revolution, Jane Galt, Tim Blair, Winds Of Change, Reason Hit & Run.

  by mlwaa on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:20:53 AM PDT

  •  Not marginal revolution

    Once in a blue moon Tyler Cowen will turn on comments for a lone blog entry.  95%+ of the entries don't allow comments.  I find this to be quite a shame as, even to this Keynsian, Marginal Revolution is one of the best econ blogs on the net.  I can't figure it out...  when he turns comments on he gets a good volume of intelligent, well thought out comments from very smart people.  Why have them set to 'off' by default?  Is he towing the 'right wing blog' line?  

    Incidentally, the other somewhat prominent and also worthwhile econ blog by George Mason University faculty(the dept chair and another econ prof run it), Cafehayek, doesn't allow comments either.

    Perhaps I'm nitpicking in making this correction re:Marginalrev, but as an avid reader of the blog I can't help but think every single time I read it how many orders of magnitude more interesting it would be if comments were allowed.  <shrug>

    Brad DeLong's blog is probably my favorite econ blog.  That it allows comments is probably not a coincidence.

    by MjrMjr on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:37:14 AM PDT

    •  Marginal commenting

      Well, I think once in a blue moon is stretching it, but it's true that probably only about 20% of posts have comments turned on.  

      I don't think it's a question of toeing a party line  but rather a tradeoff--how much time do you want to spend reading & policing comments vs writing for the blog?  And comments will still show up via trackback in other blogs--and having the bar at least that high does filter out drive-by nutters.

      Lileks never has comments AFAIK in 'The Bleat', but that's fine--'The Onion' doesn't do comments either.  I'd rather have Lileks write more stuff that makes me spit my coffee than spend his time with comments.

      But if you want here's a comment-friendlier replacement for 'Marginal', how about 'Just One Minute'.

      by mlwaa on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:45:00 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for the recommendation...

        I'll have to give 'Just One Minute' a look.

        I guess I was being overly cynical, or perhaps thinking in stereotypical terms(how right wing blogs seem to be terrified of comments) when I alluded to 'toeing the line'.  Nonetheless, in terms of the relative amount of moderation a blog like Marginal Revolution would require I have to imagine it would be quite minimal.  The audience, whatever their viewpoint, is very much self-selecting and no doubt skews towards the more educated.  I can't see it attracting much 'rabble', in other words.

        Then again, I've never run a blog so perhaps I'm being overly idealistic in my outlook.

        by MjrMjr on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:52:36 PM PDT

•  This diary

  further strengthens my conviction that the schism between liberals and conservtives is much greater than just disagreements on policy.  Conservatism (at least, modern conservatism) is all about the emotional security provided by being told things you want to believe and falling into ideological line with other conservatives.  It's almost apolitical in its rawest form, which is fear and the placation thereof.      

  by Mr Stupid Head on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:26:41 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    Although I think it is also about the need to conform (the desire to "fit in") and the desire for structure in your life.  In my experience, at least, it is the conservatives I know who are the least secure in their personal identities (and beliefs) and the most reliant on the structure of their lives to maintain these identities.
    

    by shock on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:35:14 AM PDT

    •  what struck me by your comment ...

      it is the conservatives I know who are the least secure in their personal identities (and beliefs) and the most reliant on the structure of their lives to maintain these identities.

      is that those same conservatives are most threatened by those who ARE secure in their identities - and work very hard to destroy them!

      it is happening now - with the gutting of the arts, the attacks on the institutions of higher education, all those who see clearly what happens to a nation living in fear.

      by edrie on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:44:20 PM PDT

  •  Clinton on the megachurches

    Two weeks ago, Bill Clinton was on NPR's Talk of the Nation.  He talked about the lure of the big fundamentalist megachurches.  In a time of insecurity and apparent lack of community, such churches offer security and community to those who are having difficulty coping.

    Our good friends on the reactionary right KNOW they have the truth.  To allow means for those to suggest perhaps that is not the case or someone has the wrong version of the truth would be to question a fundamental property of their world view. Benedict XVI reminded his fellow cardinals of  the dangers of the "dictatorship of relativism" before he became Benedict XVI.

    And let us not forget the origins and meaning of "megadittos."

    This goes to the difference between those of us living in a reality based community and those living in a post-reality based community who, with the help of Fox News, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, and most talk radio, create their own facts to fit their worldview or, more accurately given their politics, Weltanschauung.  
    

    by MoDem on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:55:05 AM PDT

•  Conservative agreement: Bush x 2

  Their ability to gather around the standard (and I am using this metaphor deliberately) managed to turn a C- goofball dropout military AWOL Vietnam refusenik into a two-term president.

  Liberal inability to agree (at least for a few months before the election) managed to turn a straight A, warhero long-term Senator into a superloser.

  by SteinL on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:28:22 AM PDT

•  re

  Anyone who posts on Free Republic without linking to some other story is dismissed as a "vanity poster." In other words--no original thoughts need apply. Only Ditto-ing or sanctimonious tongue-clucking.

  by SFOrange on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:28:53 AM PDT

•  Grassroots Organizations NEED Open Procedures

  I'll pitch my song and dance - we need a different way of organizing, NOT top down but open organizing.

  (we already have free speech ... )

  I get so pissed about all the wasted grassroots time / lost campaigns of the last ... 3 decades ???  I think TOO much effort and time in grassroots orgs is wasted on the insider machinations of a bunch of Carville or Rove or Schrum wannabees.

  I think that my outline below of how to operate  can cut down on the insider nonsense which is bad for effectiveness, AND, most importantly, this outline can maximize the chance real work can get done because volunteers can focus on developing community - not being pawns of insiders.

  1st page: Why I am doing this.
  http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

  2nd, 3rd, 4th pages. Basic Web Needs, Basic Operating Procedures, Event Planning & Calendaring.
  http://www.liemail.com/2BasicWeb.html
  http://www.liemail.com/3MeetingAgenda.html
  http://www.liemail.com/4EventPlan.html

  rmm.

  note, there are no money pitche$ on my $ite !!

  by rmdewey on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:30:50 AM PDT

•  kos you missed what he meant completely

  Hugh Hewitt, at a recent panel discussion, argued that lack of comments made for a more vibrant conservative blogosphere than its liberal counterpart. If by "more vibrant" he meant comparatively lower and stagnant traffic and the power of a handful of top-tier bloggers to control who is heard, and when s/he is heard, then I guess he was right.
  

  
  See, you're so wrong here . . . what he means by more vibrant is more STFU AND DO WHAT YOU'RE TOLD.  8^)

  by stm on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:39:12 AM PDT

•  A conservative needs constant

  confirmation of common prejudices - a liberal
  wants the freedom to have prejudices of his own.

  by Lepanto on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:39:47 AM PDT

•  You cannot have minor disagreements on

  party policy.  That might lead to some actual thi