A Closer Look at Conservative Blogging
Jon Henke over at The Next Right has offered a response to my earlier assessment of the conservative blogosphere. He agreed with me on some parts, and disagreed on others… I thought it be worthwhile to offer some thoughts on his response:
The Rightosphere was unable to duplicate the fundraising prowess of the Leftosphere because we aren’t really passionate about a mission. Oh, sure, there are things about which we are all passionate. Some people care a lot about taxes, others about spending, others about the war, or Iraq, or immigration, or earmarks, or any of a hundred other things. But what is the common thread? What do each of those things have to do with the other, except “it’s what our team generally advocates”? If there’s any unifying thread to the Right’s issues, it has been undone by the Republican Party’s actual behavior.
I think we are passionate about a mission, but for some reason most bloggers on the right (and their readers) aren’t so easily convinced to donate money to candidates outside of their districts. Perhaps that was a symptom of being in the majority. I consider myself an activist, but the last candidate I donated money to that wasn’t a candidate I could actually vote for was John Thune when he ousted Tom Daschle.
What is missing from our attempts to raise money for Republicans is the motivation that our efforts and contributions will mean something. Now that we are essentially struggling for political survival, we have an opportunity to harness the power of Republicans across the country to help elect conservatives get elected and take back tis country.
But in what sense are Righty bloggers trying to recreate the party in their own image from the top down? By arguing for their own conception of what the Party should be? That’s exactly what the Left did. Progressive bloggers organised the netroots by telling a story about what the Democratic Party could and should be. The communities arose because people rallied around the conception of the Democratic Party being espoused by people like Markos, Jerome Armstrong, Matt Stoller, Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, Duncan Black, Chris Bowers, Josh Marshall, John Aravosis and others.
And their efforts were largely focused on supporting candidates to bring into Washington. Liberal activists have shown the ability to raise thousands of dollars for candidates in targeted districts across the country. That is how they sent a message to the Democratic Party. Money speaks louder than petitions and mission statements.
The Rightosphere has never been about “community”. Some Right-of-center blogs have developed sizable communities in the form of comment sections (LGF, Malkin, Hot Air), but very few right-of-center blogs have developed genuine, interactive, participatory communities. Red State has been a diary/community site for quite some time, though (for a variety of reasons) never approaching the size of Daily Kos. Next Right is a diary/community site, but still much newer and smaller. The Rightosphere has been about media criticism and punditry, not community and activism.
It is true we never were about centralized community. But our problem is that we apparently think that is how it has to be. The comment section of one blog doesn’t constitute a community. A group of blogs united behind a candidate or a cause do. I think we had that in 2004… and lost it, very quickly.
And the Rightosphere has never been DC-centric and elitist. Many of the prominent Lefty bloggers are DC residents, but very, very few of the prominent Righty bloggers are based in DC. Glenn Reynolds (Knoxville), Ed Morrissey and Powerline (Minneapolis), Pajamas, Volokh and Red State (scattered), RealClearPolitics (Chicago). The people behind The Next Right are an exception, but the point of this site is that Ruffini, Dayton and I are in the unusual position of being at the nexus between the political world and the internet media.
Maybe you have to be outside of DC to recognize the DC-centrism. But is is there. Being DC-centric isn’t just about being based out of DC. It is also a mentality and attitude.
Of course there are successful blogs that are based outside of DC… But, let’s a look at some of the aforementioned examples. Glenn Reynolds is now a part of Pajamas Media (the epitome of blogger elitism). Ed Morrissey was bought out by Michelle Malkin and now is a part of her blogging conglomerate. Whose agenda was really advanced by that move?
Imagine that, instead of blogs supporting each other, they by eachother out. Four years ago I would have laughed at the idea. I cannot understand why bloggers who hate the MSM so much try to emulate them.
And then there is Red State, which suffers severely from Kos-envy and delusions of grandeur. Red State has been constantly trying to be more than a blog… including a 527. it is now affiliated with Eagle Publishing, Inc., and is no longer a blog in my eyes.
The problem is that Republicans are not offering people an an agenda that people want to vote for. If Republicans are alienating voters, don’t get indignant at the voters. “Blame the victim” is not a good way to stop losing elections.
I have to disagree with Jon here. I still believe that this is a center-right country. This is not about blaming the victim. This is about recognizing our faults and determining a strategy for improvement.
Jon does agree with me about the need for localized/specialized blogging:
Do you know how you can have the biggest impact with a blog? Skip the 10,000th blog about national politics and start a hyper-focused blog. Write about either (a) something on which you have real expertise, or (b) something you can do genuine research and information gathering. Start a blog about your city council, the EPA, your local newspaper, a Lefty blog, a think tank, or your school board. If you do it well, you probably still won’t have a lot of readers. But those you have will be very, very important readers.
We need less punditry, more information gathering, information organization and specialization.
He is right. how many people read your blog is less important than who reads your blog. National blogs need to support smaller, localized blogs instead of believing they can (or should) do it on their own.
I certainly encourage Margolis to fight the battles he wants to fight, but bloggers can and have had an impact on leadership races. I can attest that political offices pay attention to what bloggers are writing. It matters.
The example he cited was the Republican House Leader race. John Shadegg, despite overwhelming support from bloggers. Impact from bloggers was minimal. It is fine to try, but those are not the battles we should be focusing on.
But, he got the wrong idea about my point about promoting candidates, not our own agenda:
But “promote candidates, not your own agenda” sounds an awful lot like “shut up and sing”. Supporting the party is not a good way to fix the party. It only subsidizes bad behavior. Eventually, the Republican Party will again align its agenda with a sufficiently large coalition, and retake a majority.
He went on to say that “bloggers should promote candidates who do promote the blogger’s agenda.” which is actually the point I was making, so this is actually another point we agree on. We have to get it in our heads that we can promote our agenda by supporting candidates that support our agenda. I think the strategy needs to be a bottom-up strategy that includes local bloggers… not a top-down strategy focusing around a few, large national blogs.
Margolis seems unhappy that the Rightosphere has been unable to unite behind Republicans, and there are certainly a variety of things the Right and the Republican Party needs to do better online. But blaming the bloggers confuses the symptoms for the disease.
Bloggers on the right are not to blame for the Republican Party’s losses. Online activism has less impact if it doesn’t translate to a real feet-on-the-ground grassroots activity. My overall point is that the conservative blogosphere has to change itself in order to have an impact. We can’t change the party unless we change our current strategy and focus on supporting candidates and not trying to change the party from within Washington.
The Sad State Of The Conservative Blogosphere
This blog post was a long time coming. With the disastrous election behind us, the conservative blogosphere has an opportunity to play a role in delivering the Republican Party out of the wilderness… if we’re up to the challenge. Right now, however, I don’t think we are.
2004 was a good year for us, but it has been downhill ever since. The conservative blogosphere has become a series of self-serving cliques rather than a movement-serving community.
Back in 2004, we were all united because we had the same goal, and we worked together to achieve it. But now conservative bloggers, unable to duplicate the fundraising prowess of the left-wing blogosphere, have made their objective to try to recreate the party in their own image from the top down rather than by true grassroots buildng from the bottom up..
Conservative blogging used to be about building community. But it has become something that is elitist, DC-centric, and contrary to grassroots empowerment.
Look at some of the top blogs we have on the right… they’re run by people who are in the business of politics… I know and like many of them, but so far I haven’t seen huge successes from their work. I do applaud their efforts to help the party, and admire their dedication… I am just not convinced the current approach will help the cause. For instance, there are weekly “Conservative Blogger Briefings” and conference calls that I and many other bloggers are invited to, but if you live outside of the Washington DC area or have a full time job, you can’t take part in them. Even if you could, I have failed to see how they’ve helped the movement.
As the founder of Blogs For Bush, one of the most successful blogs during the 2004 presidential campaign, I have been effectively shutout because I don’t live in Washington DC and don’t blog full time for a living. Other successful blogs and bloggers have moved down the path of conglomeration… not so much to serve the movement but to serve their own ambitions and egos. Blogging for them is a business venture.
We were destined as a community to fail our party’s nominee when we made the primary season the quest to find the next Ronald Reagan. While the Democrats were pretty much united around one of two candidates, we were divided amongst all all of ours. And look at the result. Turnout this year was virtually the same as 2004 despite the huge operation Obama had. This means that given the huge deficit McCain had in the popular vote compared to Bush in 2004, too many decided that since McCain didn’t score high enough on the “Ronald Reagan Scale” that they weren’t going to help him win. There is more unity in the conservative blogosphere when we want to punish Republicans for not being conservative enough.
Whether it was blog posts about protest votes for a third party candidate or not wanting to make calls for GOTV, the conservative blogosphere just kept demonstrating that the impossibly high standard they set for McCain was enough reason to use their power to prop themselves up as arbiters of conservatism, rather than to encourage their audience to vote for the one man who could stop the Orwellian nightmare that Obama has promised to create.
And from the look of things they still don’t get it.
Perhaps my clout in the conservative blogosphere isn’t what it used to be, and none of the people who should read this will take my critique seriously because I am not a former campaign worker or some other blogger never bought me out to write for their own blog, but I did create something that worked back in the day, and while blogging has changed over the years, the formula for success has not changed so much.
Here is what I think the conservative blogosphere needs to do to get back on track: (more…)
The Patriot Act Works
Howard “Bambi” Dean has denounced the Patriot Act as being too harsh. He even has a petition to “Stop Ashcroft” on his web site – not ìStop Osamaî or ìStop the terrorists who want to murder us allî ñ but ìStop Ashcroftî.
Howard, how do you explain to the folks that the Patriot Act was essential to capturing the Portland 7? These nice boys only wanted to do little things like cut off the heads of non-believers, and urged wives to carry AK-47’s and “blow things up”. In an interview with KGW news (free registration required), former Portland FBI special agent in charge Charles Mathews said:
îThe prosecutions against the Portland Seven were major breaks in the war against terrorism, one of about a half dozen cases across the country. It certainly should help affirm the fact that the Patriot Act is a very effective tool, a very important tool,î he said. ìParts of the Patriot Act were used in this investigation and used successfully and appropriately.î ìItís only the start,î he said Thursday night. ìSomebody planned this operation. Somebody provided financing for it. Somebody provided logistics for it. Those are the people that Iím sure the task force is looking to bring to justice.î
When the ACLU steps in and fully supports Howard Dean’s position, you know Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush are doing the right thing.
Iím unsure why Howard thinks he can do a better job than President Bush defending America from terror overseas, when he is unwilling to use the tools and power passed into law by Congress to defend us here at home.
Friday Blogroll Update
The blogroll continues to grow today with several new additions:
Eye on the Left
Pinwheels and Orange Peels
The Vatican of Liberalism
eTALKINGHEAD.com
The Chairman Speaks
The Country Pundit
PoliBlog
LesterBlog
UPDATE: Ain’t Done It
UPDATE: Obnoxious Fumes
UPDATE: Pete Nelson
UPDATE: Insults Unpunished
Everyone who wants to get on the Blogroll for Bush remember to post a linked button on their blog and e-mail us! The more buttons are out there, the faster Blogs for Bush continues to grow and gain support. Also remember that participation both here and on your blogs is vital; everyone is encouraged to contribute to comments here and link to interesting entries on their own blogs.
Keep the blogroll requests coming!
The RNC Ads are Here
This link goes to the new RNC ad to be run in IA:
Hat tip to my buddy Jon Roth for the link.
Here is a direct link.
Building on the Improving Economy
With the economy getting stronger, unemployment going down and job creation up, the Democrats are either unable to recognize the improving economy, or are just unwilling to admit that it is getting better.
Well, just when you thought that the good news wouldn’t come in anymore, today it was reported that the home construction market surpassed the expectations of economists, with home construction soaring to a 17-year high.
Builders broke ground on 1.96 million homes at an annualized rate last month, the fastest level since January 1986, according to the Commerce Department. That was up 2.9 percent from the annualized 1.905 million pace in September. For the past several years, housing has propped up the economy during a time of slow growth.
Michael Carliner, an economist with the National Association of Home Builders in Washington, had predicted a drop in construction in the month of October because of gradually rising interest rates. Carliner was surprised, saying, “Normally we have a slowdown in housing construction beginning in the fall.”
So what does this mean? You guessed it!
Economists said the high level of residential construction is an indication of an improving national economy.
“There’s nothing fancy here,” said John E. Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp., one of the country’s largest mortgage lenders. “It’s basic economic fundamentals. Income growth is solid, mortgage rates remain relatively low, consumer confidence is up and there’s been a clear improvement in the job situation.”
Nothing fancy at all. The tax cuts are doing exactly what George W. Bush said they would.
He is a Giant, They Are Dwarves
John Podhorentz provides excellent commentary on Bush’s “Three Pillars” speech:
On Wednesday, George W. Bush spoke before the British people and confessed to a tragic sin of omission: “Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability,” the president said.
“Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
“As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient.”
These sentences rank among the most rueful, honest and reflective ever spoken by a Western leader – an acknowledgment that Western nations have not done all they should or could have done to help secure the blessings of liberty for others in the world.
He then properly places emphasis on the real turning points of the speech, the Three Pillars:
International organizations comprise the first pillar. The man long derided as a go-it-alone cowboy paid glowing tribute to multilateralism, from the United Nations to NATO.
But the importance of these institutions confers on them a responsibility from which they cannot flee. They must “be equal to the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation,” the president said. “The success of multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure.”
Unilaterist? I think not . ..
The second pillar is “the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to [restrain] aggression and evil by force.” In some cases, harsh words and pronouncements will not suffice if we are to protect ourselves and others from aggression: “It is not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve.”
Bush gracefully acknowledged that disagreements over the use of force are legitimate. “There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views,” he said. “Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force.”
This reminds me of the great quote Paul used below: ìDemocracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!î — Benjamin Franklin
And then lastly:
The third pillar is “our commitment to the global expansion of democracy.” In this address, which history will come to call “the three pillars speech,” the president spoke more broadly in terms of freedom and democracy than any Western leader ever has.And he has a right to do so. After all, in the 26 months since 9/11, he has led the way in the liberation of more than 43 million people from the inhuman tyrannies of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists in Iraq.
For speaking words and taking actions like these, protestors in London decided that he was no better than Saddam Hussein, a man who (by conservative estimates) murdered half a million people inside his own country. They pulled down an effigy of Bush that had been designed to look like the Saddam statue pulled down in Baghdad in May….
The Bush-haters are moralistic poseurs. The man they hate is a moral actor. They condemn barbarity. He does something about it. They call him a monster, a villain, a Hitler. In response, he celebrates the fact that they live in societies that permit free speech.
He is a giant.
They are dwarves.
The Race has Begun – GOP airs First TV Ad of Campaign
The New York Times is reporting that the RNC is launching a television ad to air Sunday in Iowa, one day before the Dem debate there. After withstanding months of criticism and a barrage of unending bull about the President and his policies from the Democrat Presidential wanna-beís with little more than a loyal following of Bloggers to mount a defense, the RNC has come out swinging. The ads will air through Tuesday and may also be aired in New Hampshire about the time of the next debate.
The starting pistol is out of the holster and the race for the White House is about to begin. Iím glad we at BlogsforBush have a head start.
It’s Letters to the Editor Friday!
Do your part to get the right voices heard in your local newspapers by writing letters to the editor TODAY!
The grassroots effort on Letters to the Editor Friday and in other areas of the campaign continues to be recognized as one of the very real ways to help the campaign and defend this country against the biases in the media. Last week we mentioned “The Reagans” removal from CBS and now we see blogs keeping stories like the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda alive. Do your part by writing a letter of your choice today! Remember, the topic of your letter is completely up to you but, as usual, there has been a lot going on so here are a few great ideas you can write about:
» The connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda that only now is getting tepid coverage (if at all) from the major media outlets. Or the Penatgon’s non-response and further discussions here;
» Judicial activism in the courts with the Massachusettes Gay Marriage ruling and the White House’s protection of the definition of marraige;
» President Bush’s welcomed visit to London, his incredible Three Pillars speech, lack of media coverage and failed turnout of protestors despite promises of 250,000 or more.
» The medicare reform bill discussed here, here and here.
Now those are just a few, so simply type in your zip code below and find the news outlets in your areas!
If you’re a blogger who wants to join this effort, just copy and paste the following ZIP-code lookup box so people can write letters directly from your site for Friday’s festivities:
Let’s show them what the Bush-blogosphere can do! If you support President Bush, write a letter to the editor today and every Friday!
Obvious Bias
Compare and contrast Dan Rather’s sugary Weasel Clark interview with this video of Rather’s no-holds-barred slugfest with candidate George H. W. Bush in 1988. Then watch this video of Rather fawning over Bill Clinton in a 1999 interview.
The clips are from the invaluable Media Research Center, the most comprehensive repository of information about liberal media bias.
