The jokes write themselves at this point. Isn’t that a bad sign?

I agree that what Obama’s actually doing at this point is much more important. So as a gesture I wrote this. Amusingly (to me, anyways) it spent a day or so as the highest-rated “diary” on the DNC’s barely-creaking-along community blog.

Well, taking a better example, what about the need for stimulus? A lot of progressive bloggers decided we needed a big stimulus. But if that’s really just coming from the opinion of a couple experts, say Krugman and Delong, that’s different than if a bunch of different people have reached that conclusion based on independent analysis. Not that I don’t trust Krugman and Delong, but it is nice to know where the consensus is emerging from.

The thing for me is I don’t trust Mickey Kaus at all. His m.o. is to take some concern of liberals, like say transparency and openess, and try to turn it against liberals just to charge hypocrisy and annoy them.

I just disagree that it matters that much where the consensus is emerging from, because as others have pointed out and to take your example, fact checking and theorizing about the stimulus will be done out in the open.

Grover Norquist and a bunch of conservatives used to have a regular physical face-to-face meeting – maybe the still do – in DC. I didn’t think that was a big deal at the time either.

Well, taking a better example, what about the need for stimulus? A lot of progressive bloggers decided we needed a big stimulus. But if that’s really just coming from the opinion of a couple experts, say Krugman and Delong, that’s different than if a bunch of different people have reached that conclusion based on independent analysis. Not that I don’t trust Krugman and Delong, but it is nice to know where the consensus is emerging from.

19: Maybe the observation here is that these people are not as independent as they were 3 or 4 years ago. Whether they maintain a common listserv or not, a lot of these bloggers are probably communicating amongst themselves a lot more than they used to be. And of course they should! But when two people have a discussion privately, what you miss are sources of disagreement that a 3rd party might find interesting that never emerges. That’s the downside, I think.

Perhaps, but my point was that those conversations aren’t random. They’re self-selecting.

Now, you may feel this is only a difference in degree and not in kind, and I’m not necessarily going to disagree. To me, it’s just something interesting to note and hardly scandalous. But to pretend there is no difference at all doesn’t seem to help any. The conservative response is, of course, first projection as noted by Marc and secondly gamesmanship. That is all quite predictable, but I thought this would be an appropriate place to discuss whether there are any notable differences to this type of discourse.

That’s OK with me if you discuss it here, just as long as no one identifies me publicly as a member of Crooked Timber! Seriously, based on my limited experience of the Townhouse cabal, there’s no reason to expect consensus to emerge from a political listserv where everyone sees what everyone says. Quite the contrary: the more interlocutors, the more potential (and actual) disputes. There is indeed material for study here for sociologists Internet Studies scholars and communications theorists, but I think it would be wise not to start with the assumption that larger groups of wonks tend toward greater unanimity.

I acknowledge that such studies would annoy Rich, but I have to disagree with his notion that “taking right-wing propaganda like this even this seriously is just one of the signs that we’re not going to climb back up.” I think that the debacle at Treasury and the Obama administration’s unwillingness to wean itself from the Bush administration’s policies with regard the “state secrets” privilege and the detention of “enemy combatants” (though we’re retiring the phrase, apparently) are much, much more important signs that we’re not going to climb back up.

Oh, come on. This is just too silly. These are not elected officials! They’re journalists. They can Email whoever they want, singly or in groups. They can get together to chat, in person or in clubs or through Email lists. And no they don’t have to reveal every communication they have with everyone. They have freedom of association—oh, this is just too tiresome.

This country is sliding down the tubes ever faster, and taking right-wing propaganda like this even this seriously is just one of the signs that we’re not going to climb back up. Even snarking at it annoys me. No one should even have to think about it.

And I think the name Bianca Steele is kind of cool. Honestly!

mpowell
Well, that’s part of the issue, isn’t it? If you’re not a member of the list, you don’t know.

An easy way to figure out what the issue is is to do some research and see what they’re all discussing and see if they have a consensus. For example a lot of people are discussing AIG and the bonuses. See, it’s easy. What’s happening in my opinion is that you’re falling for Kaus’s Jedi mindtrick.

Coincidently, I’ve been doing some research on the 19th century anti-Catholic “Know-nothing” party and their crusade against Popery and Irish Catholic immigrants (see Martin Scorsese’s Gangs of New York). The movement started off as a semi-secret group. When a member was asked about its activities, he or she was supposed to reply, “I know nothing,” hence the name. Much like Fight Club.

Which makes me suspicious of all these people denying membership in the cabal!