Even though I don’t agree with him on everything, I still would award Glenn Greenwald the prize as the most outstanding blogger in the progressive blogosphere. He employs a rigorous logic and an utterly consistent voice to the issues he tackles. And if you disagree with him, you better come armed with a good argument and a lot of facts. As it happens, I don’t disagree with him about this:
At least as I always perceived it, the “liberal blogosphere” — to the extent that’s a cognizable entity — has devoted itself to criticisms of two failed institutions: (1) the establishment media and (2) the Democratic Party leadership. And the primary cause of discontent with the Party is exactly the criticism which [Nate] Silver applies here to the Obama White House: meekness, a constant compulsion to accommodate so-called “centrism” for political gain, a failure to embrace true transformative change (regardless of whether that’s due to political fear or actual belief). Why would anyone expect — or want — blogs, which arose as an outside agitating force against Beltway institutions and leaders, suddenly to cease this pressure and criticisms because now it’s Barack Obama leading the way in doing these things instead of Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer and Congressional Democrats?
Taken alone, that excerpt probably overstates the case and suffers from a lack of discussion about the Obama White House’s strengths. But it identifies their weakness. And it correctly argues that we should not want progressive blogs to cease pressure and criticism, especially of what we see as a continuation of failed strategies that served our leadership poorly during the Bush era.
However, my critique of the progressive blogosphere was not general. I reserved it for a subsection of critics who seem to fancy themselves as allies of the administration, but who have never demonstrated much affinity for either the candidate or the president. They tend to ascribe the worst motives to everything he does. And, yet, they feel like the are somehow responsible for his victory and thus entitled to deference and respect. It doesn’t matter how harsh they’ve been in their criticism, they still think it is completely outrageous for anyone in the White House to utter a word of rebuttal or to dismiss their opinions in any way.
So, if you look at the blogosphere on any given day, you’re likely to see a lot of anger directed at the White House on a shifting set of issues. And the White House gets asked questions about what people are writing. And they can either defend themselves or they can agree that the criticism is merited. As a general rule, White Houses defend themselves against criticism, regardless of whether it is coming from the right or from the left. I don’t think we should expect anything different. Sometimes, if the critic is very respected (or they owe them something), they will kind of tip-toe around the issue, eager to offer a rebuttal, but not wanting to provide offense. Other times, they’ll choose to be openly derisive because they don’t fear their critic and don’t think they have much clout.
If Rush Limbaugh makes a critique, they’re dismissive. If the Labor Unions make a critique, they’re careful. The fact that the White House is occasionally willing to dismiss criticism from the blogosphere should tell you where we stand in the food chain. But, before you conclude that we have no clout, consider how aggressively they distanced themselves from the anonymous source who told us to put away our pajamas and get more realistic expectations.
We have clout. But we lose clout when we’re seen as uncharitable blowhards. Most of the bloggers that I respect expressed agreement with what I wrote. I got positive feedback from Markos, Oliver Willis, Kid Oakland, Baratunde Thurston, Liza Sabatar, and others. But I don’t think the White House adviser’s remarks were aimed at us. They were aimed at other bloggers who have extremely negative interpretations of the president’s motives and policies. I think the progressive blogosphere is pretty consistent in what it advocates, and the critiques don’t differ all that much from each other. I don’t sense that people have let up too much on being critical when they feel it is warranted. If the White House sees us as allies, they probably shouldn’t. Nobody is harder to bullshit than the people of the progressive blogosphere. But, some of us are dedicated to seeing that they succeed in what they set out to do and give them the benefit of the doubt on most issues that they have no desire to break their campaign promises. Others are cynical, through and through.
I can’t say which camp is right or wrong. But I don’t think it is right or realistic to expect the White House to take all our slings and arrows without ever rebutting what we have to say. And if they think some of us are arguing in bad faith, you should expect to see them treat us with a corresponding lack of respect.
I don’t want to see us lose our influence because we’ve lost our reputation for fair play. So, I agree with Greenwald that people should push their issues just as strongly as ever, without any undue deference to power. But, they should be strive to be fair. And if they’re constantly putting an uncharitable interpretation on things, they basically lose the right to be treated well in return.
