Whenever you say “Nobody on our side does that,” you’re wrong.
OK– I am not a connected guy. I don’t live in Washington DC. I don’t work for a think tank, magazine, political action campaign, or anything of the sort. I am the last to catch on to any inside-baseball stuff. I get my Washington-insider stuff from the same public websites any other political geek does.
But I know of a right-of-center private listserve where conservative journalists, thinkers and commentators write about the current issues of the day. There is one right-wing commentator who almost anybod who reads this blog has probably read, a couple of reporters from various media (print and online), a few conservative professors, and some assorted others, from what I understand. (The person who clued me in to this listserve hasn’t given me a membership list, or anything, and wouldn’t.) The existence of the listserve isn’t a secret, exactly, but I’m to keep any member’s participation secret.
I say this only to point out the rank absurdity of Mickey Kaus’s denial that there is any conservative analog to the Journolist. No, it’s true, this particular listserve probably doesn’t have the same degree of influence as the Journolist does, and it doesn’t have as many “names” as the Journolist does, although in the age of the Web I really question whether that has any meaning. But this is a conservative vehicle with nearly identical aims and a nearly identical setup to the Journolist. Are mere questions of degree and influence all that it takes to acquit a conservative Journolist from Kaus’s complaints?
Now, Kaus is a vastly more connected and plugged-in guy than I am. He would have a much, much easier time accessing information about this kind of conservative listserve than I would. (In fact, there is a rather simple professional connection from Kaus to the particular list I’m referring to.) And I assume, though I don’t know, that there are other listserves like the one that I’m aware of out there; that seems to be the working assumption of the person who has clued me in. In other words, my suspicion is that if Kaus hasn’t found any conservative analogs to the Journolist, it’s because he wasn’t looking that hard.
More to the point, if Mickey Kaus had discovered a conservative version of the Journolist, if that Politico story had been about an identical conservative institution, would anyone— anyone at all– say that he would have prosecuted the story with equal zeal and sense of outrage? Could even his most zealous defenders claim that? Even those who find my questioning his commitment to liberalism or the Democratic party untoward, I think, would admit that he wouldn’t be nearly as inclined to stamp his feet and declare the Journolist a terrible phenomenon if it was a collection of right-of-center journalists and bloggers.
I haven’t been impressed by many of Kaus’s recent criticisms of Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Spencer Ackerman and others. But his larger concerns about cocooning and the echo chamber are certainly worth listening to. What I want to know, though, is why he’s so certain this is a phenomenon that could only happen on the left, and whether he’d be equally exercised about a conservative Journolist. No, the particular listserve I’m aware of isn’t equal to the Journolist in influence. But that’s not the point. The point is that conservatives are not immune to the kind of problems that Kaus identifies, and I think his glib assertions that they are don’t do any favors for his efforts to be heard on this subject.
At the risk of repeating myself, Freddie, if Kaus doesn't think conservatives engage in cocooning this is almost certainly a function of not knowing about the form that conservative cocooning habits take. Is there an exact replica of JournoList on the right? Not that I know of, but then I am probably not someone who would be made aware of such a list if it existed. The larger point is that if there were a conservative JournoList, Kaus wouldn't care because he does not consider himself responsible for or interested in the fate of conservatism. If cocooning is harmful to the group that does it, he might even be pleased to encourage more of it on the right, but I won't press that point. I think the idea that conservatives only have their discussions in public fora is strange. There are discussions for public audiences, and discussions appropriate for a smaller group. So long as the people participating in the latter don't wall themselves off from the outside world and from people with opposing ideas, it shouldn't make any difference anyway. Report
In Kaus's defense, an echo chamber on the Right probably helps the liberal cause. Getting his team to avoid a similar pitfall is probably the pragmatic thing to do. Report
I don't know that a listserve necessarily qualifies as an echo chamber. Sometimes these sorts of things are just good strategic tools. I don't get the fuss over JournoList at all. Report
But I did try to stay away from questions of Kaus's ideology here, and just ask the question, is Kaus being fair to the Journolist members? And is his response ideologically situated, regardless of where he's coming from? Report
Of course he isn't. If anything, Kaus is a self-hating liberal(If he ever was a liberal). Report
The point of having an invitation-only closed email list is to let people say and hear in private the insightful things that it would be bad for their careers to say and hear in public.
Yet, the liberal reporters and pundits on the JournoList closed email list apparently view their list as an opportunity to exchange with each other exactly the same ignorant eye-rolling, the same politically correct inanities that they spout in public, just with more bad language. Report
To put it in terms of Plato's Republic, I think Kaus is trying to say that Thrasymachus' blush is a good thing for political discourse in general and ought to be repeated as much as possible: in Kaus' interpretation, the JournoList eliminates the dialectic that leads to the accidental expression of Thrasymachus' hidden tyrannical desires (which, according to Bloom, is why he blushes). In other words, influential and persuasive writers who mean to sway both readers and public policy are provided with an institution in which they can keep their true desires and opinions secret from those they intend to sway. I'm not saying that's what's going on, but that seems to be the main thrust of Kaus' argument. Report
does it really take any effort to see how stupid this entire story was/is?
i have confess , though, i have been part of phildelphia phillies cacoon/ listserv for many years now which certainly prevents from watching, reading or hearing anything else about baseball.
somebody tell kaus about facebook and he will have a breathless essay about how liberals only make cyberfriends with other liberals….ohhhhh….scary. OMG and what about twitter, do liberals twitter conservatives….OMG think of the children.
sorry, this whole issue just shows how shallow and stupid a large percentage of the press is. Report
The left is too quick to wield the “racist” epithet. JK Galbraith once pointed out that if you wrapped a 1,000 mile-wide band around the equater, you would not find a single developed country. The reason for this is not because the people are inherently inferior in any way, but because these societies have done the cost-benefit math on whether the hard work is worth it. Anyone else here like to work in humid, 100-degree heat? It’s the climate, not the people. Kaus is right. That not a single one of these douche-bags defended Peretz is shameful. Also, why is okay to compliment a culture but not criticize one? If I said, Mexicans are hard working. No one would feel the need to contradict me. Etc.Report
John Smith–regarding your point about compliments, I bet that if you said that a lot of people would laugh uncomfortably and change the subject though.Report
This is high school cliquery 101. Kaus is jealous that he was left out of the cool kids group.Report