Jon Henke sums up the response to his call for a boycott of WorldNetDaily – both Farah’s response, and the enlightening entertaining frightening responses many WND commenters who flooded The Next Right left there. We had a few stop by here as well, and I have to give them credit – though they were not as cordial or polite as the typical League commenter, they were still nowhere near as bad as the trolls who piled on to Henke’s initial post. Here’s a comment from Gunnery Sgt D.C. Robertson (edited by Henke, and posted with my apologies):
Jon,I hope you get a triple case of AIDS the next time you take it up the a**, you f*****g homo. You and your putrid ilk put that Comie n****r in the White House and accidently woke up the silent majority of white, Christain, tax-paying Americans. No longer will the soul of this great nation be intimidated by political correctness. You f****d up buddy and now you have a front row seat to see the newly awakened vanquish the cancer of fascism from this land. Oh, by the by, I do hope to meet you in person some day for a bit of attitude adjustment.Semper Fi, Motherf****r.
So this is the voice of the “silent majority of white, Christian, tax-paying Americans”?
Doesn’t sound particularly silent or particularly Christian to me. But hey, as long as you’re paying your taxes you can sound as batshit crazy and bigoted as you want – though threats of physical violence are usually frowned upon.
What I really love about all of this is how the commenters themselves illustrate the point so well, and completely unintentionally. Such anger, such vitriol. Then again, I’ve been reminded several times that the League is just a “backwater” site full of “pseudo-intellectuals” that nobody reads, so it doesn’t really matter what I think.
I couldn’t agree more. Being a backwater site has distinct advantages. An excellent comments section being one of them.
***
Mark observes in a pair of emails:
So for all the trolls running around bragging about how WND is some sort of a new media juggernaut, we haven’t even gotten 100 referrals from Nut-in-Chief Farah’s link to E.D.’s post. I find this….interesting in several ways.
- It suggests that WND readers, if there really are a lot of them, are not at all interested in verifying the accuracy of what WND writes by clicking on the supporting links.
- It suggests that WND is not nearly as big a player as WND fans think it is.
- It suggests that WND is not nearly as big a player in modern conservatism as sane people tend to think, which perhaps makes it better to ignore entirely than to call attention to by either boycotting or going after its extreme idiocy.
This is exactly right – and at the heart of my initial reservation that Henke was on to something, but that a boycott is likely not the best answer.
In the comments, Bob Cheeks chides us for not going after the left enough. He has a point. The left is currently in power, regardless of the volume level of the Tea Party vocal opposition, and in possession of most of the strings. It only makes sense to go after the guys who are pulling the strings.
This is a very common critique of dissident conservatives or even of moderate movement conservatives like David Frum. “Why do you always attack conservatives? Why don’t you ever go after liberals? Why do you always play against your own team?” (etc.)
My quick answer is that “the team” right now is in disarray and until it’s fixed, until the problems which exist in the movement today and in conservatism in general are dealt with and the ship is righted, then every last critique of liberalism and the current administration will be an exercise in futility. The opposition as it exists today is winning small battles in the health care debate (the “protect Medicare from the government” debate) but I think they are losing the larger war. Tactics are replacing strategy, when the two should be working together. Partisanship is overtaking principle and more importantly, vision.
Even a comeback in 2010 will probably be short-lived if serious reforms don’t take place. The right needs to regain the high ground or it will continue to sink. When it regains the high ground we will all be in a better position to once again attack the left and its policies. We will never regain the high ground without a steady internal critique. This is not a conflict between “elites” and the “base” either. There is nothing about socioeconomic class or one’s level of education that dictates how reasonable a person will be.
The sooner we can get past our obsession with idiots and freaks on both the left and right, the sooner we can deal with the real differences between the progressive agenda and the sane portion of the American public which opposes the progressives. These idiots are not representative of the silent majority, which is more than white Christians, anymore than the loonies on the left are representative of liberalism. These people represent a fringe group of fanatics, that’s all.Report
This is why you can’t spend too much time arguing against the left.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/09/wanted-a-head-of-state.php
American conservatism hangs by a thread for reasons that have nothing to do with policy. If the decline isn’t met with the full voice of people who are more than anti-liberals, it may be irreversible. What’s more, there’s no dearth of opposition to leftism. That’s precisely the problem; there is only the party of No, without a positive agenda that represents an alternative to liberalism.Report
Wow. I actually had never heard of WND, and I consider myself pretty informed…
Anyway, after skimming their site for a moment, I really have only one question: is Joseph Farah’s mustache real? It looks like my fake one in my blogger profile. I didn’t even realize I was satirizing anyone there!Report
“without a positive agenda that represents an alternative to liberalism”
if only liberalism had an identity — the serious liberals are caught between their classical roots and the illiberal nature of progressivism. Most who call themselves “liberal” are merely followers of the party, right or wrong.Report
“Most who call themselves “liberal” are merely followers of the party, right or wrong.”
Not me, buddy. I’m the world’s only liberal Republican. (Kidding. We all know there’s no such thing…)
You show me the party that’s for gay marriage, drug legalization, no more symbolic wars that we can lose if we lose “resolve,” rolling back the police state (as in….not making it worse to get the illegals), and industries-before-companies economic ideas and I’ll show you a party I can support.Report
Boston Tea. “Party like it’s 1773!”
http://bostontea.us/Report
Damn, sounds like you should join the Libertarian Party.Report
“industries-before-companies economic ideas”
Libertarianism has a problem with this from time to time.Report
Er, I misspoke. The Libertarian *PARTY* has a problem with that from time to time. (Specifically thinking of Wayne Allyn Root)Report
I’m fine filching ideas from the Libertarians without actually becoming one. I mean, just because I want to legalize drugs doesn’t mean I want to go back to the gold standard.
Besides, isn’t the old “taxes are theft” idea just as ridiculous as the old Marxist idiom “property is theft?” Yes. I think it is.Report
Which is why I recommend Boston Tea.
Charles Jay got 16th place, baby! There’s no place to go but up!Report
Most who call themselves “liberal” are merely followers of the party, right or wrong.
Actually, the Obama presidency has proved rather decisively that the opposite is true.Report
That’s why I said serious liberals have a conflict.Report
Walking around WND, I suspect that the comparison to the birchers isn’t a fair one.
The birchers were merely paleocons.Report
I just read both of them and it’s a good example of diversion — a sensible conservative throws a rock in a hornets’ nest, then gloats over the stings. Not too sensible, however. Ignore them — they thrive off attention.Report
Here’s why I think a “boycott” of World Net Daily doesn’t make a ton of sense: How many members of the Ordinary Gentlemen/the Next Right/the New Majority/(the unfortunately defunct) Culture 11 crowd actually read/link to WND anyway? I mean, I guess I’ve been boycotting WND for years now because I simply don’t read any of the insane tripe that comes out of that website. Who actually takes these fever swamps seriously enough to engage in a “boycott” of their product? Have the O-G ever linked to WND in a non-ironic/non-mocking fashion?
I dunno…it seems like calling for a boycott is more trouble than it’s worth. The fever swamps on both ends of the spectrum are better off being ignored than confronted.Report
Boycotts (in this case, as I understand them) are more than merely not going to WND. They also entail telling those who advertize on WND that you refuse to purchase their products until they stop advertizing on WND.
I don’t know who advertizes there but let’s assume overlap with Rush Limbaugh and pick a name out of a hat:
Craftmatic Adjustable Beds.
You would have to call craftmatic and tell them that you have considered purchasing an adjustable bed and watching the free television that comes with it but now that you know that they advertize on WND, there is no way that that is going to happen. You instead purchase an adjustable bed from their competitor, whomever that is.
Which then brings us to the problem you are talking about… namely, whether LOOGy-types are craftmatic adjustable bed types. I’m guessing “no”.Report
I wish I had an adjustable bed. Those things look awesome. Homer seemed to have a fun time with his before his quadruple bypass. “Bed goes up; bed goes down. Bed goes up; bed goes down.”Report
May I suggest Craftmatic? I understand that you get a free television.Report
Here’s the problem, as I see it: if you read WND, and do not immediately recognize on your own that it is embarrassing nonsense and should only be read for amusement, then how likely are you to be swayed by intelligent arguments in favor of a boycott?Report
Wait, WND is a serious site? I thought it was a big giant parody…Report
Motley points:
> Good to know the League has acknowledhed an ostensible “team” (unless I’m misunderstanding whom the unnamed Frum-like fellow-travelers refer to with “you guys.”)
> …though threats of physical violence are usually frowned upon. You sure about that?
> Freddie links to Matt, which gives me entree to an appreciation: Whatever anyone thinks of Yglesias (and I assume he is something of a friendly bête noir/sounding board around here), you actually have to see his output today to believe it. The man is positively on fire. Matt sometims makes some very weird leaps of logic and assumption, and I can go hot and cold with him. But today he has a string of posts (by which I mean every single one) that incisively gets to the nub of the liberal view of an amazing breadth of topics. This of course proves expertise in none of those — more to the glory of the blogging profession. But do yourself a favor: even if you’re not an ideological ally of Matt’s read Matthew Yglesias’ entire Sept. 2 output. You’ll be glad you did.
By contrast, Megan McArdle has this uplifting take on health care late tonight:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/is_there_any_more_point_to_tal.phpReport
You misunderstand, if I understand you properly. No one member of this site speaks for the others, nor the site itself.Report
Yes, what Scott said. If you’re looking for ideological unity at the League you won’t find it beyond this one commitment to dialogue. I speak only for myself in this post – and certainly don’t reference my co-bloggers as part of a political team. You may have noticed that both Freddie and Jamelle are raving liberals and Dave is an avowed nihilist. And Scott is Canadian. Yes. You heard me right. Canadian.
In all seriousness, though – we are a group blog with no ideological purpose or unity.Report
Hey nowReport
What then is the relationship of the person who wrote this:
My quick answer is that “the team” right now is in disarray and until it’s fixed, until the problems which exist in the movement today and in conservatism in general are dealt with and the ship is righted, then every last critique of liberalism and the current administration will be an exercise in futility.
To the team of which he speaks?Report
Uhm…”the conservative movement” or perhaps “conservatism” or whatever you want to call it. Do you really think I was describing the state of affairs at the League?Report
I’m not asking “who is the team?” but “what is your relationship to it?” Is Frum talking to you when he says that?
As far as the League goes, I don’t mean to overstep here, but I’m not sure it looks from the outside the way you, from the inside, envision it to look. That’s almost inevitable, so don’t take it as a major criticism. But there are some pretty clearly dominant voices here, especially on the major topics (eg. relating to health policy surrounding more than one sometimes-transitory body part), and they tend to be more in accord than contention. I’m sure some observers (and all the contributors) will disagree with that assertion, but they are wrong.
Nevertheless, I accept your assurance that the League itself is, in Sullivan’s words, “Of no party or clique.” My observation was mnot made in complete seriousness, and I didn’t think in any case more than a tendency or leaning had been acknowledged (whether officially or as a matter of the relative prominence of the various viewpoints expressed here).Report
I used to read WND diligently and seriously. Then I, erm, left middle school.
Always good for a laugh.Report
In support of this boycott, I vow to continue not reading WND. Just, more um…. loudly. 😉Report
I started boycotting studidity, but it got the point, I had to grow my own food and make my own clothes, plus I was unemployed — a literal shut-in — I almost died.Report
stupidity — I don’t know who Stu Didy is.Report
Second cousin twice removed of P. Diddy.Report