A note on political blogs

02.12.2004

I've noticed a weird trend in political blogs over the past year or so since I've paid close attention. Ideological sectionalization. By this, I mean that many blogs on the activist/radical left link only to blogs on the activist/radical left and no others. Even if they talk about a similar issue. This holds true, of course, for many on the more conservative right.

What's interesting is that those in the center (the majority of blogs I read) link to each other back & forth. They even directly link to their opponents' counter-arguments. The result is an ongoing conversation, debate, and changing of opinions (from either side to the other). And their responses are based on evidence & structured arguments, not flippant answers or propaganda lines. In short: it's an honest discussion.

Interestingly, this isn't happening on the fringes. This is widely considered the cause for Dean's collapse. Yes, he had a blog, but it censored all opponent comments (and I don't mean flames or spam). Thus, it became a small circle of like-minded people patting each other on the back. When hit w/ the reality of voters, they were shocked not everyone thought as they do.

I've noticed that some bloggers write about Bolivia from far away. Few (if any) linked to my coverage of October. Why? Because I was skeptical of the true "democratic" or "progressive" nature of the protesters. Instead of engaging in discussion/debate, they chose to ignore my opinions and only read indymedia.org, Trotskyite-type coverage.

In the end, they lose. Not because they're necessarily wrong. But because they fail to engage in an honest debate. I try to link to people I disagree w/. My friend Patrick, for example, writes a solid & honest blog from his perspective (he worked in Dean's campaign). We comment on each other back & forth w/ mutual respect. In the end, we both benefit.

I link to James Lileks (Bleats) a liberal hawk. I also link to Joshua Marshall (Talking Points Memo), a very liberal dove. One supported the Iraq war, the other opposed it. Most of the punditry blogs I read try to engage in honest debate across the aisles. I have to know how others see an issue, and how they approach their arguments, to help me make up my own mind. Or check out this brutally honest & open — yet public — internal debate by Armed Liberal at Winds of Change (a group blog that covers the war on terror).

Similarly, I like reading Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) & Jeff Jarvis (Buzz Machine) because they tend to link to anyone worth noting (even the crazies). Or blogs like Wonkette (a group blog), which just skewers everyone w/ the funniest political gossip tabloid I've ever seen.

The sad thing about ideological sectarianism is that it leads to marginalization and a sense of vanguardism. You only listen to people who agree w/ you, call all the rest idiots, and then you begin to believe your own propaganda. That's not democratic, that's not liberal, that's not progressive. We have to learn how to engage those who disagree w/ us in conversation.

Otherwise, how do you ever expect to change their minds? By insulting them? By ignoring them? Only two modern political movements have relied on vanguardism: Leninism & fascism.

Posted by Miguel at 04:13 PM

Comments

True, it's very difficult to people to open to other ides... marketing research shows that people on both sides of the spectrum Right and Left , only see these two sides. If you in the center, ... to a leftist you are on the right and vica versa. Most poeple have a hard time defending there opinions because most didn't formulate them in the first place. :(

"I don't have enough time , nor want to, form my own opinion.. can I have yours... it sounds really cool.... and newage " :)

Posted by: andres at February 12, 2004 05:09 PM

The nice thing about the internet, is that all the crazy voices can get a soapbox. And. At the same time. The cream of the crop rises. If you write crap, no one good links to you. And if you write good stuff, good writers link to you, and you get more readership. It's an ecosystem of ideas (or memes).

Posted by: miguel at February 12, 2004 07:13 PM

Thanks so much, but Wonkette is pretty much just me. Maybe the royal we threw you off?

Posted by: wonkette at February 12, 2004 08:15 PM

your blogg is awesome,very informative and helpfull!

Posted by: ns at February 13, 2004 01:06 AM

I can count the number of blogs devoted to Bolivia and Bolivian politics on one hand. Following some links on other websites, I somehow discovered your blog some time after the October unrest. It would have been interesting to have your commentary while I was struggling to find information here in the States from sources other than the online mainstream Bolivian newspapers or Univision.

It took me a little while to figure out your tendencies and leanings, but by now, I read your entries with that in mind.

Even though I may disagree with many of your viewpoints, I respect your right to hold them and write about them, yet I wouldn’t go as far as calling them “crazy” or calling you a “crazie” just because I don’t agree. I understand that differences exist due to contrasts in personal philosophies and experiences.

However, due to the limited amount of information on Bolivia in independent blog media, I am afraid that those who know very little about the country may read your blog as an objective source of information. I feel fortunate to know Bolivia from another perspective and having a wide variety of experiences that most tourists do not have. That has certainly helped shape my opinions about Bolivia, something that I didn’t have before living in Bolivia for nearly three years. Yet, I will never know what it’s like to be part of a family living in the Chapare struggling to make a living off of alternative development or living in near poverty in Cobija. I know I will always have a subjective view towards Bolivia.

On the other hand, I also get worried that others who only read far-left websites like indymedia can romanticize the social movements and become oblivious to their real flaws and unacceptable methods of conducting business.

That’s why I continue to visit your site. Your opinions and commentary on daily events in Bolivia challenge what I think and forces me rethink some things that I may not have considered. In most instances, your counter-opinion has strengthened even more what I thought and in other cases, it has led me to investigate a little further. It sure beats those websites that just link to other sites with little or no commentary whatsoever.


Posted by: eduardo at February 13, 2004 01:36 AM

I think Eduardo just proved your post's point.

I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative but my favorite bloggers are Matthew Yglesias, Marc Levitt and Kriston Capps, all very liberal bloggers. My co-blogger, Rob, soon to have his own blog, lives in the sort of echo chamber you are avoiding. I've been encouraging him to branch out just to try and understand other's perspectives. It's been interesting.

Posted by: Scott Barnard at February 13, 2004 12:23 PM

Eduardo & Scott:

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I know that my posts have my point of view (who's doesn't?). I do my best to be objective, and perhaps I'm often too critical of the leaders of the social movements in Bolivia. Of course, it doesn't help that I know some of their personal pasts (e.g. my grandmother knew Evo when he was a young bag man for the drug traffickers in their Cochabamba neighborhood). But romanticizing either the activists OR the "status quo" is equally bad.

Posted by: miguel at February 13, 2004 02:37 PM

i also like that you link to blogs like mine. in which i post about how hot the girls in Santa Cruz, Bolivia are, the origins of the spork, why college guys don't carry umbrellas, how i blew the exhaust off my car in a race and what new pictures of my little girl i have on my site. randomness to say the least.

sorry i haven't commented in a while. realy busy week...

Posted by: sam at February 15, 2004 02:03 AM