For I think there’s a fault line that runs through “political blogging” which isn’t in fact properly appreciated. There are those who blog for a specific group, for a party, for their tribe. And there are those who blog in support of certain ideas, or ideals. The former group will indeed be liable to capture by the centre (“don’t rock the boat old boy, not now we’ve got back into power again”) and the latter will continue to scream for their cherished goals whichever party is in power.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Independent sites, Blogging & Bloggers · Slogans & Quotations December 17th, 2007 |
 11 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Quite so, and that is what makes us (and by that I mean any ‘ideological’ rather than ‘tribal’ blog) a completely different animal than the MSM.
This division of labor always exists. Politicians need ideas and policies and even beliefs to be provided by someone. People with principles need someone willing to play the dirty game to get some small portion of what they want. Politicians are more or less open, most of the time, to adopting whatever ideas or policies or even beliefs they need to get elected. People with principles are often less realistic about the fact they are simply practicing an interesting hobby if they don’t participate in some political activity or support some faction to try to get something of what they want to actually be adopted through the political process. The more ideologically pure the person is, the less likely that they will see their ideals have real-world impact. This is a difficult balance. Those of us who are old enough remember Reagan and Thatcher who accomplished a lot compared to what came before and after, but far less than their more idealistic supporters had hoped for.
But, but, but –
You missed out the bit where Tim ( Tim Worstall. THE Tim Worstall) mentioned Samizdata.
Not sure I accept the point about politicians being pragmatic rather than principled. I mean that it is certainly true but it only works because the political system we operate is set up to work through deals and horse trading which idealists tend not to do.
The answer of course is to have a constitution that strictly limits the role for government so they are not trying to achieve anything other than ensure that the law is upheld and the country is defended. If this were true none of us would care what politicians do, or do not do.
Unless these ideas make the politicians themselves obsolete.
On the generality of Tim’s posting – there is an interesting little discussion going on here in Oz following the (Oldish) Labor (that’s right, no ‘u’) victory a couple of weeks ago. Rather an efflorescence of leftwing blogging we have seen a small but real campaign by some leftists to get right wing columnists in the MSM sacked because they “have no dialogue with the times”.
These are people who only weeks ago were complaining loudly, in the press, in books and at conferences, that their voices were being suppressed and silenced in Howards Australia. Translation – I have thcreamed and thcreamed and thcreamed ’til I got thick, and you STILL aren’t doing what I order.
Now, for no better reason than that a government changed, these opponents of control and censorship are seriously suggesting that their journalistic opponents be sacked and silenced because a 5% swing by the electorate renders them no longer in tune with the times.
Sigh, there really are people on the centre left who believe that freedom of speech means being allowed to say anything, unless they disagree with it.
Anyone interested in this idiocy can track down the links from this rather robust response by Janet Albrechtsen last monday in the Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22908896-5013450,00.html
“You missed out the bit where Tim ( Tim Worstall. THE Tim Worstall) mentioned Samizdata.”
Hmm? Why worry so much about the opinions of what is, after all, just another loudmouth who can type?
Why worry so much about the opinions of what is, after all, just another loudmouth
Can’t a guy even be facetious these days?
Facetious?
Well, quite…
Clearly the left in Australia want the Australian press to be like the American press.
The “objective”, “scientific” journalism of which the Progressive movement dreamed in the early 1900’s has finally resulted in most of the United States having no non leftist newspapers to read.
School of Jounalism types de facto have to be hired as staff (and it is getting that way in Britain as well – great journalists like Frank Johnson would not be allowed to write these days, because they did not go to college) and ads get placed in the “modern”, “Progressive” newspapers by the Federal, State and local bureaucracy and by the favoured private corporations.
Few seem to notice that it is the boring, predictable nature of most of the American press, rather than “the internet has changed everything”, that has led to much of the collapse in circulation.
There is a market out there, for example most people in Indianapolis are conservative – what newspapers have they got to read?
Perhaps the Wall Street Journal can (via the use of computer technolgy) have lots of local editions covering news in various parts of the country as well as national and international news.
But, of course, this depends on the school-of-journalism dead wood being cleared out of the W.S.J. itself. And yes this means in the news sections and the arts and culture sections. For example, people should be able to read television and film reviews written by people who are NOT on the left.
People will still buy bits of paper – as long as there is interesting stuff to read on these bits of paper.
I fail to see the point of being in the “tribal” camp unless you’re deriving some tangible personal benefit. Or is it just boosterism for people who don’t like sports?