I can’t think of anything more pathetically self-parodying ’00s than blogging about blogging. That said.
David Cho has an article in today’s Washington Post about Virginia political blogging, which, frankly, paints a grim picture of things. The article focuses mostly on a young’un in the blogging world, “Virginia House of Delgates 2005 Elections,” which is dedicated to precisely what you think it is. It’s run by anonymous individuals who collectively use the name “Not Larry Sabato.” Cho points to a pair of recent comments on the blog, one of which is simply wrong and another which is just creepy. But the whole piece delves into the larger question of whether anonymous blogging is a good idea.
I have been a defender of the right to anonymous and pseudonymous blogging. In particular, it’s the right to anonymous communication that’s important to me. I’m of two minds of people who actually do it — one the one hand, it can permit people to say things that life’s obstacles (eg, employment) would otherwise prevent them from saying. That can be valuable. On the other hand, it can permit people to say ridiculous, inflammatory things without any risk to themselves.
There is nothing about anonymous communication that inherently leads to people behaving badly. Witness the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression’s Virtual Community Chalkboard, an internet simulation (that I built several years ago) of their real-world Community Chalkboard, which is being constructed in front of City Hall in Charlottesville. Some people use their anonymity to say things that I can’t imagine they’d be likely to say were their name affiliated with their words. On the other hand, some people post insightful commentary, lovely poetry, and clever witticisms, which I’ll warrant they’d be less likely to do if they had to use their name.
On the other hand, Charlottesville newspaper C-Ville Weekly has a feature in the back of each week’s issue called “The Rant.” The paper maintains a phone line where people can call and say whatever they want, and the paper will print it. It’s two of the most bile-filled pages of newsprint that you’re ever likely to see. It brings out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad to see it in there each week, in no small part because I fear that the Charlottesville Community Chalkboard could likewise appeal to people’s most base instincts.
I conclude that it is the culture that is cultivated in an environment of anonymity (or pseudonymity) that’s important. I’ve run a lot of anonymous and pseudonymous on-line communities, beginning at the age of 15. It is a great deal of work to shape people’s behavior and to establish community norms that coax the best out of people, that makes anonymity a means of freeing people, not oppressing others.
Blogs like Virginia House of Delegates 2005 Elections, I fear, use anonymity as does The Rant. If there has been any effort on the part of the site’s operators to attempt to cultivate a cooperative atmosphere in which contributors work towards a common goal of bettering Virginia, I certainly haven’t seen it. In the weeks since the site was established, new blogs have been established to cover the topic of Virginia politics, and they, too, have adopted a similar combative tone.
I disagree with Bob Griendling, who is opposed to anonymity in blogging, but I agree wholly with his concern about its effects. Bob writes of “Not Larry Sabato”‘s site:
His blog has become a lengthy list of anonymous commentators in addition to his anonymous predictions and opinions. Many of the comments are personal attacks. I had a link to it on this blog, but I took it down today.
I recently received an inquiry from another government official who has started a blog, asking me if I’d link to him. Thus far, I’ve decided not to as I don’t want to encourage anonymous blogging. Blogs like Not Larry Sabato’s (to which I’ve intentionally not linked here) have little credibility and cheapen the discourse by making it anonymous. I’ve used harsh language attacking politicians, but at the very least I have a short bio of me on this site, and one can easily Google me for more info.
If this is a sign of things to come in the Virginia blogosphere, I certainly don’t see that I have a future in it. I can’t see that it has much of a future at all. Virginia political blogs should be a means of reaching out, finding common ground, taking on touch issues, having discussions on substantive matters, and improving the political and civic process. If we mirror the existing partisan divide, blogs cease to be a part of the solution, and become a part of the problem.
Let’s not do that.
Partisanship is increasing because the parties’ nomination process favors ideologues: liberals and conservatives.
That’s one reason for increasing partisanship: the parties are further apart and largely stratified towards the left or the right.
The second and biggest reason why partisan bickering has increased in the last 20 years is the following:
The Democratic party used to be a coalition of various ideologies – both social AND economic. You had economic liberals, social liberals, social conservatives, etc. The same goes for the Republican party.
Starting in the 60s, the parties began to reallign. I won’t go into the details other than to say that three things spurred the reallignment: the civil rights movement, Roe v Wade/ERA, and Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan’s anti-government movement.
Anyway, now that the parties don’t consist of ideologically overlapping coalitions, they’re less likely to work together. It’s not like society has forgotten civility or anything like that. It’s just that the parties have less to agree on today than they did in the past.
It’s that simple…
I don’t know if I agree with that or not. Over the course of my day job, I’ve worked with a great many political candidates from both parties. I hate election season possibly moe than anything else, for the often insane workload it generates, but I do not regret the people I’ve met as a result of it.
And I have to tell you, for many of the candidates who have an actual goal of improving things for the public at large, it’s hard to differentiate between parties except on very specific issues. Both D and R candidates do believe wholeheartedly, for instance, in concepts like personal responsibility, and, around here at least, providing help for people that are trying hard to help themselves. Methods differ greatly, but the view is essentially the same.
I won’t discuss those political candidates who seek office for reasons that have to do with personal or partisan goals. The Raising Kaine site does a good job with that.
There are polarizing issues, certainly, but those issues are not the only ones out there. I’ve had enough local candidates from both sides actual discuss their agendas and what they want to accomplish in seeking office to say that there is a good deal of ground that can be covered in a bipartisan manner.
I agree, Rick, particularly w/r/t local candidates. Republican, Democrat — it really doesn’t make a great difference at that level.
I really, really wish I could catch the dumb mistakes I make in comments :P~
possibly moe than = possibly MORE than
actual discuss = actually discuss
Where’s my proofreader hiding? Oh, yea, that’s only 8 to 5 … *sigh*
That’s my fault, Rick — I haven’t re-added the “preview” function that I used to have here. I’ll be sure to do that shortly.