The peculiarities of the 2004 election are what they were. I remember at my 20th law school reunion in April 2004 having a conversation with my old study partner, who is about as far left as can be. I told her that I thought her party was making a big mistake choosing Kerry, because he has the charm of a tree stump and an antiwar history from the 70s that the Republicans will hang around his neck and never let him escape from. At that point Kerry didn’t have the nomination quite sewn up yet, but he was well on his way. She thought he would be fine because he looked presidential, came across as serious, had the war medals, etc. I wonder why so many Dems didn’t see what I (and quite a few others) saw so clearly so early – and I’m certainly no political genius. I think the pursuit of power while being out of power has led the Dems astray: they’re thinking about process and have left substance on auto-pilot. Maybe the new think tanks will fix that, I don’t know.

To bring this back full circle now: I mentioned above that righties and lefties view politics differently and it has a different role in their lives (I’m talking here in broad patterns, not about any particular individuals). I think there is a good reason for the old political saw about righties looking for enemies and lefties looking for heretics. So far as I can tell, politics qua politics is more integral to a lefty’s sense of self-definition than it is to a righty’s. In other words, a lefty’s sense of who s/he is is drawn to a large extent from his or her political principles – Lefty knows he is a good guy because he believes in equality, giving people a break, all the other basic lefty principles that underlie the policies we usually associated with the Democratic party. Righty approaches the equation from the other direction: he has his life and he is a good person, and therefore arrived at his political views based on that. This is just a sense I have; I can’t point to a study that supports it.

But I will point out that the Federalist Papers presumes that most people don’t spend their lives being politically engaged, and that those who do are a “faction” that has to be restrained and cancelled out – in other words, the US constitutional system is based on the premise that people get their self-definition and sense of worth OUTSIDE politics. That’s closer to the righty mode of thought that I outlined above. It’s actually closest to the brand of libertarianism that says people should be free and government shouldn’t be permitted to meddle with them except under limited circumstances – but that’s a subject for a whole ‘nother post.

Come on Simon, your latest comment still has a silly children’s playground attitude.

I’m sorry if that’s how it seems.

One of the reasons I love reading Prawfsblawg and this blog is because – while I frequently disagree (strongly, even) – they are relentlessly substantive, and ensuing debate in the comments section is usually marked by civility, good faith, thoughtfullness and intellectual openness.

In order for serious or genunine debate to take place, there has to be a sense of mutual respect and comity, and for that reason, I don’t go to places like Little Green Footballs or Daily Kos. It’s not that that no-one who comments at LGF or Kos or similar sites has never (or could never) write a valuable comment, it’s that I just don’t have any respect or trust for them, which means that you’re going to end up spending more time filtering snark from substance than actually thinking about the issues.

This doesn’t actually relate as much to this thread’s topic as it might appear, because this is emphatically not a phenomonon confined to red blogs or blue blogs, but particularly anonymous blogs (cf. this Kathleen Parker op/ed) where anonymity, it seems, cannot but liberate people from the chains of civility. The state of being unaccountable – either by lack of competition (in the commercial area), or by avoidance of shame by virtue of anomynity (in blogs) – is, I think, the root cause of any number of evils. This is one of the reasons I’m tentatively enthusiastic about IPv6, because the possibility of each and every person having their own registered IP address – in essence, the end of anomynity on the internet – is highly attractive. It will force people to comment civilly, or face the consequences.

I am not a “turn the other cheek” kind of person. At daily kos, well, that’s my blog home, and I will continue my policy. But this is your blog and I violated its spirit.

I apologize for that and it won’t happen again.

Please delete my most recent comments at your discretion.

Sorry if that comment crossed the line; I will return to ignoring him instead. I would be interested in hearing from Stuart as to the more substantive points made above my response to him r.e. that fellow from Daily Kos.

Please keep the discourse here civil. This post is about the liberal versus the conservative blogosphere and how to better integrate the different dimensions of the blogosphere. It is not about Armando’s commenting at Althouse, nor is it about Althouse fans.

I will reluctantly retain the discussion above, but starting now, I will begin a more vigorous deleting of off-topic and insulting comments on this post.

Our discourse is generally quite civil, and it is my personal policy to delete comments on posts that become too rude and crude(each of us polices comments on our own posts according to our own principles). Simon’s was teetering on the line, and I was mulling over whether or not to delete it before you responded.

Simon:

I generally delete comments when they devolve into name-calling, but I’ll leave yours up because Armando has already responded

You have generally commented here frequently, respectfully, and productively, and thus I was quite surprised when I read your comment.

I really don’t see how calling people “pissed adolescents” or accusing people of being abusive commenters is a very productive way of discussing issues. In my opinion, I have found Armando to be quite willing to discuss issues thoughtfully. In this thread, for example, after engaging in extensive discussion about the issues, Armando and I came to a greater agreement. Insulting people’s intelligence and name calling doesn’t really advance the debate and discussion very far.

The purpose of the forum I want to create here is for reasoned thoughtful debate, not a shouting match of personal attacks, not a ranting fest for the Right or the Left. There are plenty of places in the blogosphere for rants, grunts, slights, slurs, and the like.

Anyway, please keep the discourse here civil and thoughtful.

So? What part are you referring to?

I’ll stand by what I said in that thread abnd I still await Althouse’s promised fisking of me on the 11th Amendment and Ex Parte Young in light of Cour d’Alene.

There is something insufferable about you Althouse fans. You think because she is a law professor you are smart.

It doesn’t work that way.

You mean this thread?

Yes, I am horribly abusive. Could you point out my abusive comments? Could you point out ANY comments from me?

I think your comment speaks for itself as to your nature.

I leave Concurring Opinions to decide if they view you as representative of the civil discourse they wish to promote.

I hope not.

I thought the first few pages of the OpinionJournal piece – the part that purported to analyze why Kerry lost and the Dems lost ground in the Senate – was too far into the category of smug partisanship. Once he launched into the theoretical discussion and the historical stuff about the New Deal, it’s more interesting and less triumphalist.

I want to respond to that in two ways, firstly by saying why I don’t think the first section is problematic, and secondly (and very briefly) by touching on something I would think would raise more concerns.

voegelli essentially makes five points in §1.

1, after the election, a lot of columnists blamed the defeat on those dumb voters. The left-leaning London Daily Mirror ran a headline, “how can 62 million people be this dumb?” Is this not true? Voegelli asserts that the columnists were not thinking on their feet, but echoing a widely-held sentiment among despondent democrats. Is this untrue?

2, after blaming the electorate, a lot of democrats (rightly, in my view) blamed the candidate. Isn’t this true? I still see folks driving around with Howard Dean bumper stickers now; haven’t seen a Kerry sticker for months. It seems to me that only a very small number of Democrats were honestly keen on John Kerry, which is reflected in the fact that early 2008 polls suggest that John Kerry will do almost as well in the 2008 primary as Joe did in the 2004 primary, if he’s dumb enough to run. Rather, they just wanted to beat Bush and figured that Kerry was the best way to do that, not least because his war record would immunize him against “weak on war” attacks. He was, in my view, the “suck it up” candidate: he’s not great, but suck it up and vote for him anyway. Bob Dole, mark II. This isn’t so much a point that Voegelli emphasizes, but I’m emphasizing it here – isn’t this true, too?

3, Kerry wasn’t great, but the other candidates weren’t much better. I’ll grant you that this one fits your description, but I would add that after Governor Dean (who I rather liked) quit running for the Presidency sometime around October ’03 (only to be replaced by his bizarre, shouty twin, candidate Dean, who I didn’t like so much, but still liked a whole lot more than Chairman Dean, who is, let’s face it, a bit of a prat), it became true. Does anyone seriously think Dennis Kucinich is fit to be the President of the United States? Or, and this is even more of a stretch, even if he is, does anyone seriously think Dennis Kucinich – blessed with the nomination of the Democratic Party, or any other party – could win a presidential election?

4, the article asserts two related points: that the Democrats had a hugely successfull “get out the vote” campaign, and that Democrats had believed for a long time that America agreed with them, and thus they couldn’t lose a high turnout election. Are either of these points wrong? Indeed, it seems to me that, for a long time, Democrats beleived that what stymied them wass low turnout (because a majority of America agreed with them but just didn’t turn up to say so when it mattered) and that they could never manage to match GOP fundraising. So having made these points – which don’t seem dispuatable – Voegelli argues that in 2004, the Dems got out the vote, and they raised as much money as the GOP, and it still wasn’t enough. Well, it wasn’t enough – they lost!

Finally, §1 concludes with what I think should be the sine qua non of any political theory: “the next Democrat who wins will be the one who changes enough minds.” Political hegemonies are made of received wisdom and unchallenged assertions. It’s never enough to hope that people agree with you; you either have to have a platform they already agree with or put forward a genuinely compelling argument why they should – even if only in the guilt-free privacy of a polling booth, where no one needs to know – change their minds.

It seems to me that the line in the article with which a Democrat would most jutifiably take issue appears further down, at §2 ¶4:

The narrative of Democrats trying to find a narrative might be more promising, or at least more interesting, if it were fresher. The problem is the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections, not to mention control of Congress in 1994, and have talked about the urgent need to redefine and re-explain themselves after every one of those defeats. It has been 24 years since that dim, unelectable extremist Ronald Reagan won a landslide against Jimmy Carter. A generation later, can there really be any promising ideas that haven’t already been taken down from the shelf?

It seems to me that this is the paragraph most deliberately calculated to frustrate liberals: it does not describe an event that has already happened, but essentially writes off the party’s future by declaring that it is intellectually bankrupt. Even I don’t think that the Democratic party is damaged beyond repair, that it has nothing left to offer and no capacity to recast itself, which is precisely what Voegeli seems to imply here.

Its primary task before doing so, of course, is to divest itself from its radical fringe, just as the fundamental problem for the GOP is now to avoid being dragged to its fringe. Which neatly brings us to:

Armando is no dummy, Kossack or not. On this blog at least he has been comparatively restrained. Saying he can’t be expected to understand is just not accurate – he understands, he just disagrees with you.

You and I disagree with one another about, for example, the stuff I replied to above, and I have frequently disagreed with Dan, both here and previously at Prawfsblawg. I’ve never had reason to believe our disagreement stemmed from a failure of either side to understand or consider all the issues involved. I’m aware of the difference, which is why I chose my words carefully: I really think he’s a pissed adolescent with a complete incapacity to comprehend the issues before him, and I therefore decline to engage with him. Ignore him, and – as he has invariably demonstrated when he’s occaisionally defaced Althouse with an appearence – he’ll spout his invective and then go away. I’m always ready to engage in a battle of wits, but I refuse to do so with an unarmed man.

Daniel Solove’s observation that more conservative than liberal bloggers link to Concurring Opinionsunusually acrimoniouscensus of blogging law professors reveals that the #1 and #4 law schools for prof-bloggers are, respectively, Chicago and George Ma…

Part of my post is about an issue with liberals more generally — the great moments for liberals last century (the progressive movement in the early part of the 20th century and the civil rights and liberties movement in the 1950s through the 1970s) involved a strong integration between academics, grassroots activists, and political leaders. These connections have seemed to break down somewhat, and it is my hope that they can be reconstituted in the blogosphere.

Could you name those sites please?

I am sorry that my language seemed (was?) disparaging. I don’t mean to be so. Your work is excellent. Of the first order.

I think you are right in some repsects – we have been remiss in not seeking good information and analysis from the wonky blogs. I’ll strive to be better.

I do hope that you can keep in mind that our intended audiences are most times quite different. Your legal discussions are of a high order, and not always easy for layman to follow.

My audience at daily kos is partisan Dems and our purposes at daily kos are largely partisan. We try and, I think, mostly succeed, in being honest and sticking to the facts. Most things in politics are arguable.

And we advocate for what we believe is the Democratic point of view. This blog is not a Dem blog. And that’s fine, even good.

Here’s a thought for all of us, let’s remember the ojectives each of us are aiming for when we write about specific posts found at each others’ sites. I think that would help all of us.

I suspect that part of this comes from the fact that conservative academics tend to think of themselves as conservative academics. On the other hand, liberal academics are more likely to think of themselves as liberals who happen to be academics or academics who happen to be liberals. In other words, their political and intellectual identities are not as closely intertwined. Not surprisingly, the intellectual ties between straight political operatives and fellow-traveling academics tend to be stronger on the right.

As for niavete, I am all for it. The point of Concurring Opinions is not to be on the cutting edge of this morning’s news cycle, scrapping to be recognized as the spin-miester de jour. I would much rather be known for thoughtful discussions of legal issues, or quirky posts about architecture…

Certainly some Right Wing blogs are linking for purely partisan reasons, but my point isn’t that ALL Right Wing blogs are interested in acquiring a wide range of viewpoints. There are certainly many conservative blogs that are little more than hacks in an echo chamber. My point isn’t that blogs should be linking to those disagreeing with them, although this is fine too. Rather, my point is about the degree of integration of the more theoretical and less highly-partisan academic discourse with the more partisan political discourse.

I’m not trying to cast blame. I just think that the Left would be well-served to better integrate the academic discourse with the political discourse. The problem isn’t just the fault of the political bloggers — it’s also the fault of the academic ones.

Perhaps I’m naive as you say to believe in constructive discourse, and maybe being a professor has made me this way. After all, I must engage students of all political persuasions in discussions of highly-contested legal issues. I must get them to have a constructive discourse. I think we actually do have a constructive discourse, and that we all come away with a greater understanding of the issues as a result. But maybe that’s just the classroom; the minute people leave school, perhaps they become close-minded and only interested in hearing and discussing views they agree with. But I don’t think people change so dramatically — I just think that a different kind of discourse is going on outside the academy. Both the Right and Left are engaging in it, and my point is not that the Right is more open-minded. My point is that on my very impressionistic view, the Right blogosphere has a better integration of its academic and political dimensions than does the Left.

Another part of the reason could be this: I perceive that righties generally view politics different from lefties. Not just in terms of substantive views, but in terms of the role the process plays in life. That accounts for the old saw about righties looking for enemies and lefties looking for heretics. I’d elaborate more on this, but I have to get back to this brief I’m writing. Maybe later?

That is my point about what is wrong with this post – the belief that “engagement” from the Right reflects some “intellectual openness” is, in my view, absurd. It is advocacy, of the partisan variety.

Some folks wish to be honest brokers, and some have the track record to defend that characterization. I assume Conncurring Opinions wants to be one of those “honest brokers.” And that’s fine. But let’s not be naive (yes Stuart, there is that word again) as to WHY some Right Wing blogs are linking.