Friday, March 02, 2007

Drawing Lines At The Forum

Ideological battles are not that much different than military battles. Winning, in both cases, involves establishing defensive lines while attacking the enemy aggressively. In politics, capitulation is always the easier course. The first step in the battle is the drawing of lines on a strategic map.

The difference between Colin McEnroe, just to pick a thoughtful progressive at random, and Dan Gerstein, Sen. Joe Lieberman’s front man and the progressive everyman’s bĂȘte noire, also a thoughtful political commentator, is a matter of ideological circumference.

In most matters, moderates like Gerstein and Lieberman have a wide range. Their circle of ideas is wider than that of progressives or conservatives and includes the kinds of inconsistencies Ralph Waldo Emerson boasted of when he said a “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Now, here in Connecticut, as everyone must realize, there are few if any entrenched conservative incumbent politicians. Conservatives are regularly picked off by liberal, progressive and moderate sharpshooters in the media as soon as they lift their heads out of their foxholes. The Northeast – especially Connecticut – is the lair of the moderate and his fertile breeding ground. Here, in the Land of Steady Habits, we have a moderate habit, a liberal habit and a progressive habit; there are no conservative habits.

Conservatives claim it is the bad progressive and liberal habits that have given us swollen budgets, business flight and readerless newspapers.

When the Hartford Courant recently hosted a forum on blogging, no conservative bloggers were represented on the panel that included McEnroe, introduced as a blogger, a progressive radio talk show host and a Courant columnist. There are no conservative columnists on the op-ed staff of the Courant; John Zakarian, the longtime Editorial Page Editor of the paper pronounced a doom upon them during his tenure and, ever eager to carry forward traditions, other editorial page editors followed suit. The result is: Conservative viewpoints on state issues are bleached out of the paper, and the resulting product is, predictably, wan, feeble and shallow, hardly more than a recitation of comforting liberal and progressive platitudes. In their progress, writers at the Courant rarely confront a hard, immovable, antithetical thought; for them, thinking is a matter of arranging their prejudices in a pretty way and setting up straw dummies they can then torch from within their own impregnable bunkers.

The forum on blogging is emblematic of what passes for “debate” in the state; it was, in essence, a five person one man show. Everyone agreed on the most important points, and a good time was had by all. In fact, nothing new was added by the bloggers to the “debate,” and most of the points made at the forum had been circulating through the mainstream press for some time. No contrary opinions were permitted to disturb the “debaters.” Where all were agreed, all were agreeable. One would hardly have guessed from the panel that nearly the oldest blog in Connecticut, YourNews2, is a conservative blog.

Prior to the forum, Blogdom was treated to a faux debate shortly after Gerstein ventured to write a piece for a new blog on Lieberman’s victorious campaign and the roll played in it by bloggers. Here at least, at the beginning of the discussion, one detected the first faint stirrings of a real debate; but that discussion soon was overwhelmed by the piling on that followed, so sustained and so fierce that McEnroe felt comfortable in loftily refusing to address the points made by Gerstein in his piece. He would leave Gerstein, McEnroe said on his blog, to the un-tender mercies of other bloggers. When only one note is being played in the score, why hammer it home in your own blog? The beef against Gerstein’s piece was that its author was not non-partisan; but then neither is Tim Tagaris, the tech wizard who ran Ned Lamont’s campaign web site, one of the five progressive panelists the Courant asked to dilate on blogging at its forum, and the four remaining panelist were all members of the progressive hood.

The ideological lines in Connecticut, when they appear at all, are not drawn between liberals and conservatives. All the pitched battles are fought between the ancient liberal regime and progressives banging at the gate demanding admittance to the political helm. To conservatives these occasional tugs of war are vastly amusing. It may be interesting – but certainly it is unimportant from a conservative perspective -- that CtKeith, a frequent commentator, does not consider Ghengis Conn, the propriator of Connecticut Local Politics, progressive enough. In Connecticut, the ideological diving line separates old time liberals and progressives. Conservatives have no dog in that fight.

11 comments:

Judy Aron said...

Don so true.. but the reason I, a Conservative/Liberatian blogger wouldn't attend that forum is

A) I refuse to pay $20 to attend
B) It was sponsored by The Hartford Courant
C) Colin McEnroe was on the panel

That about sums it up.

Don Pesci said...

Judy,

That certainly is your choice. But the point I am making is that, as a libertarian/conservative blogger, you were not asked to participate.

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

You're right, Don. Brian and I have been blogging almost every weekday since October 2004 and FIC Blog just may have the most lively comments section of any conservative blog in the state. But of course the Courant would never invite me--or you, Judy, or Your News 2--for the reasons you laid out.

A debate--or even a truly balanced panel--was never a Courant priority.

mccommas said...

I have not picked up a Hartford Courant is AGES!

I hardly even read my hometown rag anymore -- the Chronicle. I get most of my news online if I have time to read at all.

The Hartford Commie does have a few good writers which I catch online for nothing every now and then.

Kevin Rennie is a breath of fresh air. Laurence Cohen is great too. He cracks me up.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/columnists/hc-rennie,0,82034.columnist?coll=hc-utility-commentary

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/columnists/hc-cohen,0,3983106.columnist?coll=hc-columnists-opinion

The Norwich Bulletin has a great new writer I want to see more of. Don something....

Judy Aron said...

Actually someone did ask me to participate - but not as a panel member. They had just asked me to go and shell out $20 to attend. I wasn't interested for the reasons stated above. besides that, The Hartford Courant's forums are irrelevant to me.

turfgrrl said...

Don,

Sure there's the ideological split between the old guard and the young whippersnappers, as well as the establishment liberals and the grass roots liberals. I think that a similar shake out occurred on the conservative side, except that it happened in the late 80's-90's in the pre-internet age, so it wasn't much noticed. The young movement conservatives kinda won that one, on my score card.

But the people, much more so in CT than elsewhere have voted with their affiliation of the U, and that is the real rift worth noting. And that's the unsold story of the blogsphere, because it wasn't the choir that managed to elect Rell, Shays, Lieberman, Courtney, Murphy into office, but the active U voters who tipped the races.

The story they keep wanting to sell is that there is this great progressive movement that is leading the way towards something approaching liberalism. Except that the great progressive movement started under Teddy Roosevelt. a Republican. The claim of the these modern progressives is that they represent more partisanship on the Democratic side, the poster boy Kos pounds that hammer daily. The true calling of a real progressivism is to represent less partisanship and more inclusiveness on reformists from both liberal and conservative philosophies. That does mean dialog, debate and discussion. In Connecticut, at least on the blogs there real discussion is few and far between, but the affirmation of the mutual admiration club is every where.

Don Pesci said...

Turfgrrl

I agree with most of that analysis. It may be even worse than you suppose: TR was not only the enemy of the Trusts, he was an energetic warmonger lampooned by Mark Twain. That is a side of his character, and an element in historic progressivism, that modern progressives comfortablre with the anti-warmongers wisely choose to ignore. They interest me mostly as those who wish to storm the gates of the Democrat Party. I’ve written about this many times in the blog site.

LINKSHARE LEADS said...

Your blog posting updated on directory BUSINESS LEADS NETWORK

turfgrrl said...

Yes, you've written insightfully of the storming of the gates in the past. I also find it interesting. I've noted that while the storming is a-raging here in CT, elsewhere it's more a push for a seat at the table. It seems the self described progressives here have more interest in dismantling the CT Democratic party than making it better.

Don Pesci said...

Turfgrrl

Right. If governing is fixing potholes, and preventing 9/11's they're not interested. They have more in common with lobbyists than governors. The lobbyist wants to use the government to advance his own or his client’s interest, while escaping any responsibility for the consequences of his efforts. Cheap talk is a form of cheap grace. My job -- and your job -- is to not allow them to get away with it.