Saturday, September 08, 2007
|
|
Why No Righty Kos?
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
12:26 AM
|
|
Liberaltarian ex-Daily Kos diarist David Weigel and Newsbusters are engaged in a debate over why there is no right-wing Daily Kos. My answer, as articulated here is that there is a conservative Daily Kos, that’s it’s Free Republic, but that it doesn’t really “count” since it’s not a blog, and more critically, it won’t play nicely with the rest of the movement and it doesn’t worship candidates like Kos does. There are vast architectural differences between FR and Kos, as critics of this comparison are wont to point out. Most of them are points in Kos’s favor. But fundamentally they were founded to fill the same gap. At the end of the day, they are both vast communities for mid-level activists. Though Kos is more blog-based and tolerant of editorializing, Weigel is perceptive enough to distinguish it from “a blog” a la Power Line or HughHewitt.com, in which the voice of the blogger dominates and others comment (or don’t, in the case of some big conservative bloggers). Daily Kos is simply a different beast than anything else in the liberal blogosphere, in much the same way that Free Republic is a different beast than anything else in the conservative blogosphere. But in terms of traffic and community, it’s still the biggest. The same item that will get a handful of comments at my personal blog and 30 to 40 on HughHewitt.com, will get upwards of 100 responses when posted to Free Republic. FR may be primitive in its architecture, but I don’t think it can be ipso facto excluded from discussions about the size and extent of conservative community online, for the sheer fact of its size. Part of the reason that there is no “conservative Daily Kos” is that the broader conservative movement isn’t really lacking for a huge online community in the same way the left was in 2002 (DU was, and is, a joke). That community may not be the healthiest one around, but it’s still a community. The second fact is that conservative blogs, excluding Free Republic/Lucianne/etc. for a moment, serve a fundamentally different audience than the netroots. They’re more elite, focused on policy, and interested in the execution of the war. What was going on when conservative blogs first boomed? 9/11 and the American response to it. And discussions of the size of the conservative blogosphere (strictly defined) should take into account the fact that there are only so many people who can digest the kind of almost-scholarly analysis that happens in places like Power Line, Captain’s Quarters, and Red State. The conservative blogosphere today is what the liberal blogosphere would have been if elite bloggers like Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias had remained the dominant voices. This is not meant to be self-congratulatory. In fact, I think it’s probably a serious limitation in the size of our blogosphere, to the extent that’s a concern. If you want to be bigger, you’re not necessarily going to like the people you have to let in to make it happen. If and when that were to happen, the elite flavor of many leading conservative blogs today would give way to more freewheeling Daily Kos and Free Republic-like sites and comment areas. I think it’s probably worth paying that price if we can get people acting like true activists. Conservatives have paid a price for being inattentive to candidate recruitment and what’s actually going on at the county committee level. In effect, we allowed the unchecked rise of machine operators like Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and John Doolittle who sacrificed conservative principle for back-scratching enrichment. One of the big reasons why Larry Craig won’t be missed is that he was uninspiring career politician (and porker) with no discernible ideological moorings (beyond the political leanings of his state). It’s those kinds of machine pols that always seem to the problem, and we let them flourish by being pundits on the sidelines. I also think conservative blogosphere has misread the marketplace. To make a crass overgeneralization here, policy is boring and politics is interesting. By blogging about policy, you choose to be boring (and that’s ok). There is probably a much bigger marketplace for people focused on elections, especially in even numbered years. (And this is Kos’s primary purpose.) Why is it that we start talking about Presidential elections two years ahead of time? Because it sells newspapers. The blogosphere overall is stagnating, but if you want to start a new blog that will get read, your best bet is 1) obsessively cover 2008 and be good at it, and 2) fill a niche, especially one covering local politics. The ‘08 blogs like Race 4 2008 and Eye on ‘08 will probably be in five figures in daily traffic by early next year. To give you a sense of the insane community that is building around a focused group blog like Race, take a look at their 700 comment thread during the debate. There is a market there. And a lot of passion too. So let’s follow it.
|
|
Little Green Footballs has quite a community.
The Hannity Message board also has a Conservative Community.
Perhaps you might want to consider ideology as well.
Conservative free market believers are independent in nature, vs. the Comrade Liberals communal share.
|
|
As HNAV said, there is a lot less groupthink amongst the right than there is on the left. Here in Seattle, the average person reads The Nation and has read or has a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (on the left, Zinn's books seem to hold the same purpose as Gideon's Bible in a hotel). If someone tells you they're a conservative, their book and magazine selection could be any number of things, from strictly history books by authors like David McCullough to witty and satirical books by P.J. O'Rourke or Mark Steyn or mass produced garbage by Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity.
Townhall.com seems to be the closest I've seen to a really large conservative marketplace of ideas, and I think it would be stupid to shape ourselves like the Daily Kos for the right. We should build the community we feel we need and that is financially successful. |
|
. . . but it's a big joke. It's shocking how many nuts swallow that garbage uncritically.
I blame the public schools. |
|
|
Blaming the public schools never gets old. Just read my blog. =P |
|
--snip-- it won’t play nicely with the rest of the movement and it doesn’t worship candidates like Kos does. --snip--
This is a collection of 6k or more or less of active worshipers of the decisions of Bush, Cheney, and Fred Thompson. It is a great place to see the brainwashing of people chirping liberal, bias, and big government, lol oh and commie and socialist. Those are the answers to Katrina, Iraq, perjury, and Republican big government.
The majority are zombies of talk radio. The support for Harriet Miers was an amazing joke on FR. Well, if Bush says it is good, it must be good. It is a bigger joke than Ron Paulites.
To this day they hammer McCain's cancer, all his positions. Only to praise Fred, the man behind the mess of bureaucracy of the Homeland Security Department. Fred the outspoken cosponsor of McCain Feingold. Fred the ultimate insider, that means immigration too folks.
Which is alright, because I bet not even 1% of that community can argue the economics of immigration correctly. They want to tap-toes with the National Review and thier publicity stunts to boast online clicks or parrot talk radios bottom up influx of misinformation.
Liberal, bias, big government, viva la Bush, baby! lol
|
|
|
Numbers don't mean that much. Conservatives by their nature are not activists and will not be attracted to a blog or two for the same reasons all the lefty nut cases swarm to Kos. I can't claim to be representative of millions, but my selection is governed by content. I read sufficiently varied sources on-line to, hopefully, get a picture of national and world events that hasn't had the "liberal" filter applied - and in a few cases just to enjoy the writing. Oh, and excluding the drooling lefty posters with the same boring rants they've been posting for years now, the comments are superior on the Right. |
|
opportunities for catharsis... Emotionalism leads to narcissism. And that's the "passionate market" Kos feeds...
Read Romans 1:18-32 and compare it with Psalms 15. http://www.biblegateway.com
I think you'll understand now why some Christians consider evangelism and education (Matthew 28:16-20) to be so critical. And why some of us feel as though our country is perilously close to reaping what we have sown (Hosea 8:7, Galatians 6:7-8).
Pray for our country, pray for our leaders, pray for a revival (2 Chronicles 7:14).
We now return you to you regularly scheduled political discussion... |
|
Daily Kos is more the left's equivalent of talk radio. You can cast around for explanations like "politics is interesting and policy is boring," or "we are content driven and they are nut-cases," or "we're too busy to concern ourselves with political activism." While these may pander to your conceits, they overlook the simple reality of talk radio and Foxnews.
Take Fox. Conservatives like to think that Fox simply balances the leftist tilt in the MSM. It is a tiresome argument, but made all the time--reflecting the narcissistic right-wing tendency to confuse NON-conservative (the MSM) with ANTI-conservative. Fox, on the other hand, is a bought and paid for subsidiary of the Republican party. And interestingly, it is tabloidesque to the max, leading one to the conclusion that the Right benefits when the MSM veers into breathless, personal-emotional, tabloid "journalism."
As for talk radio, I have repeated my opinion several times here--a perfect metaphor for the contemporary American Right: the illusion of a marketplace of ideas masking a cult of authoritarian personality (the host). No wonder the right gravitates towards it and the left gets bored (unless, like me, they listen in to the right-wing guys for contrarian stimulation).
I think the reason there is no DK on your side of the aisle is because--self-congratulatory preening aside--it just is not in the DNA of contemporary conservatism to act autonomously. Don't get me wrong. I love my Republican friends. At the base, they are uniformally nice guys (and I can't say that about Dems). But the Republican worldview requires a simplification of reality that is so irrational and counter-factual that Republicans need leadership (i.e. continual inculcation) just to hold the whole rickety structure together.
|
|
That fine, Mr. Independence, except how do you explain mind-numbing mediums like talk radio and Fox? I think of it this way:
Conservatives = Solipcism Liberals = INTERdependence |
|
|
demogogues. that explains the whole she-bang. |
|
If you sometimes feel like you're talking to yourself,...
there's a reason for that. |
|
To understand anything in politics in the last 30 years, you have to first understand the role of the enormous dinosaur in the room -- the MSM. It affects everything, including the purposes for which people go online.
Talk radio arose because the MSM was simply a liberal propaganda machine. Talk radio, the enormous conservative response to MSM, is a community of conservatives in many ways.
For conservatives, the internet serves the same purpose as political talk radio. It is a way to get facts and analysis that the MSM boycotts. It is another outlet for much of the same thing.
For liberals, the internet IS their talk radio! And they use it differently, because they are simply an echo chamber for the MSM. |
|
As I have said many times, the MSM is more "non-conservative" than "anti-conservative." Repubs often confuse the two. And they have not covered themselves with glory over the past two decades--whether sniffing around Bill Clinton's privates or flinching like cowards every time a Republican raises his voice.
The bias I detect in the MSM is to the left on social and cultural issues, and to the right on economic and business issues. In other words, the MSM is conservative fiscally and liberal morally, which is exactly bass-ackwards!! |
|
|
DK may indeed be the home of the nutters but it was a statement by Patrick that perked up my ears. We conservatives should be recruiting candidates. How true. But, the GOP is the only real alternative to the pacifist socialists as the Dem Party represents. The GOP has been very slow at recruiting and in fact, since conservatives are actually more independent than leftists, they have spread their wings onto many varied outlets:Talk Radio, varied email groupings such as NumbersUSA, Capwiz, and other petition outfits. Conservatives do use some of their numbers when an issue which strikes at our freedoms comes up ala illegal immigration. The DK rounds up all the lefties from many outlets and focuses like a hateful laser beam on Bush, GOP legislators and legislation, and has the support of the MSM in such great force that it is really harder for conservatives to mount a national campaign anymore on any issue or candidate. Look now at how the groups in the GOP and on the libertarian-conservative side are split in their support of some candidate who can beat her Highness. It still is the same old question on whether the GOP-types and all their classifications, will unite in a voting campaign to defeat the She-Beast and her socialist party. One blogging Rightist effort will not do that but it could help at least. |
|
....between left and right is that Conservatives views are based on reasoned thought, in most cases sifted through the filter of Christian doctrine, while Liberalism is emotion based, desperately trying to remove the Judeo/Christian ethic from interfering in their lives.
Right...logical/obedient; Left....emotional/prideful
Conservatives would be a lot less likely to be bothered by the lefty lifestyle if they would just quit trying to impose it on us....
I pray that BOTH sides reap what they sow..... |
|
Free Republic is still recognizably conservative. The same cannot be said for most of the "center-right blogs", which typically are a lot more center than they are right. In some cases they are more liberal than they are center.
If the neocons have an ability to "work well with others" they hide it well.
|
|
Would you like to argue the economics of immigration with me?
|
|
I'm a long-time member of FR.. mostly lurking.
To me, FR is more of a news clearing-house. It's a place to refer to news published elsewhere and to comment about it.
They actively fire-wall blog postings away from their main forum.
I complained about this on this thread there
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1880584/posts
I said:
"I think the “wall” between Blogs and News is arbitrary and counterproductive. Some of the best journalists run their own blogs (Michael Yon... Roggio of 4th Rail.. Michael Totten... Michelle Malkin, Hot Air, etc)
We all complain about the MSM.. about its bias and omissions and then yet we exalt them as something special to keep the bloggers from polluting.
When I try to share important Iraq news that comes from a blog, some busy body will immediately banish it to the “Blogs” category and then no one sees it.
Tell me.. what is the advantage of this?"
They Said: "The desire is to maintain a good signal to noise ratio. Bloggers can always find FR threads related to their latest rant, and post some of their entry on that thread along with a link. That way, the blog post is put in context of the news story, and blog threads don't overwhelm the news threads."
I said: "So in other words something isn’t news unless it appears in the New York Times?"
They said:
"Hardly.
However, there are, what, a few million bloggers now? Do you want any blogger who feels like it to start threads on FR? It's about signal-to-noise. FR is still working out ways to let in the bloggers who add to the news signal while filtering those who just add their opinion (which can be added in the comments section of threads without creating a gazillion new threads)."
This is why, in my opinion, they fail.
|
|
"FR is still working out ways to let in the bloggers who add to the news signal while filtering those who just add their opinion (which can be added in the comments section of threads without creating a gazillion new threads)."
Why do you think that this leads to failure? It seems reasonable to me.
|
|
Free Republic gets vastly more traffic that does Hugh Hewitt. It even gets more than National Review. If thats a failure we need more of them.
It seems to have vanished down the memory hole now, but Rathergate was cracked by a Freeper, not by Powerline or LGF.
|
|
The reason the Dems won last year was because the Republicans thoroughly aliented their own base combined with a few Democrat/Media instigated October surprises .
I wouldnt be so full of myself about the triangulated positions the so-called blue dogs lied to their voters about having.
The Democrats are still afraid to debate in a forum that has the largest audience for fear of getting asked probing questions. If they indeed were what the people overwhelmingly wanted, they would have debated on Fox News a long time ago.
But instead they go to Gay channels or Labor Unions and their adoring masters at DK.
Pathetic. |
|
Fail in being a pro-active (as opposed to reactive) force.
With non-traditional journalists being banish and the discouragement of “vanity”, it stifles the exposure of original-thinkers and potential movement leaders.
My opinion, of course.
|
|
NOPE. NOT AT ALL.
A lot of big bloggers on the right are linking to Barnett's article in the Weekly Standard which makes the case that the Daily Kos is somehow successful:
Some people on the right fear that the left has developed an insurmountable advantage in harnessing the power of the Internet. While the Daily Kos, YearlyKos, and other bastions of online liberalism have clearly become power players, conservatives have no comparable entities. The right-wing blogosphere doesn't hold conventions, doesn't win the attention of candidates, and more important, doesn't move voters the way the progressive blogosphere does. The progressive blogosphere is a hotbed of activism; the most prominent outposts of the right-wing blogosphere stick to punditry.
THIS IS ALL WRONG.
First off... FREE REPUBLIC gets more daily traffic than the Daily Kos.
Second off... The Kossacks elected NOBODY to Congress and made not one whit of difference on the least election.
The Dems won Congress because of Foleygate, Abramoff, and Maccacca. END OF STORY.
If the Kossacks were en effective political machine worth emulating then we'd all be saluting Senator Ned Lamont.
The fact that Lieberman carried CT proves that the Kossacks are strictly an intra-party phenomena, a gang operating strictly within the Left.
The fact that the SHAMNESTY was defeated - and Miers and the Dubai Ports deal - all proves that the right-side of the blogosphere is VERY powerful - AND DOESN'T NEED TO TAKE ANY LESSONS FROM THE LEFT. |
|
...need someone to lead us around by the nose, we'll find a little twirp like Kos to teach us how to spew hate like magma such as we see exhibited here on a daily basis....
Until that day, we'll go on thinking for ourselves and focusing on what is right with this country instead of trying to make ourselves something less than we are.... |
|
FR might have a lot of visitors but what do they see when they get there?
News stories.
How does this translate into anything actionable or uniting? How does that translate into political action or success?
It is what it is. It's fine if you want to scan headlines and talk about the news. That's what i use it for. |
|
"How does this translate into anything actionable or uniting? How does that translate into political action or success?"
How does anything on this site or Powerline translate into political action or success? All these sites offer is commentary on news stories. By the admission of both Barnett and Ruffini, the right wing blogs don't DO political activism. In fact places like FR do far more activism.
|
|
I've been banned so many times from FR, I've lost count - why, because I made negative comments about George Bush. There is no room to disagree there.
They have a thread "A Day in the Life of President Bush" where the desperate Republican housewives go on and on about his tight jeans and I posted that I thought the comments made belonged in the chat room, not in the news portion. Pow - I was gone.
If you give a lot of money during their drive - you can have anyone banned.
Anyone know of a more reasonable blog? Has anyone had the same experience at FR? I do like Hotair. |
|
I'm pretty sure you are wrong. There is plenty of criticism of George Bush on FR. Check out some of the immigration threads, for instance
|
|
Several commentors have thus far attempted to describe the difference between conservative and liberal bloggers. While I do not know what the fundamental difference is, I can at least see the symptoms of the difference.
The symptom is in the comments. Take this thread; there have been no ad hominem attacks, no excessive language, and the overall discussion has been civil and focused mainly on facts/personal experience. All this even with a few dissenting voices of liberal inclination.
Now, go visit any thread on Daily Kos or HuffPost. Comments are rarely civil, and you find crap like this, "See live US troops tossed up in the air like limp rag dolls; see them land hundreds of feet away from the US vehicle; see the US vehicles on fire with trapped US troops being roasted alive inside...This and more brought to you courtesy of Bu$h and Cheney, and Rice... posted 07:09 pm on 08/01/2007 JoTheBartender AH, NOTHING LIKE THE SMELL OF NAZI FLESH BURNING IN THE MORNING."
Thats from HuffPost, I don't frequent Daily Kos, but the one time I posted a comment I was called a "neocon fascist echoing Bushitler."
Its not elitism that fuels my desire for a conservative blog, its civility. |
|
Civility is definately what distinguishes conservative vs leftist sites.
The left lacking it. |
|
|
Kos is an abomination on the face of the earth, that has no business even being in existence, let alone being copied. |
|
"I've been banned so many times from FR, I've lost count - why, because I made negative comments about George Bush."
How long ago was that? In the past year, FR is alive with strong attacks on Jorge Boosh over his nonsensical amnesty policy for illegals. You are more likely to get a pat on the back for criticising Jorge Boosh than getting banned. |
|
|
|
because I had the termerity to call Hugh a name after started another Fred Thompson cancer scare. I did not even spell the word out only using "*"s but you could tell from the context it was a mix of a word for a donkey and the center part of a doughnut. In a Stalinesqe twist, all my comments were purged too.
I also suggested Hugh Hewitt did so on orders of his masters at Team Romney. But on reflection, it is probably something Hugh thought up on his own. Because he is an . . . well you get the point.
Anyway, I consider my banning a badge of honor. |
|
Why do you even feel the need to call anyone a name? Can't you express your opinions without resorting to an ad hominem attack of name-calling?
A "Badge of Honor"? Please. Expand your vocabulary, then you can be proud. |
|
It's odd that you are posting here and that we can read your comments, considering that you have been banned and all your comments deleted.
|
|
But I had to reregister to post. My old comments are lost alas.
And to BrianD: I don't have to resort to name calling and I do not do it all the time. Thanks for the advise on vocabulary! You are correct. Shrunk and White also advises avoiding cliches like what I used. But when Hugh attacked Fred Thompson about cancer, the term I used to describe Hugh was the right one. The timing and message was sleazy on Hugh's part.
I do not hate Romney. I think Mitt is a decent candidate and if he is the GOP nominee I will support him. I think Mitt Romney in his heart of hearts is a competent moderate conservative. But I fear that due his shift to the right in the primaries and his lack luster numbers overall, he is doomed in the general election. I do not want to see Hillary become president, which I fear will happen if Romney gets the nomination. That is why I supported McCain and Giuliani and possibly Thompson (I like Fred a lot but I still would like to see his numbers go up).
If Romney starts catching fire and looks like he can beat Hillary I might change my mind. But so far the facts right now favor Hillary and only Giuliani looks competative against her. |
|
Little Green Footballs is the closest thing to a rightwing Daily Kos - but then a right-wing Kos would be like trying to herd cats. Right wingers are free thinking by nature and arent prone to the collectivism and groupthink of the left.
|
|
Kos works for the Dems only because they all agree they hate GWB. If Hillary won and the Dems retain hold of House and Senate, the Kossacks will turn on them.
It is the nature of the beast. |
|
|
I agree with others that Little Green Footballs is more like Kos the Free Republic, but neither really are. I've participated in Free Republic since 1997, and on the Prodigy Whitewater boards that are (to some extent) its forebear, but it has never been the monolith that some see it as. |
|
|
|