This post is based on a trip to Williams College on January 16, 2008. The intent was to publish it within a day or two of the event. Having failed that (a faulty washing machine and playoffs to blame) here it is anyway.
When President Garfield went to Williams College he described his education as "a log with a student on one end and Dr. Hopkins on the other." The last time I went over there it was to see the eccentric Richard Stallman. This time it was the blogger phenom Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (aka DailyKos). He addressed a group of students there about the success of his website and the progressive Democrat movement. While any semblance of Dr. Hopkins on a log has been replaced by post modern auditoriums like the '62 Center' in which this took place, perhaps the spirit of the log is now on that series of tubes now known as the Internet.
As an ardent Libertarian opposed to the two major parties I was surprised at how much I had in common with old Kos. As a fellow Gen X'r (he's 36, I'm 40) who has also worked in the forefront of the information explosion of the last two decades and a father of two small children I can appreciate a night away from home for the minimal benefit of a good night's sleep. While I do share a similar cynicism for modern media, politics and Baby Boomers, my path has been a slightly different one. Indeed the road to radical politics and a far more bucolic setting and lifestyle than the streets of Berzerkly or Boston. We both went to state Universities however and I went to law school online rather than all the effort at a bricks and mortar institution. And while Moulitsas Zuniga can find succor in a progressive wing of a major party and the influence thereof of by his growing cadre. I'm sticking with the losers and windmill chargers. Otherwise its back to the log or lake or whatever.
Members of the DailyKos make no bones about their endeavor as a strictly progressive Democrat website. Like their namesake, they believe the world is a black and white division of liberals and conservatives. If you don't like it, leave, basically. As a libertarian I say that's fair enough, I understand partisan politics. It's awful and its what is destroying our nation and its people, but ultimately its your choice. I attempted a diary over there once and the result is usually a series of blasts and insults bereft of any real critical content or understanding of libertarianism. I was hoping to ask him how I could opt out of the social network, but never got a chance to get close and questions were closed around 9:15 (and mainly taken from students anyway . . . gotta get back to Twitter or MySpace . . even if it is Ivy League).
After the obligatory comments on de Tocqueville by the token professor on campus (and the book plug) the Kos stump consists of surprising figures about his website (its average contributor is 45), common bromides about the 'interconnected information age', talk of change ( 'where boomers failed a new excitement . . . ') and slaps at 'lazy journalists' and the general ignorance of the media and an unmitigated disdain for their 'truthiness' we are still left with a two party system. Kos acknowledges that winner takes all is the system and the game and perhaps can never be changed. This is why Richard Winger is one of my few heroes in life. Aside from any revulsion about the idea of a 'no-government party' (what's the point -shrugging ?), this revelation comes after the talk and takes about half the questions to get one from the gray haired (most likely Greens supporter) listener. Ultimately no matter how the media misunderstands the the new age or its participants, Kos has to be in the game and wants to win it. Whatever the stylistic changes or appeal to young audiences, the elites will fall into line and pick a blue or red horse in the Big Race, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is no exception.
I didn't know that Kos used to be a Republican (my first Presidential vote was Ron Paul, I've been off the reservation ever since - thank you LP !). He admits that there is an illusion of one's own importance and never expected the simple statement that ' I'm a progressive, I'm a liberal. I make no apologies ' would create the fervor it did. Having no connections, fame or money, he still managed to start something significant. The fact that 90 thousand progressive statists exist and can unite under one banner is no surprise. The effectiveness and fear that MoveOn evokes is evidence enough throughout the last decade. For us libertarians the numbers are not so high and the failures of our promised communities of dissent and impact have failed rather miserably. Our own efforts can't even make it on the level of a mini-Kos.
While Kos remembers black & white TV, and I the disk packs on mainframes to wait half an hour to fire up Tic Tac Toe, he is correct that there is 'no permission to be granted' anymore for future generations. If the 'know nothing gatekeepers' think that the new movements are disprocessed of the zeitgeist that put their generation in the streets in front of the camera back in the day, the real 'convergence' is not a tune in, turn on and drop out reality, it is the power of instant and massive communication with no regard for the man. Instead it is a lifting above the banal assaults on the electorate via tactics like vote for Mitt in Michigan. It is a promotion of the spirit of 'progressive' human thought. That which progresses against the state, the authoritarians and appeals to charity beyond the force of the gun which the state absolutely requires in monopoly. That which is always justified as a nation of laws, yet never complying to it.
Kos makes quick mention of the rise of the libertarian right and the Ron Paul effort. While taking credit in recruiting the likes of Jon Tester in Montana, l Markos doesn't give Stan Jones enough credit for John Tester's Senatorial victory in Montana. The colloidal silver laced Libertarian out there proved to be one of the decisive factors in their victory. It is hard to sit and listen Kos stammer about the GOP and the war and not hiss Ron Paul when he talks about nobody standing against the war. In spirit, most libertarians did stand against it and were appalled at the complicity of both sides of the proverbial isle.
You do get he impression that old Kos likes his push back talk a little more than his formal one. When the audience engages (and that is in essence what blogging does) one might certainly be inclined to agree with his assessment of a media like the UK Guardian. Unabashedly liberal, but not necessarily overtly biased in presentation of the facts. I further agree when he declares that 'party platforms are useless' as a real instrument of change. The news there is that working groups of eggheads on policy will never fundamentally consider something not government derived. Too many paychecks at risk. As an ethnic mutt and libertarian its probably harder for me to swallow such declarations that the Latino community is 'not the most educated'. I don't feel that inclusion in one group allows one to stereotype or mark any particular individual as anything. I would also never call the Ron Paul girl 'dumb as a rock' as he did the Obama girl. But once the vitriol starts flowing in open session its no surprise that Kos wishes that Bush will 'hurt' (he doesn't say in what way, but one would assume in some emotional manner like the victims of the occupation on all sides have). He goes on to state that Bush is a 'total ass who has destroyed the country' and the complicit Republicans deserve no sympathy or regard. Of course the noble Democrats seem absolved of responsibility in this regard and seek only to provide Americans with nothing short of Universal healthcare, don't forget the children either.
I am in agreement with Markos about the practicality of impeachment for Bush and the Democrats. Maybe the last one was just about a 'blowjob' in your regard, but far better people have concluded otherwise. If the Libertarian Party had any representation in Congress fairly earned, you could bet that one would be clamoring for an investigation or a proceeding of some sort. This charge that the GOP needs to rediscover the Constitution goes both ways buddy.
Other than an illicit affair with Maureen Dowd (and the explicit post coital tenderness that my libertarianism would evoke and show in her new found columns) I'm pretty sure my blog or name will not be synonymous with any movement or followers (maybe Ray in Buffalo). And unlike Kos, I don't believe that being an 'asshole' is the way to go for all the 'winnerism' he displays to the world. I can only suggest that we play nice and consistently. What I'm proposing is that good libertarians bite the bullet open a Kos account and start a Liberty Caucus within the nest of progressivism. Don't be mean (angrily calling people violent statists) and just get there and promote peace at all costs. Letting war happen is not progressive. Helping others by the force of government is not progressive. Supporting ponzi schemes, retarded economics and all the other soupy liberal progressive thinking provides simply will not do. It is time simply to say I'm just pissed at the Government right now and I'll do anything to fight it . . . Good libertarians have to unite and say 'Everybody's invited to our movement.' Cue the windmills. The mollified socialists, authoritarians and students are just filing in . . .
I was at the event with you, Mssr. Sundwall. Eric, you totally missed the point here. Access to the media and the ability to create maningful content that is as respected as the MSM was the point.
He didn't go on and on in a partisan polemic. His point was that as non traditional media becomes mainstream, it dilutes the effectiveness of the lock-step messages that our parents' generation grew up with.
Advertisers have been pushing national policy issues by buying broadcasters (NBC-GE) and forcing the vidiot consumers to agree with wars that create markets for their products. Now the effectiveness of that tactic is changing as candidates google/myspace/facebook their campaings and people like us blog ad-nauseum.
Eric...you need not post this one..I just wanted you to know that your writing style has improved greatly over the last few years...it is a pleasure to read.
John - I got his point and never had any doubt about it. Do you see mine ? It's an ideological potshot in the wind basically . . .
The uniformity of the US media has become much more complete since the days of the cold war. During the 1990s, the US government permitted an unconscionable concentration of print and broadcast media that terminated the independence of the media.
Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies. More importantly, the values of the conglomerates reside in the broadcast licenses, which are granted by the government, and the corporations are run by corporate executives—not by journalists—whose eyes are on advertising revenues and the avoidance of controversy that might produce boycotts or upset advertisers and subscribers.
Americans who rely on the totally corrupt corporate media have no idea what is happening anywhere on earth, much less at home.
I gotta think that the idea that the winners write history has some basis of fact. Old William Randolph Hearst was up to something which let him build that castle (which the taxpayers support now, Frederick Church's digs too).
Unfortunately, if profit making endeavors were the only ones that our society allowed to exist, things of beauty like Olana or the Hearst Castle would fall into disrepair, not because of a lack of appreciation, but simply because of a lack of a sufficiently evolved economic system.
If we stay wed to the post-middle age ideas of the brute Scottish economists we all would be coal miners or mine owners, with no middle class, no health care or education. Laborers' deaths would be economic externalities and the environment would continue to be pillaged for base profit as we burn more coal to dig more coal.
Regarding the winners writing history:
If it were even close to a fair fight, I'd respect the winners.
John - If I had more contributors to this blog who were similarly aligned in ideology and Austrian economics, your comment could be easily countered and dismissed. I'm not sure your Hobbesian reference fits.
Why would any society only 'allow' the profit makers exclusively ? Commuting a sentence of disrepair and coal miner like futures to the wealth of others in previous generation is a stretch. Certainly volunteer organizations or even profit making endeavors could fill the void of the dead great man's ambitions. There's all sorts of philanthropy that would also eagerly step up to continue the enjoyment of those 'buildings' by some. The idea that we should as a collective step in and somehow construe this as a 'public service' is absurd.
What's absurd it to think that philanthropy would exist without an economic benefit. Philanthropists only do what they do for the tax benefits. Until you reach the super rich category, vias vis Buffett or Gates or in earlier days, Carnigie or old Rockefellers, there MUST be a carrot to encourage giving.
Also, the word brute in all its forms does not and should not only conjure up Hobbes. The word was used in its purest form in my last post.
Philanthropy can do what it wants, however it sees fit. The main idea being that historical preservation of a building is not a necessary gov't function.
Where I think Libertarianism is lacking is that it looks at every social, economic or political event as though it happens in a vacuum without effects from or affects on other events on the planet.
Philathropy does not exist without tax benefits and implications.
That's all very nice and touchy feelie, but the reality is that taxes pay for all these things. If you don't pay them, eventually armed people come get you. Statists fail miserably in recognizing that the monopoly of force is not the basis of 'just' outcomes, externalities be damned. Perhaps that is too obtuse for the subtle rationalizing of collective resources, but is brutally true.
Remember this was an off the cuff response to the notion that media consolidation is something new (ie recently, ergo the Hearst reference).
John - Take a look at this piece if you come back for more . . .