The moderate revolution?

The moderate revolution?

: Howard Kurtz writes that blog coverage of the moderate revolution was filled with anger from the right and left while mainstream media celebrated the moderation (as did I… apparently because I am either strange or mainstream, take your pick). He’s onto something:

It was the perfect storm for the blogosphere, an issue on which both right-wingers and left-wingers could rise up in rare unison and smite the craven offenders.

Both sides hated, castigated and otherwise took a dim view of the last-minute deal this week that averted a nuclear showdown over Senate filibusters.

Let the mainstream media praise as bipartisan statesmen the mushy moderates who cobbled together the compromise. Many bloggers were infuriated, castigating the so-called Gang of 14 (and especially John McCain) as knaves and turncoats.

It was another reminder, as if one were needed, of the yawning gap between the establishment press, which loves moderates and moderation, and the cyberworld, which tends to be driven by partisan passions.

But I think that says more about the media than about the nation.

I do believe (because I want to) that the people prefer Congress to shut up and do its work and not fight from the fringes and that the people are inherently moderate — or at least the wisdom of the crowd is — and that’s why no party takes over the country for too long (yet).

In that sense, I think, neither the blogs nor mainstream press reflect the people, who talk, think, fret, and argue about Congress a helluva lot less than either reporters or bloggers.

What this split in coverage really indicates, as Kurtz says, is the essential difference between big and citizens’ media (and I’m repeating myself): because newspapers are institutional and blogs are personal, newspapers try to be dispassionate while blogs are passionate.

And that’s what we see in the coverage of what I hope to call the moderate revolution: Blogs speak up when they have cause to be pissed about or to celebrate over but rarely to be moderate and thus dull. The big press has to cover the story and thinks it has to see both sides; it likes to show both sides yelling but, of course, it doesn’t want to be caught yelling itself.

And, in the end, it’s hard to get a red-faced rant in defense of moderation, compromise, and the middleground, though I’d like to try to figure out how.

18 responses to “The moderate revolution?”

  1. rossi Avatar

    honey
    for the first time in a long time
    i full on 100% agree with you on a political subject
    and mccain is just about the only
    republican
    ive really liked in a long
    long
    time

  2. John Avatar

    According to the Associated Press’ David Espo, the hot-button reaction of bloggers to the deal closely resembled the behind-the-scenes reaction of top senators to the judicial filibuster ban.
    Based on that, it’s hard to see this as being anything more than the Senate’s version of one of those ineffective cease-fires between Israels and Palestinians during the Intifada, which would last about 2-3 days and immediately be followed by a new bus bombing.

  3. Charging RINO Avatar

    I totally agree with the vast majority of your comments, but I don’t believe that “moderate” has to equal “dull”. There is more to persuasion than red-faced rants (which I know you understand) – and there were at least a few centrist bloggers (myself included) speaking out passionately and strongly in support of the nuclear compromise. Passion doesn’t have to include vituperation, name-calling, or other rhetorical tactics used by the left and the right (bloggers or otherwise).

  4. Barry Dauphin Avatar
    Barry Dauphin

    Glad to see that Howie Kurtz has figured out a new way to pat himself on the back. Who’d have thunk it?
    BTW to lump bloggers into two camps or categories seems very self defeating for a blogger, although very convenient for Kurtz.

  5. carsonfire Avatar

    John’s right, this isn’t a “moderate triumph”, but a pointless cease-fire, and that’s a cease-fire of a situation that’s already dragged on for *years*. It’s time to get this resolved already, not keep dragging it out.
    That’s why both sides are outraged: the right wants these judges confirmed already, and the left wants them defeated and forgotten already; the McCain maneuver hasn’t changed that dynamic a bit, not one iota, and merely puts off the fight in a vain attempt to pump up his personal senatorial vanity and poke his old rival Bush in the eye (no doubt he thinks he will become President in 2008 as a “moderate” Republican, but he seems not to care that in doing so he is directly contravening everything that conservatives have been fighting for, and has become a prime source of frustration for the very people who he will have to appeal to in the primaries; and so he has just about as much chance of capturing the Republican nomination now as Zell Miller has of capturing the Democratic nomination).
    There’s also the matter of the “14” somehow wresting control away from the majority. This is representative government? How is a lesser delegation dictating terms to the greater delegations a “moderate” action? Because it’s a matter of “minority” rights? Every time I hear that now, I wince, because it is such a gross misuse of the term, an insult to true minorities. Confusing terms like that in order to justify blatant misgovernment is reprehensible.
    There may be some on the mild/moderate left who consider this a moderate compromise, but I consider the moderate position to be proper constitutional process and fair votes, whether the President and house are Republican or Democrat… backroom deals cobbled together for cameras are *not* moderate or reasonable, however comforting they may be.
    Perhaps the reason it’s hard to get excited about defending this compromise is that there’s really not that much there to defend. JJ certainly can get red-faced arguing about the FCC, where he certainly *does* have arguments, if debatable. What exactly is the defense of this compromise, apart from largely vague statements like “averting catastrophe” and referring to having fair votes on qualified nominees as “nuclear”?

  6. Kirk Caraway Avatar
    Kirk Caraway

    I think Kurtz is trying to twist the facts to fit his version of reality. While the rightwing blogs were nearly united in condemnation of the deal, most of the top liberal blogs (DailyKos, TPM, AmericaBlog, etc.) saw it as a victory for Harry Reid and the Democrats, and a certain defeat for Bill Frist and Bush.
    What’s Kurtz smoking? Sounds like he’s trying to create his own version of reality where MSM is still king, and he can sleep better knowing the blogosphere isn’t a threat anymore.

  7. Craig Newmark Avatar

    Jeff, this is why I’m reviving the Whigs, per prior discussion.
    Craig

  8. paladin Avatar
    paladin

    I don’t think we should be so in love with “moderation” that we forget it was moderates who devised the Missouri Compromise (among others) which kept slaves in bondage for decades longer before the Civil War (600,000 killed in the war) finally settled it. It’s what the moderates would call a Win-Win situation—–slaves in slavery longer, and 600,000 killed all for moderation. What’s not to like? Being a “moderate” isn’t always a good thing—sometimes the extremists are on the right side of history, and represent the greater good of our country.

  9. I hate Nukes Avatar
    I hate Nukes

    Can someone please tell what crapsack first used the term Nuclear to describe the showdown? And why do people mindlessly repeat the moronic nonsense? I’m certain that the people of Hiroshima would beg to differ on whether or not there are indeed nukes at work here. Really, it cheapens the whole discourse, and is akin to calling a republican or democrat a Nazi. I wish people would wise up and demand an end to inflammatory characterizations like “the nuclear option”. Let’s reserve that for when the Islamists actually make us consider a nuclear option. In that case, a real one.

  10. Brian H Avatar
    Brian H

    The moves of the “14” do not thwart the majority; it’s a question of the distribution curve. You know, the old “Bell Curve”? Most people do not lump up at either or both ends, and the “majority” formed by a forced separation on either side of a sharp line drawn near the center is not a coherent, enduring grouping. A shift of a few representatives back and forth across the line from time to time is essential to avoid both violent confrontation and abuse of power.
    But MSM “moderation” is often cover for covert support of one side or the other, and it’s pretty hard, now, for it to deny all the stats showing the urban-liberal allegiances and biases of reporters and editors — and their output. The battle for genuine balance has quite a way to go yet, IMO.

  11. kevinP Avatar
    kevinP

    Jeff:
    Moderation in politics is not neither good or bad. It depends on the situation and the topic. McCains moderate revolution will only work if he can hold them together. If a handfull of his coalition decides to do to him what he did to Frist, work a deal behind his back, I don’t want to hear him whine about disloyaty or bad faith. Since McCain couldn’t get the leaders of either party to agree on the “compromise” he could be in a situation like the U.N. peacekeepers find themselves in. Promoting something that neither side wants and unitentionally aiding one side to victory over the other.
    One can argue that saving the fillibuster is important but if by saving it you make legitimit the process of using the fillibuster to hamstring every Presidential appointment then you have blessed the change in the what the fillibuster has become. The argument about who started it first could go on forever but the way the fillibuster is being used, especially the volume of fillibusters, is not the way the founders intended it to be.As far as Presidential appointments go it was used in the past 200 years on extrodinary occasions, not as a serial tool to frustrate the Presidency. If you want to throw in the Majority Republican Senate use of committee stalling in the Clinton years as the same, OK , but by inflating the fillibuster to the Freedom of Speech then you have made permanent the use of the fillibuster as a minority veto.If the framers intentended fot this they would have said super majority rather then advise and consent. In politics “Extrodinary” is in the eye of the beholder.

  12. Jim S Avatar

    So, kevinP, why did the Democrats use the filibuster? Because the Republicans, once they were the majority, removed the tools that the minority party had previously used while in committee to prevent nominees they really didn’t like to get a floor vote. You know, like the ones that the Republicans used on over sixty of Clinton’s nominees as opposed to the 10 that you and your fellow “conservative” Republicans are so hot and bothered about. You know about those judicial nominees that never got that honest up and down vote that you claim you want every presidential nominee to get, don’t you? For just as long as Priscilla Owens, even. The hypocrisy exists on both sides but it’s darn well thicker on yours right now.

  13. M. Simon Avatar

    I blogged this from the moderate side. With passion. Even got a quote from my piece and a link from Instapundit.

  14. M. Simon Avatar

    carsonfire,
    Coalitions are ruled by their weakest members.
    Don’t like it? Get 60 socons elected to the Senate.
    You might wish to look at the results you might expect. Two examples:
    The Keyes debacle in Illinois.
    The Calif. Republican party before the advent of Arnie.

  15. kevinP Avatar
    kevinP

    Jim S.
    First of all, I am not a republican. Until 5 years ago I was a Democrat, For 24 years I had never voted Republican I am a registered Independent. So before you spout generalities and cliches you might want to get your facts straight.It was wrong during the Clinton years. And as far as I can tell this crap is going to continue until the fillibuster is gone. The fillibuster has never been used in this fashion on so many district judges ever . If they wanted a super majority on presidential nominations they would have said so. They didn’t. So if they wanted a super majority for judges why didn’t they say so?

  16. carsonfire Avatar

    Coalitions are ruled by their weakest members.
    How do you arrive at that as a blanket rule? I can certainly think of times when that was the case, but strong leadership has often overcome weak members.
    I’ve Googled for some support or debate of your aphorism, and have only found you repeating it a few times sans explanation or justification.
    Once you get to that justification, you then have to address the fact that this was not a coalition in any proper sense, but a small gang of media darlings. Fourteen does not a coalition make, and many of them are already sorry they signed on to the deal.
    Whoop, late breaking… I found one guy agreeing with you who defines your “weakest members” statement as meaning something like the GOP panders to the “irrational demands of fringe groups”. I hope this isn’t what you mean, because that’s nonsense.
    Far left haters like Eleanor Clift insist (and I think truly believe) that the push for conservative judges is a strange, undemocratic action performed as a salve for the mythical “religious right”, a small minority of whacked out extremists who nonetheless command special attention among a *ahem* growing conservative majority, when simple common sense should inform you that conservatives of *all* stripes want *conservative* judges.
    Let’s try that as an aphorism, shall we? “Conservatives will tend to want conservative judges.”
    Also, “People scared of conservatives must have boogie men” and “Those out of the mainstream like to accuse the mainstream of being out of the mainstream”. Also also “Fourteen senators is a coalition, millions of Christians is a scary fringe group”.

  17. kevinP Avatar
    kevinP

    Jeff;
    It is in the nature of politics that oppossing sides will paint the other as “out of the mainstream.” sometimes it is accurrate, sometimes it is projection. I agree with Jeff that sometimes the “moderate middle” can cool off the edges. But I notice that the “radical religous right” is sometimes less radical then the reasonable knowledgable left thinks it is. I would say that the right is in the minority on the general idea of abortion but that the left takes that general acceptance of abortion in general and grafts it on to the idea’s of anti-parental notification and partial birth abortion. They also paint the right as out of the mainstream of gay marriage. Yet virtually every election that has been held on the matter says otherwise. Even California and Oregon, blue states that voted for Kerry, voted for the traditional definition of Marriage.I guess there are some out of their mind religous right wing zealots who voted for Kerry and for Traditional marriage at the same time. I could be wrong but I don’t think that those who are pro gay marriage would ever term themselves as radical or out of the mainstream but the majority of the elections held on this issue seems to prove them wrong. And even if they admitted they were out of the mainstream they would still fight hard for the idea and they would see nothing wrong or agree that this advocacy for the issue would be proof of them being rabid partisans who are trying to force their out of the mainstream idea’s on to the moderate public. It is ok to use the political forum and elections to promote or fight against certain idea’s. Sometimes being out of the mainstream is bad. Sometimes it is a sign of character.

  18. MrB Avatar

    I have to remember Jim Hightower’s admonisment “There ain’t nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos”.
    Moderation isn’t going to get us anywhere. Martin Luther King Jr., in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” said that he had nothing against extremism, but rather what kind of extremist we have to be. I for one am an extremist for universal health care – this is a human need that is so vital that it cannot and should not be left to the private sector.
    We just need to be creative extremists, as MLK wrote.