I don't post much on politics because I really have little value to add. And with my diverse readership in regards to politics I can't really be throwing posts to the effect of "look at these idiotic conservatives/liberals!!!" and expect to get a bunch of "right on!" comments in response. But I do pay cursory attention to the political blogosphere via my RSS, and I was struck by simultaneous fissures emerging on the Left and Right blogosphere for Godwinesque reasons.
On the right, Little Green Footballs is trying to purge the anti-jihadist movement of fascists. Specifically the involvement of Brussels Journal with Far Right politics in Europe. Meanwhile, on the Left Glenn Greenwald has been engaging in quite a bit of Ron Paul apologia. The primary issue is that some of Paul's supporters are not particularly pleasant, e.g., Neo-Nazis, etc. My own general opinion is political coalitions are tribes, and generally if you are of a particular camp you deemphasize disagreements. That makes it really boring for those of us who don't follow the details in this area. When cracks open up along the common front and allies begin sniping at each other it's really fun because you start to see the nuts & bolts, the ideological infrastructure, which lurks beneath the surface. Treachery makes great drama!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Many people remember Orwell discussing how the term fascist was thrown around so often that it had come to mean "politics I don't like". I think by that time he had come to regard Stalinism as an especially important threat and drifted to the right (a good overview of Orwell and his changing politics reflected in his writing is here). Recently I came across this screed against liberal/left obsession with "fascism" and abuse of the term on purist communist grounds.
Does Glenn Greenwald actually consider himself part of the left? According to Wikipedia "While Greenwald describes himself as neither liberal nor conservative, he has frequently criticized the policies of the George W. Bush administration and conservatives who support it, claiming that "Bush followers are not conservatives"."
Razib,
I agree that internal political fights are fascinating. They are very informative in trying to understand how coalitions work. And being an armchair political analyst is great fun.
Still, I appreciate that you keep this site relatively politics-free. I always find it jarring when I'm reading someone's thoughts on science, economics, technology, or whatever ... and they throw in a blatant, Hey aren't (the other tribe) a bunch of idiots.
Since I've lived my whole life in college towns and big cities, but am a member of the Repub tribe (of the free market/strong defense variety) I've grown a fairly thick skin for being randomly insulted.
There's no doubt that the "Hey, aren't they evil/idiots" lines are excellent bonding mechanisms. I've never been a part of any group that didn't employ that technique, and had it employed against us. From 2nd graders on the playground, to a room full of PhDs ... easy tribal insults seem universal.
TGGP, well, charles johnson of LGF is from the left, but not of the left anymore. in any case, it seems like his main issue is with the fascist antecedents and associates of vlaams belang. as for greenwald, i have no idea. i know what i know only through my RSS and bloggingheads.tv, and i assumed he was part of the netroots. mebee i'm wrong.
When cracks open up along the common front and allies begin sniping at each other it's really fun because you start to see the nuts & bolts, the ideological infrastructure, which lurks beneath the surface.
I may not be clear on what you mean by this; but if I'm reading it right I don't think it's correct. When erstwhile allies split, there's a tendency to rewrite the history and exaggerate the differences, so that looking to the split to give you the "ideological infrastructure" is like trying to understand a marriage (or a formerly married person) by seeing what the angry ex has to say. Thus, if memory serves, the original Blue Book of the John Birch Society had at least one kind remark about National Review - as a conservative magazine designed for an educated audience (a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=_RoGU7t03HwC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=%22bl…">this author seems to confirm my memory); but since the two split in the early 60's, JBS articles won't say that NR was ever the "genuine article" (see this and that), or less than an arm of The Conspiracy.
P.S. - I believe this post from your other weblog is a good example of the same thing; having broken with a large segment of the conservative movement, the writer gulped the LD-50 of Sour Grape Juice, and made some pretty fantastic claims about National Review and its stature among conservatives.
FWIW, at a several of the participants at a Klan I covered recently shilled for Ron Paul. Here are some photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradbrad/sets/72157602266385961/
Obviously, I was trying to start one of those weird syntax memes with my previous post.