Ideological Journalism

Ezra Klein: in favor of capitalism after all. (Okay, okay, he's always been in favor of some tempered version of it.)

Anyway, he makes an interesting point about the paucity of work for full time ideological journalists:

It's very hard, however, to make a living being a conscientious, opinionated, progressive writer. And the problem is basic: There are very few outlets. Think about it. You want to get a full-time job as a liberal pundit-type. Where do you apply? Well, The American Prospect, of course. The Nation too. In These Times really doesn't have any money, and The Washington Monthly has a skeletal staff. I guess you could try The New Republic, but that bridge is charred and smoking. Oh, and Salon, and I'm sure a couple more I'm forgetting.

Not one of those outlets turns a profit. Not one employs more than a dozen writers. Between them, you're looking at fewer than (I'd guess) 30 full-time liberal writing positions, and half of those are at TNR.

I might put the number a little higher by counting journalists who, say, work for environmental magazines like Grist or other more narrowly focused publications with a distinctly liberal bent. And while we're at it, let's throw in Harper's and Mother Jones and maybe even the numerous editorial page writing spots that stick almost exclusively to liberal views, just for the sake of completeness. And if you want to be even more generous, you can add a few think tank type positions that exist primarily to fund progressive writing of some sort. But even still, this number is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, and his basic point stands: It is indeed difficult to make a living as a full time, explicitly progressive journalist, just as it's not always easy to make a living as a full time, explicitly conservative journalist.

However, the difference I see is that liberals have more outlets for, if not explicitly liberal, then soft liberal journalism--the sort of "objective" and/or "mainstream" journalism that doesn't declare its biases but, however subtly, pushes a left leaning viewpoint. And no matter what, there are simply more liberal-leaning journalists working in today's newsrooms. As poll after poll has shown, members of the news media tend to self-identify as liberal by a pretty wide margin, meaning that even if there aren't always a huge number of outlets devoted to ardently liberal journalism, there are plenty of opportunities for liberal journalists.

Come together... right now

As if you needed more reasons that Tim Carney is awesome: His column today is a perfect example of why libertarian-conservative, and even libertarian-Christian, fusionism is still a superb idea. Emphasize the similarities, not the differences--the two groups are far closer than the last six months of conventional wisdom would suggest.

Switching Sides

By now you’ve read Brink Lindsey’s New Republic article on liberal-libertarian fusionism, and you’ve probably read Jonah Goldberg’s brief response as well as Sebastian Mallaby’s column. It’s a good piece, certainly much more persuasive than Markos Moulitsas’ absurd notion of the Libertarian Democrat. But I don’t think I entirely buy it—at least not yet.

Lindsey’s argument, to oversimplify, boils down to asking libertarians to give up hardline support for economic freedom and become pragmatic capitalists, while asking progressives to give up collective identity, hard egalitarianism, and serious centralized economic planning. Needless to say, this strikes me as a difficult proposition. Libertarian angst against Republicans is strong enough right now that it might seem plausible, but I have a hard time believing that there’s really all that much support amongst libertarians for a party whose key positions include a general support for strong business regulations and government programs. This, in fact, is why I’m so reticent to endorse conservative proposals to use government for its ends (even if I have a general respect for those ends). Libertarians aren’t really all that likely to hop parties en masse anytime soon, but if the right makes an active switch away from small government to managed government, they’ll follow Lindsey and turn away.

Of course, as Goldberg notes, there’s an upside to this:

We should all hope that Lindsey's project succeeds. Who among us unapologetic conservatives wouldn't like to see the two parties get in a bidding war over who is more libertarian on economic issues?

And sure, it’d be nice. But it’s also pretty much impossible—and exactly why a true libertarian-liberal alliance will never really happen.

That is, like, soooo meta

Over at TechLiberation, Tim Lee and Jim Harper invite fellow tech wonks and internerds to assist them with a--hold on for dear life while I type this--peer produced paper on peer production. It's like if Charlie Kaufman were to write a policy paper. Just thinking about it puts my brain in the gravitron. Yeesh.

And while you're there, read Adam Thierer's awesome smackdown of the critics of so-called "predatory pricing" of game consoles. Paragraphs like this are what 2006 is all about, kids:

Unless he wants to make the argument that video game consoles have suddenly become life essential goods on par with food and water, his argument is just plain silly. After all, would anyone die if they had to wait a few weeks before they bought a stand-alone video game console at regular retail prices? How spoiled are we as a culture when we're even having a debate about fair video game console allocation?

Personally, I'm waiting for some indignant to socialist to just come out and demand console game equality for all citizens. And that means two controllers. No skimping!

Lifestyle politics

I ought to be polishing (well, writing a conclusion to) my review of this, but instead I’ll dive headlong into Larisonland, a place I often fear to tread, if only out of a pervasive phobia of getting buried and eventually suffocating under a mountain of blog copy.

In responding to my point about the difference between political conservatism and lifestyle conservatism, Larison writes:

Each time I read over Peter’s post, the bit about ideology always brings me up short. On why preserving a way of life focused on natural loyalties and guided by a spirit that values restraint, prescription and prudence, among other things, is not an ideology.

[snip]

It has long seemed to me that ideology is that sort of abstract commitment to a proposition or theory that one makes that has little or no relevance to how you live. Being a good liberal involves accepting a number of rather dubious claims about the nature of man and society and setting policy accordingly. Allegedly, what you do in your own, “private” life is no concern to anybody. Likewise, being a good communist or fascist ideologue has everything to do with toeing party lines and supporting the right kinds of policies. Living ethically is neither here nor there, except insofar as it comes into conflict with policy.

[snip]

Ethics is the heart of real politika, the things concerning the polis or community. One’s ethos, one’s way of life and habitual practices, defines what kind of politics a man has, and what kind of community he and his will create and maintain….If conservatism is a worthwhile state of mind and persuasion, conservatism ought to have something important to say.

Larison has lots of smart stuff to say—often thousands of words of it every day—but it seems to me, once again, that what Larison is doing is making conservatism into a sort of manifesto for living. But to my mind, that’s not the place of political alignment; that’s the job of the church, of the conscience, of whatever overarching ideas about existence to which one subscribes. To be a conservative is not necessarily to be a Christian, though I believe the two go in kind with minimal friction. A religion can, and probably should, dictate, in however general or specific terms, a way of life to its followers.

But a political ideology, a political movement, one that is primarily about figuring out proper means of governing, should be, in fact, the opposite—a way of allowing opposing, contrasting, varied ways of life and belief to thrive with as little interference as possible. Larison’s conservatism would be preached from the pulpit, infused in every minute and every decision of life, and while I have no quarrel with (and, in fact, heartily support) careful, principled existences, I don’t wish to see that sort of all-encompassing belief take over the political realm. There is a place*, for sure, to discuss how one should live their life, what principles, faiths, and notions are decent and good, but the goal of politics, and thus of political movements, should be to clear a space for those ideas to flourish, not try to inject itself into the discussion.

*That place is probably in dorm rooms and on little-read blogs.