Electric Kool Aid Conservatism

Responding to a recent post of mine, Christopher links to a post by Kathy Shaidle that takes issue with a column by Conor Friedersdorf, a rising conservative journalist/writer/blogger/thinker.  (Mr. Friedersdorf is a contributor to The American Scene, The Daily Beast and True/Slant.)

At The league of Ordinary Gentlemen, Scott H. Payne has a great interview with Mr. Friedersdorf (Scott also has some good interviews with other prominent bloggers).  Here’s a tease:

In Electric Kool-Aid Conservatism, I argue a few things: a) certain conservative insights and core critiques of liberalism intrinsically resist the narrative form. b) As the right’s echo chamber grows, the ideas that reverberate weaken. Ghettoizing smart writers within rally-the-base publications is something the left can afford, given the present media landscape, while the scarcity of journalists who grasp right-of-center ideas make their isolation particularly costly. c) The right doesn’t need more activists, it needs more journalists — folks who buy into and excel at the journalistic project, rather than folks intent on trying to destroy it. Unlike the Doublethink piece, in which I am offering advice to the right, however, my criticism of talk radio hosts is grounded not in the accurate notion that they are bad for the right, but in the larger conviction that they are bad for healthy political discussion, and thus the country. Put another way, all my work is predicated on a belief that public discourse is important, that journalism properly executed improves it, and that various journalistic benefits are undervalued on the right. But I’d say that Electric Kool-Aid Conservatism and my criticism of talk radio folks are overlapping projects, not identical ones.

The entire interview is a must read for those of us on the right who participate in political discourse… actually, it’s a worthwhile read for anyone interested in honest political debate.

CP Journalist States the Obvious: Spread the News

Micheal Ignatieff has been warned, Canadian Press reporter, Alexander Panetta has uncovered irrefutable evidence that that Conservative party is going to start attacking Micheal Ignatieff and the Liberal party of Canada.

OTTAWA — The Conservatives are scouring hundreds of hours of videotape as they prepare to pummel their key rival Michael Ignatieff with attack ads leading up to the next election.

The Harper government had been uncharacteristically tame toward the Liberal leader until last week, when MPs began taking shots at Mr. Ignatieff in the House of Commons.

That was just the opening salvo.

The Tories already have anti-Ignatieff ads ready to air at a moment’s notice, and are also combing through a lifetime’s worth of musings from his career as a public intellectual.

Wow, riveting stuff – but what evidence does this reporter have?

Two government officials say they toned down the partisanship because there was little public appetite for politicians squabbling during an economic crisis where people are losing jobs.

So two anonymous government officials are his source. Yup, but to further his investigative scope Alexander digs even deeper:

“We poll better on offence,” said one government official. “That’s always sort of guided us.”

Ah, there you go, another anonymous government official dishing the dirt. But wait, Alexander isn’t finished yet – he’s no longer concerned with quoting anonymous government officials, he is speaking in more general terms now:

Tories say there will be three themes to their attacks: that Mr. Ignatieff is an out-of-touch elitist; that he flip-flops (they will cite his shifting positions on a carbon tax, on coalition with the other opposition parties, and on Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon); and that he’s a fair-weather Canadian.

They say their research keeps turning up first-person references to the United States in which Mr. Ignatieff — then a professor at Harvard University — appeared to be describing himself as an American.

Those occasional references to Americans as “we” were already an issue in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, but the Conservatives say they’ve been stockpiling plenty of unused material.

There you have it folks, a journalist who is so busy stating the obvious that he’s forgotten to include the names of his sources.

Alexander, now it’s my turn to state the obvious – political parties are partisan organizations whose job is to win elections. Political parties are successful when they effectively characterize their opponents, and their ideas, as out of touch and wrong – that’s kind of the whole point of politics, isn’t it?

Who runs the economy? The Government or The Rest Of Us?

After reading passages of Kathleen Harris’ interview with PM Stephen Harper, I was shocked at how economically ignorant or possibly lazy some journalists can be. I want to quote one question and its answer:

Q: Today you appeared to be bracing Canadians for a prolonged period of economic turmoil by talking about the weeks, months and years ahead. What’s your forecast for how long and how tough the road ahead will be?

A: We don’t know. We’re in a period of great deal of economic uncertainty around the world so it’s hard to predict how all this will unfold. I’ve said that we anticipate at least another year of slow growth, and I think that would be, among analysts, almost universally the case. At the same time, we have every reason to believe that Canada will stay out of recession if Canada doesn’t start raising taxes and spending itself into deficit.

Harper starts off by telling the truth: nobody knows. However, I am appalled at the lack of any follow-up to the last sentence. Who is he talking about when he personifies Canada? It sounds like he is talking about the government. Well, if that is the case, I have to ask: Who runs the economy? the government or the rest of us?

We are amidst a cognitive dissonance here. Is it bad for “Canada” to have public debt? Can we comfortably ignore the individual debts held by Canadians? Is it bad for “Canada” to have the accounting hassle of government taxation? Can we comfortably ignore the nefarious and hidden taxation of rising prices created by the institutionalized inflation of the money supply?

In light of the recent flogging after Stephane Dion fumbled an economic question, I think it is only fair to demonstrate how unknowingly biased journalists may be by virtue of their own ignorance. Stephane Dion is made to look like an economic fool — which I believe he may very well be, mind you — because his interviewer is ignorant of basic rules of grammatical logic. Stephen Harper is made to look like the prudent economist — which I believe he may very well be too, mind you — because his interviewer is ignorant of basic economic theory.

Scale Tip to Kathleen Harris, National Bureau Chief, Canoe Media.

He Said What? Journalists Shy Away From Identifying Sources

A rather disturbing trend has descended upon journalism lately – many of the news stories published by news outlets contain nothing more than conjecture and speculation from unnamed sources.

For example, take a look at this story written by F. Abbas Rana at The Hill Times.

Note the language that is used:

one top Conservative, who did not want to be identified, told The Hill Times last week.

Some Liberals agree.

said one top Liberal who also did not want to be identified.

Tory insiders say they believe…

However, sources agreed…

Political insiders are waiting to see…

However, one Liberal said…

Yet, some Liberals say…

Moreover, The Hill Times reported last week (April 17) that several Liberal Senators…

however, another top Liberal also told…

one Liberal said despite…

The Liberal said some Liberals…

But federal Liberals also believe Prime Minister Harper’s…

Considering the amount of unnamed sources available in this article, it suddenly becomes hard to take what is written at face value. Without knowing the names of the various individuals cited and paraphrased in the article, how can I, or anyone else for that matter, be sure what is being reported is factually correct?

What qualifications are required in order to be considered a Tory or Liberal insider or a top Liberal or Conservative? Do journalists request to see a party membership card before proclaiming a source a Liberal, Conservative, NDP, etc?

At what point do articles like this one cease to be a news item and revert to a gossip column?