Ben Domenech, archetype
"This is a blog for the majority of Americans".
Those were the opening words of the first posting on a new blog the Washington post inaugurated this week, Red America. And with those words began a saga, told at Internet speed, which quickly moved from the personal into archetype.
The story itself is quickly told; Domenech, a 24-year old blogger, Bush administration appointee, founder of redstate.com (which is the rather feeble attempt by the right to emulate Daily Kos), was hired by a Washington Post unnerved by accusations of liberalism directed at one of its own bloggers, Dan Froomkin. Froomkin writes the Post's well-regarded White House Briefing, a widely read and occasionally scathing daily examination of the Bush White House. The liberal blogosphere took up this particular gauntlet very quickly, went into Domenech's past writings, and discovered examples of blatant, offensive stupidity - "Coretta Scott King is a communist" - and more seriously, of outright plagiarism, which in turn led to his "resignation", as these things are politely called when an exit is unavoidable and all parties concerned scramble to try and save whatever face they still can.
In this abbreviated story lie several narratives that progressives need to examine.
First, if we had any doubts about the impact of the right-wing noise machine on the so-called "liberal media", let's quickly disabuse ourselves of them. The Post got cowed - there really is no other word to describe it - into placing its imprimatur on the writings of a political hack to appease those who criticized the work of an actual journalist. Hunter on Daily Kos nails the real sin the right wing accuses the Post, and other "liberal media", of committing: journalism.
Second, it's time for us to realize the essential hollowness and brittleness of the "conservative movement". It suffers from the same affliction that has brought down every ideological movement since the dawn of civilization: once you subscribe to an ideology, whatever it is, your scope of thought and action narrows. Domenech was laid low by his personal dishonesty; but behind that personal failing, enabling it, nurturing it, was the systemic dishonesty to which every "movement conservative" must subscribe to make the observable world fit into ideological categories. It is this, for example, that prompted the inflammatory opening sentence of his first posting, "This is a blog for the majority of Americans". Using objective criteria, this claim is flatly untrue. A majority of Americans does not subscribe to the views held by the Coulter/Hannity/DeLay wing of the radical right, as Domenech does. Nor would a majority of Americans claim that Coretta Scott King was a communist. Rather, the vast majority of Americans is appalled at statements like these, and more broadly, at the policies they foment. Truth is the first casualty of war, and it dies even more quickly if the war is one of ideology. However, a house built on lies cannot long stand.
In a sense, Domenech's fall parallels and anticipates the trail being trod by George Bush and his entire movement, because they are afflicted by the same disease of ideology. Movement conservatism - which is certainly a movement, if not conservative in the Burkean sense, or in any other way that derives from the American experience - will perish. It will be extinguished by the simple fact that, due to its inherent and systemic weakness of ideology, it will be confronted by situations that it cannot deal with; witness the head-on collision between hurricane Katrina and small-government, laissez-faire crony governance. I'm not positing a Marxian historical inevitability to this; the reactionary movement could well have a historical lifespan as long as its functional antecedent, Soviet Bolshevism. But just as Bolshevism foundered on the rocks of its own contradictions (a revolutionary ideology charged with governance) and its failure to meet the basic needs of its citizenry, so movement conservatism will wither. It will reform and become pragmatic, or die.
It would be easy to attribute Domenech's fall merely to his own weaknesses; indeed, that seems to be the gist of reactionary chatter on the subject. It's easy to see how this would be a tempting angle, the only one open, from a systemic point of view, to his fellow ideologues. But there is more to it than that. Witness the ongoing implosion of the Bush regime and everything it stands for.
As with Domenech, the apologists for Bush's failure are constructing several narratives to rescue, perhaps foremost in their own minds, their ideology from the intellectual and moral bankruptcy it faces after five years in government. One narrative - as with the disgraced blogger - blames personal flaws; thus, you have books coming out stating that Bush is no conservative. As the reactionary edifice continues to collapse, you can expect to see more of these claims. Another blames Democratic obstructionism, or 9/11, or some other external factor for the malaise; but it's hard to see how the Iraq war and its aftermath, 9/11, Katrina, the Medicare drug benefit, the health care crisis, escalating poverty, the Department of Homeland Security, the Dubai ports deal, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, the tepid economy and all the other afflictions of the present reign can be laid at the feet of anything but movement conservatism and its apogee, the Bush administration.
Domenech has now fallen, and Bush will fall; perhaps, he'll not fall, but be pushed by his own, seeking a scapegoat. The end may be delayed; but after the Bush era, it is hard to see a future for an ideology so completely and thoroughly discredited.
Those were the opening words of the first posting on a new blog the Washington post inaugurated this week, Red America. And with those words began a saga, told at Internet speed, which quickly moved from the personal into archetype.
The story itself is quickly told; Domenech, a 24-year old blogger, Bush administration appointee, founder of redstate.com (which is the rather feeble attempt by the right to emulate Daily Kos), was hired by a Washington Post unnerved by accusations of liberalism directed at one of its own bloggers, Dan Froomkin. Froomkin writes the Post's well-regarded White House Briefing, a widely read and occasionally scathing daily examination of the Bush White House. The liberal blogosphere took up this particular gauntlet very quickly, went into Domenech's past writings, and discovered examples of blatant, offensive stupidity - "Coretta Scott King is a communist" - and more seriously, of outright plagiarism, which in turn led to his "resignation", as these things are politely called when an exit is unavoidable and all parties concerned scramble to try and save whatever face they still can.
In this abbreviated story lie several narratives that progressives need to examine.
First, if we had any doubts about the impact of the right-wing noise machine on the so-called "liberal media", let's quickly disabuse ourselves of them. The Post got cowed - there really is no other word to describe it - into placing its imprimatur on the writings of a political hack to appease those who criticized the work of an actual journalist. Hunter on Daily Kos nails the real sin the right wing accuses the Post, and other "liberal media", of committing: journalism.
"This isn't about "balancing" the alleged closet liberalism on the part of Froomkin, or any other Washington Post figure. Conservatives don't give a damn how many of their fellow conservatives are on your site -- so long as your paper continues to report facts they don't like, or media critics like Froomkin factcheck the more mindnumbing elements of political spin, those conservatives are still going to attack the paper itself as being hopelessly "liberal." Journalism is the liberal part."The right does not seek accommodation or inclusion; it seeks surrender. Perhaps The Post will realize this, but probably not. It's hard to shake the characteristics of a whipped dog once they've been acquired. Our only hope in countering the future Domenechs is to unsentimentally beat the dog in turn, and remind the media that pragmatism and moderation are the American mainstream.
Second, it's time for us to realize the essential hollowness and brittleness of the "conservative movement". It suffers from the same affliction that has brought down every ideological movement since the dawn of civilization: once you subscribe to an ideology, whatever it is, your scope of thought and action narrows. Domenech was laid low by his personal dishonesty; but behind that personal failing, enabling it, nurturing it, was the systemic dishonesty to which every "movement conservative" must subscribe to make the observable world fit into ideological categories. It is this, for example, that prompted the inflammatory opening sentence of his first posting, "This is a blog for the majority of Americans". Using objective criteria, this claim is flatly untrue. A majority of Americans does not subscribe to the views held by the Coulter/Hannity/DeLay wing of the radical right, as Domenech does. Nor would a majority of Americans claim that Coretta Scott King was a communist. Rather, the vast majority of Americans is appalled at statements like these, and more broadly, at the policies they foment. Truth is the first casualty of war, and it dies even more quickly if the war is one of ideology. However, a house built on lies cannot long stand.
In a sense, Domenech's fall parallels and anticipates the trail being trod by George Bush and his entire movement, because they are afflicted by the same disease of ideology. Movement conservatism - which is certainly a movement, if not conservative in the Burkean sense, or in any other way that derives from the American experience - will perish. It will be extinguished by the simple fact that, due to its inherent and systemic weakness of ideology, it will be confronted by situations that it cannot deal with; witness the head-on collision between hurricane Katrina and small-government, laissez-faire crony governance. I'm not positing a Marxian historical inevitability to this; the reactionary movement could well have a historical lifespan as long as its functional antecedent, Soviet Bolshevism. But just as Bolshevism foundered on the rocks of its own contradictions (a revolutionary ideology charged with governance) and its failure to meet the basic needs of its citizenry, so movement conservatism will wither. It will reform and become pragmatic, or die.
It would be easy to attribute Domenech's fall merely to his own weaknesses; indeed, that seems to be the gist of reactionary chatter on the subject. It's easy to see how this would be a tempting angle, the only one open, from a systemic point of view, to his fellow ideologues. But there is more to it than that. Witness the ongoing implosion of the Bush regime and everything it stands for.
As with Domenech, the apologists for Bush's failure are constructing several narratives to rescue, perhaps foremost in their own minds, their ideology from the intellectual and moral bankruptcy it faces after five years in government. One narrative - as with the disgraced blogger - blames personal flaws; thus, you have books coming out stating that Bush is no conservative. As the reactionary edifice continues to collapse, you can expect to see more of these claims. Another blames Democratic obstructionism, or 9/11, or some other external factor for the malaise; but it's hard to see how the Iraq war and its aftermath, 9/11, Katrina, the Medicare drug benefit, the health care crisis, escalating poverty, the Department of Homeland Security, the Dubai ports deal, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, the tepid economy and all the other afflictions of the present reign can be laid at the feet of anything but movement conservatism and its apogee, the Bush administration.
Domenech has now fallen, and Bush will fall; perhaps, he'll not fall, but be pushed by his own, seeking a scapegoat. The end may be delayed; but after the Bush era, it is hard to see a future for an ideology so completely and thoroughly discredited.
posted by Michael at 11:54 PM
<< Home