No, not civil war.

Being exposed to the rage (anger is not a strong enough description) over the disclosure of the latest Bush abuse in the NYT, I can't help but wonder where things are going. This question poses itself - do the people spewing these hateful words actually believe what they are saying? I want to believe that the answer to that is a resounding "No!". I want to believe that this is mere posturing by the likes of Michelle Malkin and the various other blogs. A crude debating tactic meant to put the left on the defensive. The alternative is truly scary.
Assuming that the material that the rightwing puts out is an accurate and honest account of what they believe, lets consider these points:

• The rightwing blogs feel that they are representative of what the average Americans are thinking & feeling
• They feel that they are super patriots who love their country, and are a part of the vanguard defending the US
• They believe that liberals are working against the interests of America, and by their actions are helping terrorism
• They believe that George Bush is doing the right thing to protect America, but he is under attack by partisan liberals who are looking to score partisan political points

Again, given that these are accurate & honest descriptions of the rightwing mindset, one would wonder where such a mindset would lead. If they honestly believe these things, how could they sit idly by and allow the liberals to constantly undermine America? As events progress, and the liberal media increases its (perceived) assault on the President, will they be content to comment on it from the sidelines? It is taken as a given that rightwingers are cowards by the leftwing. Is that all that is holding them back?

What would happen if Kellar were shot? Or a prominent liberal blogger? The left would be outraged of course, but on the whole we would let the system deal with it. Once one winger steps over that line though I feel that he/she would be quickly followed by others. The first step is the hardest, and they only need one nutcase crazy enough to go from talk to action. Words are weapons, and the left has been thrashing the right soundly for years now. There are a lot of bruised egos out there on the right, and to be honest the level of emotional stability displayed on some rightwing blogs is frightening. Now it is pretty much a truism that the person who barks the loudest is usually the least inclined to act on their threats. Being unable to deal with the leftwing in debates, the wingnuts are often reduced to threats of violence. This has been going on for years, and nothing has happened. On the other hand "outing" bloggers is an extension of this and elevates the implied threat of violence. They seem to want to physically harm their opponents, and demonstrate that they are capable of tracking potential victims down. Often it is just hot air, but it only takes one to come up with a justification for more extreme measures.

So why am I worried about this now? Given the widely published nature of the NYT breach of national security, surely the wingnuts feel that they have the support of the majority of Americans. If someone were to take radical action to defend America against the treasonous NYT, would they not be regarded as a hero by the administration & the people? In the nutcase mind, maybe this hero would be given the kid-glove treatment because, afterall, they were acting in the public interest.

This all sounds crazy, but then so do the wingnuts. Is their cowardice the only thing that is preventing a liberal bloodbath? Given what they believe in, isn't it their duty to take action? Consider the Pro-Lifers who choose to murder doctors because it was their duty as they understood it. I think this is a real possibility.

This naturally leads into the next question - what would the leftwing do? I think it can be safely assumed that aside from taking extra safety precautions, not much. If the left were to respond tit for tat then this private little war would truly be on, and the rest of the population would get a crash course in the insanity lurking online. This I don't believe would happen though. Unfortunately it only takes one to beget another one, and so on.

The Kos/Townhouse "scandal"

It is safe to say that Markos of Daily Kos is one of the most influential liberal bloggers around. He has many defenders, detractors, admirers and haters as is to be expected of someone who is a very public face for liberal bloggers. For those who may know nothing or just a little of blogs, but have not truly entered any of the blog bubbles, Kos is likely the name they will recognize. Kos is powerful, and he knows it. He has done consulting work for Democrats, and he has created substantial infrastructure online to advance causes he values. He is doing what he thinks is right, and is making a living doing it. This is respectable, and there is nothing wrong with that. What irritates me though is his insistence that he is not seeking power, or that he is a humble man. He has a very large ego, and whether he is entitled to it or not is not my concern. When his ego starts to impact negatively on the liberal agenda then I think there is a problem. Markos asked that the liberal blog community not talk about a certain topic that reflects badly on one of his associates. He did not demand it, he asked it on a private mailing list. The request got leaked, and the rightwing immediately went on the offensive. The tempest created has occupied the blogsphere for the last while, pushing aside other issues. I'll state bluntly that Kos made a mistake by asking his fellow bloggers to remain silent. By doing so he has placed them in a position where they look bad no matter what they do. If they remained silent for any reason (didn't know about it, were not interested, didn't believe it, whatever) it leaves the blogger vulnerable to being smeared as marching to Kos's orders. Predictably what has followed has been a non-stop parade of liberal bloggers thumping their chest defiantly saying that Kos does not own them, etc, etc. It is a scandal of Kos's making, revolving around Kos, which has drawn in the majority of the liberal blogs. It is a colossal waste of time, and is the result of the hubris of one pre-eminent blogger. I didn't have a problem with Kos until his ego landed the lib blogsphere in a circle-jerk of loudly proclaimed independence. The very fact that the major blogs are all talking about it, denying that they are not bowing down to Kos feeds the story further. This did not need to happen, and it should not have happened.

UPDATE:
Again, Glenn Greenwald shows how a reasonable adult handles events.

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Lessons drawn from the Zengerle/TNR debacle

Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Does The New Republic have a new Stephen Glass in Jason Zengerle?

Where is the Blogsphere headed?
I've noticed a trend amongst left-wing blogs that is disturbing and disappointing. To be blunt, it seems that the blogsphere seems to be comprised of bubbles that are focusing increasingly inwards. The bubbles are growing quite quickly, and it is easy to claim legitimacy from that fact. As a loner liberal I tend to see things differently, and I just want to comment on what I perceive. I do this out of concern and a desire to see things improve. My desire would be to start a conversation on where the left wing is heading online. I'll state explicitly that I am only concerned about the leftwing as I firmly believe that the rightwing are morally bankrupt and beyond reason. I should point out though that the leftwing is in danger of becoming a mirror of the rightwing in terms of how they operate. I will try and articulate what I am finding in the left blogsphere. Before I do, I want to say that Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory is a stalwart exception - Glenn has a blog that is a model for inspiration for all.

The blog as a cult
It is almost inevitable that as any blog makes the transition from obscurity to success that there will be sycophants who live in the comments section (if comments are allowed). These individuals adore the host blogger, and comment lovingly on most of his/her posts. They police the comments religiously, attacking anyone who may question the host or one of the established loyalists. This is similar to any long running discussion group where you will always find a group of people perceived to be the "royalty" or leaders of the board. They set the tone of the discussion and take on the responsibility for ensuring that the discussion remains focused. This in itself can be very beneficial for a reasonable discussion, but without diligence it can become a country club setting where any voice not approved of by the elites are ignored. Often an opinion or argument on boards such as these are made or broken by a respected elite commenting on it. In other words, the situation can develop where comments are not judged by its intrinsic merits, but by the merits that are attributed to the comment by the host or a respected poster. This is natural, and since the blog belongs to the host it is perfectly fair. To be blunt, if a commenter/reader doesn't like what they find, they can go elsewhere. The free market of opinion as it were. My concern is - should we be vigilant against this? Once the blog is established, it can become hostile to contrary opinions and become stagnant. I enjoy Atrios, FDL & Digby a great deal, but really it seems stagnant. The comments are mostly comprised of adoring praise that was pretty the much the same from the last post. This is great for those who are part of the community, but may have a negative impact on those stepping into the blog world for the first time. FDL has been great with asking their lurkers to come forth, and they should be credited for that. On the other hand, the practice of starting almost every comment section with "Fitz" is very annoying to some, and confusing for others who are not in the "know". My personal opinion is that such behaviour detracts from serious discussion, and lowers the perceived quality of the blog. On the other hand the regulars love it and it doesn't really hurt anyone. In the end, I guess we go to where we are comfortable. For myself I often read the article, but skip the comments as a waste of time. I find that unfortunate.

The loss of focus
The old maxim "Power corrupts" can be aptly applied to liberal blogs. That may evoke some laughs from bloggers who would ask what power I am referring to. In this case it is not so much hard power as perceived power. For a successful blogger such as Markos or Duncan, they do have some amount of power to influence people. For all bloggers though the draw of the fans is surely attractive, if not intoxicating. To say that having dozens of people hanging on your every word is not thrilling or gratifying would be misleading at best. Multiply this effect based off the popularity of the blog and it would be hard not to let it affect the host. This is more for those blogs that allow comments of course, as the feedback is immediate and public. However even those blogs that do not allow comments can have their posts picked up by other blogs who do, and it is inevitable that positive feedback would make its way back to the blogger. This is natural and right. Great posts should be shared, commented on, and the poster should receive recognition and positive reinforcement. It serves as a mechanism for encouraging more good work. My concern is that eventually the focus can be lost, and that the blogger can come to believe what everyone is telling them. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that people do their best creative work when they are constantly questioning themselves. By questioning themselves they promote self-growth and an open mind. Look to the rightwing for the consequences of no self-reflection. I have the strong sense that an increasing number of liberal bloggers have developed a sense of infallibility that I find distasteful and arrogant. Arrogance is a tough issue for liberals as (to make an arrogant statement myself) we are usually on the side of facts and reason. Being right all the time can go to your head, especially when operating in an echo chamber. This can lead to bloggers developing a superiority complex. Again, the free market of opinion applies - if readers don't like it they can go elsewhere. What concerns me is the wasted potential - influential bloggers can lose sight of what is important and focus more on how wonderful they themselves are at the cost of damaging their cause. The readers who already dwell within the bubble may not have a problem with such behaviour (often they encourage it), but for those who are venturing into the bubble for the first time it may be repugnant. In a way it comes down to a choice between pandering to the bloggers own ego and his/her base, and addressing issues that appeal to a more diverse audience. As a blogger's community grows and other bloggers recognize them with greater respect it is very difficult to put that aside and remain focused. That focus is necessary lest the blogs become some sort of irrelevant political soap opera.

This is just the start of this topic - as I refine my thoughts I will likely post further on it.