State of the Political Blogosphere: A View from the Center

The political blogosphere continues to get a lot of traditional media attention and I believe is worth watching even for those who may not be inclined to join the political fray directly.  Along those lines, I am endeavoring to bring readers a range of perspectives on the state of the political blogosphere, and in order to offend fewer people (or everyone, depending on how you want to look at it), I decided to start with someone in the middle.

Marshall Wittmann takes fire from the right and left, as he is currently at the Democratic Leadership Council and previously worked for Senator John McCain.  So he is able to offer what I believe is a unique perspective on political blogging.  Marshall has been blogging as "The Bull Moose" off and on for five years now. 

Marshall sums up his overall view of blogs this way:

I think there's a dangerous tendency to place too much significance on blogging because, at the end of the day, bloggers are unedited folks who are merely speaking their minds, which is not insignificant, but there are reasons there are editors and much of the blogosphere is unsubstantiated and it doesn't have the rigors of journalism. So it certainly has its limitations, but I don't disparage it because it is an innovative way that millions of people can be part of the political debate that was not open to them but for a few years ago.

And Marshall pulls no punches when he says, "Kos is sort of the kingpin keyboarder and he has had a particularly pernicious effect on the Democratic Party, again, because he's driving it to the left."  He also says that much of the political center is absent from the blogosphere: " the readership is very highly ideological. That's true on the right and left."

As for what the future holds, Marshall believes that blogs will be around for a long time and will continue to have influence.  But he says, "I think there'll be a shakeout. There are so many blogs to pick and choose from, there will be certain ones that are thought to be more respectable and more authoritative and more reliable."

This is a 17 minute podcast interview.  It is available in MP3 format or as a transcript below.  The interview was conducted on July 31, 2006.  And in the interests of disclosure, Marshall was a colleague of mine more than a decade ago.  We may not agree on many issues, but I certainly respect his knowledge of many things, including the political blogosphere.

Listen to the MP3 here.

Transcript of Interview with Marshall Wittmann

Chip Griffin:  My guest today is Marshall Wittmann. He's with the Democratic Leadership Council. He has a blog called the "Bull Moose Blog" and he's been blogging for a number of years now. I'll let him talk a little bit more about that. He has a lot of good observations about the political blogosphere, or at least interesting ones. I'll let my listeners judge as to how good they are. Welcome, Marshall.

Marshall Wittmann:  Thanks a lot, Chip. It's great to be here.

Chip Griffin:  Marshall, you've been rather controversial in the blogs. It seems like you take incoming fire from the right and the left so I thought you'd be a great person to let us know what you think about the state of blogs, what their influence is, and what you think the future of political blogging is. So why don't we start with that?

Marshall Wittmann:  It's a lot to chew on, Chip. Let me give you a little bit of background about my blogging career. I think, actually, I was one of the first political bloggers. I began blogging back in 2001. It shows how short a phenomenon it's been, how recent a phenomenon it's been. Back in 2001 when I first began blogging, there were probably about a dozen serious political bloggers. People would blog maybe once or twice a day, and I blogged maybe three or four times a week. Now it's just an obsessive medium in which people constantly blog and there are millions of bloggers.

Marshall Wittmann:  I've seen the exponential growth of blogging. For two years I took a hiatus from blogging and then I returned in 2004, and I think right now, on the whole, blogging is, in part, a measure of the medium. It is a tool and sometimes I think far too much is read into blogging, but nonetheless it's a way that literally millions of people can express themselves in a way that wasn't available to them but a few years ago.

Marshall Wittmann:  But I think there's a dangerous tendency to place too much significance on blogging because, at the end of the day, bloggers are unedited folks who are merely speaking their minds, which is not insignificant, but there are reasons there are editors and much of the blogosphere is unsubstantiated and it doesn't have the rigors of journalism. So it certainly has its limitations, but I don't disparage it because it is an innovative way that millions of people can be part of the political debate that was not open to them but for a few years ago.

Chip Griffin:  Marshall, one of the things that's been hot in the blogs lately, I know that you've touched on this issue, is the race up in Connecticut with Senator Lieberman, and I know the leftist blogs have gotten very aggressive on this subject and you've attempted to defend them. Can you talk a little bit about that, and what you think the significance of the blogs are to that race and other races?

Marshall Wittmann:  It's important to look at this in a historical context. I can remember the McGovern campaign back in 1972, and at that time people thought that the great innovation in politics was direct mail, and that this would transform the Democratic Party and indeed American politics, and to a certain extent it did. I think in many ways the left‑wing blogosphere, at least, is very much a reflection of that McGovernite tendency that emerged in the Democratic party in the late 1960's that was generally highly educated, middle to upper middle class, very much motivated by their opposition to the war, and generally ideologically left‑wing.

Marshall Wittmann:  Now I think, in political terms, the problem for the Democratic Party for the last 40 years is that the party's been perceived as weak on national security, and I think, if anything, the left‑wing blogosphere, who in large part I refer to as "McGovernites with modems," have increased the tendency in the Democratic Party to move to the left, particularly on national security issues. As far as Connecticut is concerned, in large part the candidacy of Ned Lamont would not have existed if not for the efforts of the left‑wing bloggers in alliance with the left‑wing interest groups such as oveon.org and Howard Dean's old political action committee, that have essentially taken an unknown politician he wasn't a politician a businessman, and given him national significance, and an issue the war which has really generated this challenge to Senator Lieberman.

Marshall Wittmann:  At the end of the day, I think it's a very unhealthy phenomenon for the Democratic Party, just like the rise of McGovernism was unhealthy for the Democratic party because it moves it away from the political center and it particularly underscores the weakness in the Democratic Party on national security. I would point out that, almost 40 years ago, that McGovernism emerged out of opposition to an unpopular war, and the paradox of the moment is that even though the war was unpopular, the Democratic Party was perceived as weak on national security. My sense is that the blogosphere will push the Democratic Party to the left and particularly if Lamont is successful in this primary. I don't believe he will ultimately be successful in the general election, but if he's successful in that primary, the blogosphere will use that victory to drive the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 to the left, and this will be exploited by the Republican Party for years to come.

Marshall Wittmann:  Chip, I don't want to be a senator and wage a filibuster here, but let me just also add that one of the reasons that the blogosphere, I think, has emerged as so significant within the Democratic Party and less so in the Republican Party, is the absence of institutions within the Democratic Party. In other words, in some way the blogosphere is filling a vacuum. In the Republican Party, you have business interests, you have the religious conservatives, you have talk radio, that are institutions, whereas in the Democratic Party, particularly with the decline of the labor movement, the blogosphere has filled this vacuum. Consequently, you have a situation where the Democratic leader in the Senate goes to a blogosphere convention as he did in Las Vegas a few months ago. Democratic Party leaders regularly participate in the blogosphere, again, because it is one of the few major institutions in the party. It's great to have institutions, it's great to have energized voters. However, if the net effect is to move that party to the left, at the end of the day I think it has a very deleterious effect on the Democrats.

Chip Griffin:  Marshall, I think you touched on this a little bit, but I'd like you to expound upon it a little bit, and that's the influence that the DailyKos, in particular, has. Obviously he's had a convention out there in Vegas as you alluded to, and he's probably the most prominent liberal blogger out there. How much influence does he have in the real world and how much influence does he have among the liberal blogosphere?

Marshall Wittmann:  It's interesting that you say the real world. If you go into your neighborhood Denny's or Applebee's or if you're on a bus and ask people next to you "Have you ever heard of a blog?" chances are they've never heard of it. It's a very small phenomenon at the end of the day and I think it's important to keep that in mind, that most regular people do not read blogs, do not even know that they exist. But to get back to your question, I think that the whole, that Kos is sort of the kingpin keyboarder and he has had a particularly pernicious effect on the Democratic Party, again, because he's driving it to the left. As much as his protestations that he's non‑ideological, at the end of the day he's moving the Democratic Party on to the left on the key issue of the national security. That is where it becomes very dangerous, and when Democratic Party politicians pander to a blog like that, they're only sending a signal to the general electorate that the Democratic party is marginalizing themselves.

Marshall Wittmann:  Again, I think it's very, very important to underscore the point that blogs are a very narrow phenomenon, that people who read blogs particularly on the left and, probably for that matter, on the right as well, are highly ideological. And the problem for the Democratic Party in the last three or four decades is that they were perceived as a left‑wing party. The great success of the Democratic Party was Bill Clinton when he moved the party to the vital center and they were able to win the White House twice. My fear is that the combination of the Koses of the world and his colleagues will have the net effect of pushing the party to the left on the central issue of our time, national security.

Chip Griffin:  It sounds to me, Marshall, like you view a disconnect here, and I think I would agree with you that blogs are not widely read amongst the American people at this point. Certainly I understand that when I write my own blog I'm not writing for millions of folks. It seems to me what you're saying is, the blogs are listened to by perhaps the politicians, the professionals, and the talking heads. Is that a fair assessment?

Marshall Wittmann:  Yes. It has become a phenomenon among the chattering class. The irony is that the blogospheres suggested, particularly on the left, that they're very cutting edge and they're insurgent and they're non‑elitist. However, their audience are primarily the elite and the chattering class. Journalists read blogs and that's why they're significant. Politicians read blogs. However, again, if you did an examination, as few have done, of the blogosphere, the readership is very highly ideological. That's true on the right and left.

Marshall Wittmann:  I try to take more of a center ground position and that's why in the past the right has criticized me on issues such as campaign finance reform and my belief that we need to have a fair tax system, and the left now excoriates me on national security issues because I believe that we have to have a very strong position against radical jihadists. The problem with the blogosphere is that the center is generally not representative and the chattering classes pay far too much attention to them.

Chip Griffin:  As someone who has been attacked by both the left and right, as you point out, what differences do you see between the left and the right in the blogs?

Marshall Wittmann:  The left, I sort of described. The right plays a different role, I think, in the Republican Party and within conservatism, in part, because conservatism has other outlets. It has talk radio, it has certain TV outlets, it controls Congress, it has the White House, and the major think tanks. The blogosphere primarily, a lot of the right‑wing blogosphere I note, criticizes, for instance, the media, the major networks, the major newspapers. A lot of their focus is on the media, whereas the left‑wing blogosphere is attacking other Democrats. They're trying to create a party line.

Marshall Wittmann:  I find that the conservative blogosphere is far more heterodox in their thinking. Maybe they're much more self confident in the fact that they have power, whereas the left‑wing blogosphere is far more homogeneous in their thinking, and they try to apply a party line. I find myself, these days, betwixt and between. Obviously, I agree with a lot of conservatives on national security. I disagree with them on certain economic policies. However, having that position wins you no plaudits from the left because, as I've said before and repeated, the real central issue for the left‑wing blogosphere is national security and the war in Iraq. They care for very little other issues. They somewhat on trade, but not that much. They were involved in the Social Security fight, but really the animating issue is national security and the Iraq war, and if you differ with them on that they will heap all their indignation and opprobrium on you for it.

Marshall Wittmann:  Like I said before, years ago when I first started blogging, I would regularly be criticized by the right for my positions on campaign finance reform. It wasn't quite as nasty, I have to say, as the left‑wing. I think that there is far more ideological heterodoxy on the right than on the left today. I think probably, if the blogosphere had been around in the '90s, you probably would have seen a lot of the indignation and more of the hate on the right. But today, it comes primarily from the left.

Chip Griffin:  Now, Marshall, I'm going to ask you to take out your crystal ball. You've been at political blogging now for five years, which I think we'd all agree is quite a long time for any blogger but particularly in the political universe. Where do you see political blogs going in the future? Is there going to be more and more of them, is there going to be a shakeout and a concentration in a smaller number, much as there has been in the media? What do you see happening?

Marshall Wittmann:  Probably the latter. I think there'll be a shakeout. There are so many blogs to pick and choose from, there will be certain ones that are thought to be more respectable and more authoritative and more reliable, and there will be other blogs because now you have MySpace as well, which provides an opportunity for more people to talk about themselves. It'll be around for a long time. I think what's going to happen is that the mainstream media, as it's derisively referred to, will exhaust itself with the blogs. At some point there'll be a rethinking of them in serious journalism about depending too much on the blogosphere. But I think it'll certainly have an impact on the 2008 Presidential race. I would suspect, after the 2008 race, that the blogosphere will have less prominence. I mean, the irony is that the blogosphere, in many ways, relies upon the mainstream media for its significance. And once the mainstream media decides that it's not that significant, I think its significance will diminish.

Chip Griffin:  You touched on the '08 race and I guess I'll make that my sort of closing question. Peer into your crystal ball and tell me, for both parties, what the impact of blogs will be in '08.

Marshall Wittmann:  I'm fearful that the left‑wing blogs will move the Democratic presidential race to the left, particularly on national security. It could have that impact. Not entirely so, obviously it depends on events in the world, but it could have that effect. Less so on the Republican side. I just don't think, I think the bloggers will be somewhat significant in the Presidential race but not as significant as on the Democratic side, again, because there are other institutions within the Republican Party that will have far more of a bearing on the Republican race than in the Democratic Party.

Chip Griffin:  Marshall, I thank you for your time. Our guest today has been Marshall Wittmann, the Bull Moose, a blogger from the Democratic Leadership Council. Thanks for your time.

Marshall Wittmann:  My pleasure, Chip.

Comments

[M.A.]

Mr. Wittmann keeps talking about opposition to the Iraq war, and wanting a pull-out, as "pulling the party to the left." In fact, majorities of Americans oppose the Iraq war and want some kind of pull-out to start within the next year.

So on what possible basis is this a "left-wing" position? What we seen in Connecticut is that Joe Lieberman's extremist views on Iraq (it was a great idea and we should stay forever) are being challenged by Ned Lamont's sensible centrist views (it was a mistake and we shouldn't stay forever). If that's an example of what the netroots are doing, then the netroots are clearly pulling the Democratic party to the center, not to the left -- while Mr. Wittmann, by propounding the myth that "strength on national security" means supporting unnecessary wars, is trying to pull the party in the direction of extremism and away from the sensible center represented by the netroots.

[Knemon]

M.A., the calculus is similar to this, from earlier in the interview:

"McGovernism . . . the paradox of the moment is that even though the war was unpopular, the Democratic Party was perceived as weak on national security."

That's the danger.

I'm reminded of what Jimmy Carter said at the 2004 convention: "We have nothing to fear except George Bush." That's clearly false, and with that as the message of the party, it will never develop a serious foreign policy.

[M.A.]

Fine, Knemon, but the first step toward a serious foreign policy is to reject Bush's unserious foreign policy. That means rejecting the deeply unserious ideas that created the Iraq debacle. Lieberman is the only prominent Democrat who celebrates the whole "Bush Doctrine"; and by going around saying that the Democrats will never be serious on national security unless they support unnecessary wars, he makes it impossible for the Democrats to pull the national-security debate to the center where it belongs.

Also, I think people like Wittmann are too freaked out by memories of 1968 and 1972. In 1968 there was an active extreme left that rejected the Democratic party and caused riots. Today there are no riots and most of the so-called "lefties" are partisan Democrats. In 1972 McGovern lost because Nixon was a very popular President (sad to say). The idea that Scoop Jackson, with his pernicious and unserious foreign-policy positions (Nixon has a much less crazy position on the Soviet Union than Scoop did), could have beaten Nixon is a mirage.

[brian]

Blogs.....indeed an amazing channel of communication...unedited and unadulterated (in most cases).

Imagine the voices that are heard because of this simple invention.

Imagine the policies which will develop merely because of the few who do read and post in blogs and can bring new, strange, refreshing ideas to the politcal arena.

I don't want to get into the specifics or my opinions on what was stated here, but UI do beleive as a younger man (29) that in the coming years.....the "blog" will strengthen our nation in numerious ways and especially politically as a way for all voices to be heard and for all ideas to be brought to the table.

I am willing to bet many, many, many more people have internet connections at their home then whom vote (although I could be wrong....and if so, I am willing to bet in the coming years more people will have it then whom actually vote).

Blogging as a way to experience politics at the grassroots level is something that will attract the eyes and ears of amny internet users as "blogging" grows...espeically in our youth which have traditionally for my generation....not participated in politics as they should be.

I will say a small snippet about foreign policy....imagine the day we can use blogs to communicate our foreign policy better? Maybe the answer to our current trouble with the USA view in the world can be solved...and will be solved with the help of blogs....

Food for thought...and great thread guys....passed on to many of my friends.