« Cure Worse Than Disease | Main | The Conehead Economy »
July 28, 2006
Quote of the Day: Lee Siegel Edition
Lee Siegel -- yes, that Lee Siegel, the one who calls folks fascists -- writes:
But it's not exactly effectual to be sustained by what you hate. Politics is about persuading your adversary's supporters to come to your side. It's not about reassuring everyone on your side--under the guise of "thinking strategically"--that you and they are absolutely right.
Ah, the great persuader Lee Siegel -- how many converts has he won? How many bloggers has he turned? None? I guess we can call that graf Blog-O-Irony.
Siegel goes onto lament that no one engaged his series of serious and perceptive points -- he desperately wanted a good conversation, but the mean ol' bloggers wouldn't give it to him. So he repaired to the pages of TNR where none could answer him. Savvy stuff -- that's why Siegel gets the big bucks. Or maybe its finely crafted arguments like this one:
No wonder, several years after the blogosphere allegedly became a people powerhouse, the country is mired even deeper in Iraq and successfully distracted by one false public alarm after another.
Sorry, but that's so downright insane that, for the first time in the history of this blog, I have to quote it again. Remember, this is Lee Seigel, an employee of The New Republic, blaming bloggers for the continuation of the Iraq War:
No wonder, several years after the blogosphere allegedly became a people powerhouse, the country is mired even deeper in Iraq and successfully distracted by one false public alarm after another.
Color me Blog-o-stonished.
July 28, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/5536137
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quote of the Day: Lee Siegel Edition:
Comments
hey, he convinced me to hate eyes wide shut even more than i was willing to.
Posted by: norbizness | Jul 28, 2006 12:02:06 PM
Did you know that the civil rights movement was responsible for perpetuating segregation? Or that gay activists are responsible for institutionalized homophobia? Or that the Sierra Club is responsible for the loss of wetlands and old-growth forest?
On Planet Siegel, they are.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Jul 28, 2006 12:03:35 PM
what a jackass.
Posted by: Kathleen | Jul 28, 2006 12:13:18 PM
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, AD HOMINEM, AD RIDICULUM
Posted by: Mimir | Jul 28, 2006 12:13:45 PM
Can someone give me some estimate of how much evidence has to pile up before we're all willing to acknowledge that TNR is intellectually bankrupt? I mean, it's sad and all--proud history, yada yada--but, hey, reality-based community and all that.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jul 28, 2006 12:17:03 PM
Hey presto, right on cue is yet another TNR wizard scribbling for the Washington Post. I didn't bother to read it; the summary on the site's main page probably says it all: "Peter Beinart -- Democrats have finally defined their approach to post-9/11 foreign policy. It's called pandering."
I think Pete and Lee really need to sign up for the infantry. It'll give 'em great material for that Hemingwayesque novel that I'll bet they're just itching to write.
Posted by: sglover | Jul 28, 2006 1:11:00 PM
Ezra, are you ready yet to give up on TNR, even though you believe that they have writers with talent?
A spade is a spade. TNR is not sustantatively different than Faux News in terms of the self-delusion they exhibit and the real harm they perform on the progressive/liberal cause.
The liberal/progessive world has finally largely given up reading and writing about the attrocities to truth committed by Fox. It is time to ignore TNR, and maybe to actively work against them in as many ways as we can. A start would be to stop linking to them and critiquing their work. That work is now beyond critique.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 28, 2006 1:24:50 PM
Nope ;-). A bad Lee Siegel diarist doesn't make me want to ignore a trenchant Spencer Ackerman article...
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 28, 2006 1:33:32 PM
It's official- Lee Seigel is the new Andy Rooney.
Posted by: Dan Coyle | Jul 28, 2006 2:27:14 PM
Welcome to the TNR hating club.
They're owned by a bunch of rich conservative guys and that nutty intellectual buffoon. And now surprise, they've hired yet another moronic white white writer. Sully, Kelly, Shalit, Krauthammer, etc.
Remember Stephen Glass was the originator of that whole "water buffalo" BS at U of Penn - when he was accused of racist taunts? Well that was Glass - BEFORE he was hired by TNR.
They sound like neo-cons shills - because they are.
Posted by: Samuel Knight | Jul 28, 2006 2:43:03 PM
Somewhere, Douglas Feith is heaving a huge sigh of relief.
Posted by: Toast | Jul 28, 2006 3:04:55 PM
Well, couldn't it be possible that he's talking about Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, Belmont Club, Hewitt and all the rest of the blog-fearmongers?
Not precisely expressed, but don't take it personally.
Posted by: observer 5 | Jul 28, 2006 4:47:53 PM
Well, couldn't it be possible that he's talking about Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, Belmont Club, Hewitt and all the rest of the blog-fearmongers?
No.
Since he rather famously picked a fight with Kos and wrote that Lamont supporters were engaging in blogofascism, I really can't conceive that he -- the stupidest fucking writer on the planet -- is now concerned with the trogs on the right side of Blogostan.
Posted by: Jay B. | Jul 28, 2006 5:05:32 PM
The New Republic is the "liberal" edition of The Weekly Standard.
Posted by: Gary Reilly | Jul 28, 2006 5:06:44 PM
Ezra--this is certainly a most unserious post. I would bet Lee's paycheck that you were wearing a baseball cap while you wrote it.
Posted by: dr. bloor | Jul 28, 2006 5:11:01 PM
I've been saying the same exact thing. I'm glad someone---a Jewish writer at that---agrees with me: if it wasn't for the American left bloggers, we would have found the WMDs by now.
It's true.
-
Posted by: Ahmad Chalabi | Jul 28, 2006 5:11:07 PM
I've never read anything by this Lee Siegel. I'm always looking for good foreign policy analysis to read in a comfy chair by the fire.
Posted by: The Lucky Sea Men | Jul 28, 2006 5:16:00 PM
That's not what he's saying. He's saying if bloggers were so powerful, why haven't they stopped the war.
your next door neighbor
Posted by: Rob W | Jul 28, 2006 5:17:10 PM
"Politics is about persuading your adversary's supporters to come to your side."
I don't really give a shit about persuading confederate flag toting redknecks, arryans, and sadistic conservatives who relish a good wife beating to come to my side.
"It's not about reassuring everyone on your side--under the guise of "thinking strategically"--that you and they are absolutely right."
Then he should be concentrating his efforts on Malkin's blog, Freeperland, Little pussy footballs, and Mishelle the mad poodle's site. Those places give off a better echo than the Grand Canyon.
MYOB'
.
Posted by: MYOB | Jul 28, 2006 5:21:06 PM
Have we considered the possibility that "Lee Siegel" is a comedic device, like Andy Kauffman's alter ego?
Posted by: Chris R | Jul 28, 2006 5:25:21 PM
Well, couldn't it be possible that he's talking about Instapundit, Little Green Footballs, Belmont Club, Hewitt and all the rest of the blog-fearmongers?
This wouldn't make any more sense. Again, Siegel writes for The New Republic, a magazine that, despite its current irrelevancy, was at least as responsible for influencing the debate over the war in Iraq as any journalistic entity in America. For a writer from that particular publication to discuss anyone's, and I mean anyone's, responsibility for the Iraq debacle in snide terms beggars belief.
Posted by: brent | Jul 28, 2006 5:25:21 PM
Well, if their comments worked, I would ask what's so much more elevated, courteous and civil about what the Plank writes...particularly in comparison to folks like Josh Marshall and many of the top bloggers. Sure, you can find unknown bloggers and commenters trying to get noticed by being extremely vicious and rude, but among those that have real credibility, none of them come within miles of the invective of the right.
AFter all, calling someone an incompetent is not the same as calling them a traitor.
Posted by: Kija | Jul 28, 2006 5:25:27 PM
Call it Blog-O-Loney!
Posted by: Mombear | Jul 28, 2006 5:37:02 PM
To be fair, that quote of Siegel's would benefit from context.
He is saying that for all the (obviously justifiable) Left Blogostanic anger about Iraq has done absolutely nothing to influence U. S. policy on the war. Not thru elections, not thru influencing Congressional votes, or anything.
That would appear to be an observational true statement. Subtract the blogospheric contribution from the last five years, and you still get the same hopeless Iraq war.
It is fair to mock the 101th commandos as chickenhawks for beating their chests and pinning medels on themselves for equating their online boviating to frontline service. However, isnt it fair to say that the political left's online impact on the course of the war has been just as trival?
Posted by: smudog | Jul 28, 2006 5:42:03 PM
What a tool. The lefty bloggers, who were right about the war, who foresaw all that has come to pass, are somehow responsible for the ongoing Iraq mess -- the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history -- while the ideologues and fools at TNR, who pimped this war ad infinitum, are not.
What a fucking idiot. It's gonna hurt like hell, Lee, when you and reality finally collide.
Posted by: The Fool | Jul 28, 2006 5:47:09 PM
Subtract the blogospheric contribution from the last five years, and you still get the same hopeless Iraq war.
Technically, you could say the same thing about The New Republic. Yeah they supported the war, but I think it would have happened with them or no.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 28, 2006 5:48:09 PM
that has to be the coolest thing i've ever read. i needed a good pick-me-up this morning. :)
Posted by: Peter | Jul 28, 2006 5:52:23 PM
Did everyone Beinart's little stab in the back to his "fellow" liberals in today's WaPo?
Posted by: TomT | Jul 28, 2006 6:02:37 PM
TNR is the voice of the Israel Lobby speaking to Democrats. See the discussion of the interlocking boards and owners in section 5 of this NY Review article:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19062
Posted by: Laney | Jul 28, 2006 6:04:19 PM
I second (or third) the opinion that you've got it wrong. It seems pretty clear that he's not blaming the bloggers for the continuation of the war, but pointing to their ineffectiveness. 'Get a bunch of people to moan to like-minded friends about a problem,' he's saying, 'and the problem doesn't get fixed. The blogosphere gnashes its collective teeth about the Iraq war, and yet the country is mired even deeper in that war.'
Posted by: SkippyFlipjack | Jul 28, 2006 6:20:06 PM
After reading his piece, I agree with my previous opinion :)
There's nothing there to indicate that he blames bloggers for furthering the war, only that they've been ineffective at stopping it. for example, the above quote is preceded by: "You have the impression of bloggers who are so pacified by shouting their rage--and so appeased by smugly shared sentiments--that they turn off their computers at night and go to sleep feeling empowered and relaxed." it's all about ineffectiveness.
Posted by: SkippyFlipjack | Jul 28, 2006 6:30:02 PM
Krautheimer and this guy too? "Remember Stephen Glass was the originator of that whole "water buffalo" BS at U of Penn - when he was accused of racist taunts? Well that was Glass - BEFORE he was hired by TNR."
If this crew is "liberal," then who in the world is conservative? Just Stormfront by itself?
Posted by: Joyful Alternative | Jul 28, 2006 6:33:05 PM
Ignore the trolls, even when Marty Peretz is signing their checks.
Posted by: ahem | Jul 28, 2006 7:05:04 PM
Joe Lieberman supports TNR!
Posted by: Joeseppi | Jul 28, 2006 7:05:08 PM
Ezra says Siegel is blaming bloggers for the continuation of the war. Skippy says Siegel is blaming bloggers 'for being ineffective at stopping it.' Ezra and Skippy both think Siegel is blaming bloggers.
I think Seigel is implying the netroots are partially responsible for the Iraq quagmire because they have distracted the populace with the Loserman/Lamont race.
Posted by: Kinsley's dead | Jul 28, 2006 7:38:46 PM
There's nothing there to indicate that he blames bloggers for furthering the war, only that they've been ineffective at stopping it.
This does not contradict what Ezra wrote and I think it misses the point... which I will now repeat. Siegel writes for The New Republic, a magazine that has been warmongering for this particular conflict since before its inception. For someone from that particular magazine to blithely crtitique the ineffectiveness of anti-war anybody ought to be downright astonishing. It would be like Rice or Powell doing a speech on how the war would be over if only their critics were more effective at selling the anti-war message. This may even be true in the crudest and most simplistic possible sense but for those individuals to make that particular argument would be obscene.
It boils down to the essential argument that it is, as always, all our (the anti-war blogosphere's) fault because we neglected to use our vast, nearly limitless influence to completely change the political debate. If only we didn't use so much sarcasm and so many bad words then the NYT and the New Republic and all those "news" outlets would have been totally interested in hearing us out. They are, after all, deeply interested in raising the level of debate as evidenced by the fact that they constantly air shows where Democrats and Republicans get a chance to scream talking points at each other for ten minutes at a time.
If only we could have been more "effective" at countering the multi-billion dollar news media industry with our free blog software, we could have stopped them all before they killed again.
Posted by: brent | Jul 28, 2006 7:39:07 PM
There's nothing there to indicate that he blames bloggers for furthering the war, only that they've been ineffective at stopping it.
Then he's a very sloppy and imprecise writer, if not a dumbass smear-merchant (or maybe both). Here are his words:
"No wonder, several years after the blogosphere allegedly became a people powerhouse, the country is mired even deeper in Iraq and successfully distracted by one false public alarm after another."
'No wonder' implies causality - condition A is the cause of condition B. Not 'in spite of'. Coming from a pro-Iraq-war magazine that fancies itself influential, it is strange in the least to blame anti-war blogs for not being influential enough.
Posted by: tech98 | Jul 28, 2006 8:32:46 PM
I confess. I kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and was responsible for Three Mile Island meltdown.
Posted by: Comandante Agi | Jul 28, 2006 8:42:51 PM
Remember Stephen Glass was the originator of that whole "water buffalo" BS at U of Penn - when he was accused of racist taunts? Well that was Glass - BEFORE he was hired by TNR.
No, it wasn't. The student who made the "water buffalo" crack was named Eden Jacobowitz.
Posted by: D.F. Manno | Jul 28, 2006 9:26:00 PM
How sad is it that you all, including Kos who linked to this post, proved Lee Siegal's very point: the inhabitants of the liberal blogosphere are mindless and infantile. Reading Siegal's quotation in context clearly demonstrates that he was questioning the liberal blogosphere's political effectiveness, not blaming liberal bloggers for America's continuation of the Iraq war. The idea that someone would blame liberal bloggers for the war is so absolutely ridiculous, so mind-boggling stupid, that I can't believe you people (with the exception of three posters) simply accepted it as fact. And in doing so you responded exactly as Siegal predicted. Instead of thinking for yourselves, instead of responding to his article with original thoughts, you all--Ezra and Kos included--focused on an inconsequential section of Siegal's argument, responded with silly and crude invective, and, above all else, were as wrong about his point as Bush was about Iraq.
Posted by: J | Jul 28, 2006 10:30:04 PM
Siegal's quotation in context clearly demonstrates that he was questioning the liberal blogosphere's political effectiveness, not blaming liberal bloggers for America's continuation of the Iraq war.... Instead of thinking for yourselves, instead of responding to his article with original thoughts, you all--Ezra and Kos included--focused on an inconsequential section of Siegal's argument, responded with silly and crude invective, and, above all else, were as wrong about his point as Bush was about Iraq.
On the contrary, I would say that you, J, are misreading Ezra's argument. I cannot read the New Republic article because it is behind a subscription wall but the way you describe Siegel's fully contextualized argument doesn't seem to substantively contradict the idea the blogosphere, and particularly the caustic nature of it, is at least partially to blame for the fact that the war has continued. The blogosphere, becuase of its rudeness and invective, has failed in its effort to change the political climate to one that would end the war and so, they hold part of the blame for its continuation. Talking about a lack of "political effectiveness" in this context seems quite clearly a way of assigning responsibility. Do you really mean to say that you disagree with that?
More importantly however, you are not grasping the basic irony that Ezra is trying to point out here. I won't bother to repeat myself a third time and explain the point which you and others seem bound and determined to miss.
Posted by: brent | Jul 28, 2006 11:15:19 PM
reading siegal's quotation in context clearly demonstrates that he was questioning the liberal blogosphere's political effectiveness
this directly contradicts another popular hardly-ever-right wing meme, "those mean bloggers are the reason joe lieberman is fighting for his political life."
either we are totatlly ineffective or we are the sole reason a 3 term senator is working towards running as an independent because he's dead even in the polls with an unheard of non-political citizen.
pick one or the other, and stick with it.
by the way, i am skippy!
Posted by: skippy | Jul 28, 2006 11:16:45 PM
Only someone with a vested interest in defending Siegal would claim that Ezra took his quote out of context.
There are a few people who indulge in blog triumphalism. Almost without exception, they are members of the right-wing blogging community. They are also the ones who work the hardest at replacing the "MSM" as the source for their readers' information.
The liberal blogosphere really doesn't do this. The liberal blogosphere has not made claims about being able to directly influence US policy, from our presence in Iraq to the debate over Social Security.
What liberal blogs do attempt, and do claim to achieve at times is to influence individuals to take action, to organize American citizens in ways that didn't happen just a few short years ago. Some of them do claim to hold the media accountable, to serve as conduits for financial support, letter-writing campaigns, phone banking, canvassing, etc. The hope is that by helping more people to engage in these types of activities, there will be an effect upon the political makeup of this country and as a result of that, the actual policies of the US government.
Really, Siegal's sins are far worse than what Ezra has mentioned. In the service of stroking his own ego and assuring himself of his exalted place in this world, he intentionally misses the potential, indeed the whole point of political blogs at all. He buys into the right-wing idea of what blogs can do - no stretch for a writer at TNR - and then condemns the leftwing blogs for not accomplishing something they have never attempted, and in fact have often mocked.
Mr. Siegal, in my very mindless and infantile opinion, decided to have some fun at the expense of the the liberal blogs that have sucked up so much attention rightfully devoted to him and his peers. Believing them to be populated by the technical definition of morons, he penned his article, confident that they would be dearly wounded by his piercing, thesaurus-exhausting insults.
When the reaction was instead derision, mockery and the online version of his victims laughing in his face, his feelings got hurt. This latest effort is nothing more than another trip through the thesaurus, looking in vain for the right combination of insults, large words and intricately arranged prose that will finally silence his critics and prove his intellectual and moral superiority.
Those who have called for the liberal blogosphere to truly ignore TNR and prove its irrelevance are correct to do so (except Ezra, of course). Anyone care to take bets on how much longer Siegal's obession lasts than our interest?
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 29, 2006 12:09:07 AM
Well, whoever is at fault, I would posit that any amount of blogging would do half as much good towards ending the war in Iraq as a few million people camped in front of the White House...now there's some political pressure that can't be ignored by the media.
Posted by: Steve Mudge | Jul 29, 2006 12:19:24 AM
On the contrary, I would say that you, J, are misreading Ezra's argument. I cannot read the New Republic article because it is behind a subscription wall but...
and you Brent are misreading the New Republic subscription wall -- it's a free signup, not paid. (or try bugmenot.com if you don't have the time to wait for the confirmation email.) :)
Posted by: SkippyFlipjack | Jul 29, 2006 1:34:08 AM
and you Brent are misreading the New Republic subscription wall -- it's a free signup
Good point. So now I have read it and, in context, Ezra's criticism still seems pretty fair to me. I certainly think its a hell of a lot fairer than this from J:
Ezra and Kos included--focused on an inconsequential section of Siegal's argument, responded with silly and crude invective, and, above all else, were as wrong about his point as Bush was about Iraq.
Posted by: brent | Jul 29, 2006 9:00:20 AM
Only someone with a vested interest in defending Siegal would claim that Ezra took his quote out of context.
um, no. People interested in people getting things right would also do that.
I dislike TNR and think they are idiots. I dislike Lieberman and want Lamont to win. But that doesn't mean that I won't point out a mistake I see.
How could I have a "vested interest" in defending Siegal? A vested interest is some sort of personal gain, (usually financial), which causes one to advocate for something.
the inhabitants of the liberal blogosphere are mindless and infantile.
J, people just misread things sometime. Guess what? Some of the liberal blogosphere is mindless and infantile. A far higher percentage of the right wing blogosphere is mindless and infantile, including some of its top bloggers. However, Kos and Ezra are not mindless and infantile. Ezra's a nice, smart guy from L.A. Really. Please confine your argument to actual points and not name-calling.
Posted by: Rob W | Jul 29, 2006 9:06:49 AM
When alleged journalists write crap like this, is it any surprise that people turn to blogs for information?
Posted by: Dick Tuck | Jul 29, 2006 10:10:25 AM
There's nothing there to indicate that he blames bloggers for furthering the war, only that they've been ineffective at stopping it.
When you put it like that, the asininity of the statement becomes even more profound, even in terms of political effectiveness mentioned by "J." Bloggers have been key to countering the spin of the maladministration and its fans in the media, and have debunked one rah-rah talking point after another. Bloggers have been the counterweight to all the "freedom on the march" jingoism for the last three years. Of course they haven't stopped it. But they've made the illusion of competence and popularity much harder for the GOP to maintain. Hell, if it wasn't for bloggers, Jeff Gannon would still be attending White House press conferences.
Posted by: Obnox | Jul 29, 2006 11:29:12 AM
I am a nice, smart guy from Orange County, but I'm not misreading Lee. Siegel is saying that the blogosphere's emphasis on cathartic politics have degraged their effectiveness as an opposition movement and thus contributed to the continuation of the Iraq War. There's no other plausible read of that line. For Siegel, a New Republic writer, to blame a lack of effectiveness in the anti-war, TNR-reviled blogosphere for the perpetuation of this conflict is straight insane.
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 29, 2006 2:24:51 PM
"No wonder, several years after the blogosphere allegedly became a people powerhouse, the country is mired even deeper in Iraq."
So he finally figured it out. Well, you're too late Mr. Powers, um, I mean Mr. Seigel. You see, as an evil criminal mastermind, I KNEW if I kept blogging about what an insane mistake the Cheney administration had made invading Iraq, it would poison political discourse, cripple the all-powerful anti-war movement, and keep America in Iraq even LONGER -- until finally the whole project came crashing to the ground, taking the free world with it.
And it worked! Bwah ha ha ha!
Now will someone please feed Mr. Seigel to the sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads.
Posted by: Dr. Evil | Jul 29, 2006 11:21:30 PM
Does Lee Siegel's column come in two-ply?
Posted by: Heywood J. | Jul 30, 2006 2:10:23 PM
Great minds think alike.
Lee Siegel of The New Republic Tries to Excuse His Fascism
Bonus: a view into the "tomb" known as Suite 700.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Jul 31, 2006 12:41:04 PM
Siegel has got one good point though. The politics of hate really is ineffectual. Which is why the Republicans are running this election on gay marriage, immigration, abortion and terrorism — things that really unite the country and make people feel optimistic about their shared future.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Jul 31, 2006 2:37:28 PM
Hello, nice site look this:
60 Minute Man
4Lyn
3rd Force
Posted by: mp3 | Jul 30, 2007 6:35:07 AM
