Much Easier to be a Blogger in Opposition
One of the things I’ve discovered contrasting the past seven months to my first four years blogging is that it’s much easier to blog in opposition to the party in power than in support of the incumbent Administration (especially when you’re a small government-type defending a President named Bush).
Simply put, political leaders don’t live up to expectations.
Many on the left, particularly among the “netroots,” have found it hard to make the adjustment. Having found a voice in this relatively new medium as the opposition, lacking any experience blogging during the Administration of a politician they helped elect. Perhaps, that helps explain why they remain nasty even as their party controls all the levers of political power in our nation’s capital. They’re used to attacking their adversaries and unaccustomed to having to defend the proposals of their political allies.
When the next Republican President takes power, we conservatives (and libertarians) of the blogosphere will have had experience on both sides, in opposition and support, of the party in power. For now, our job is a little easier given that the job of the opposition to oppose. And it is often easier, in this imperfect world, to criticize then defend.
Yet, if we on the right wish to distinguish ourselves from our political adversaries on the left, we must propose real reform and dare defend such ideas in public forums. I credit such commentators as Charles Krauthammer and John Mackey as well as Georgia Congressman Tom Price as well as his Wisconsin colleague Paul Ryan and Senator Tom Coburn for proposing alternative health care reforms to those the Democrats have put forward.
So, let’s learn from our adversaries–mingling our criticisms of their proposals with advocacy for conservative reforms.
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
To me and in some ways, Obama has been a relief. Bush got foreign policy mostly right, but domestically, the policies Bush was successful in enacting were mostly the future-destroying, Big Government, “National Socialist” policies favored characteristically by Democrats. Domestically, Bush was Obama, only 1/3 to 1/4 as intense. For example, Obama has tripled Bush’s bailouts, and quadrupled Bush’s deficits. Those actions are a disaster, to be sure. But I say, let’s get the disaster over with, and let’s have the responsibility for it fall on the party that is philosophically America’s “National Socialist” party – i.e., the Democrats. That way, at least we have some tiny prayer of a small-government, libertarian-conservative alternative forming and restoring America in our lifetimes.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 25, 2009 @ 5:58 pm - August 25, 2009
Oh, my, I’ve found just the opposite. I found Bush’s presidency, with few exceptions, very easy to support and defend. Even when I disagreed with him, his policies were at least honorable and honest.
Obama is not. He is deeply dishonest and dishonorable. He is a lying deceitful fascist Chicago thug who is destroying the country and violating the constitution far faster than I can write about it all. He has implemented a stampede-type strategy where he aims to ram through as much of his fascist agenda as possible, as quickly as possible, simply by overwhelming the country with its volume.
Not only does that make blogging about all of Obama’s bad policies, decisions, appointments, behaviors and lies impossible, but when almost everything he is doing is dishonest, corrupt and bad for the country, its very difficult to write about his administration without sounding like a reactionary hack. I prefer to cite evidence when I am making accusations, and trying to do that while keeping up with the breakneck speed of the Obama administrations lies, corruption, bad policy and constitution trampling is a task that requires a White House sized budget and staff!
Comment by American Elephant — August 25, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - August 25, 2009
I’ll tell you one damn thing, I miss having adults in the WH.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 25, 2009 @ 7:23 pm - August 25, 2009
I would only amend that with my personal experience of blogging for seven years and two months (which includes previous incarnations of my current blogs) is that it is simply much easier to blog in opposition … to anything. Humans seem to find it real easy to complain and our culture rewards the snark monsters.
Most of the time it is lazy blogging to only blog in opposition to whatever you oppose. It takes more work to defend your position because to do so effectively you have to actually listen to your opponents, respond in kind and compel the discussion toward your desired outcome.
I don’t think the Left will listen to anything. Many, but less, on the Right refuse to listen too.
Bitching is just bitching … and while I know everyone else here can’t relate … its very easy for me to fall into bitchy mode.
And yes, I as a socially conservative Christian just admitted a character defect of tending to be bitchy.
I like this blog because while I don’t agree with everything you want to achieve I appreciate that you don’t just go the easy route and simply whine about everything through clever quips.
Comment by Randy — August 25, 2009 @ 8:43 pm - August 25, 2009
OH…and I need to edit my comment. We usually don’t want to “respond in kind” to our opponents
. We want to respond in a way that directly relates to what they say in a relevant manner.
Comment by Randy — August 25, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - August 25, 2009
My support of Hillary did not come from a rosy-tinged view of her as a messiah. I believe she is a cold, calculating politician. I rather like that. I wanted someone intelligent, competent, and aggressive in the White House. But I don’t think she is The Second Coming. I think she would be a good President. She’d be able to figure out the best thing to do in important situations. She’d hire good people. And she wouldn’t buy clothes from Target.
Comment by Ashpenaz — August 25, 2009 @ 10:59 pm - August 25, 2009
Slight emphasis added. Germans used to say the equivalent about another leftist Big Government politician of ambition and questionable honesty, Adolf Hitler.
One would suspect that Christ hopes you don’t think that.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 26, 2009 @ 4:35 am - August 26, 2009
P.S. To clarify my stand: I don’t want a cold, calculating politician. I want a *good leader*, that is, a good human being who stands (for real) on *good principles*.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 26, 2009 @ 5:10 am - August 26, 2009
It’s also easy to in opposition to a president and a party who are hell-bent on bankrupting the country. The Obamacrats increased the estimate of their unsustainable deficits from $7 Trillion to $9 Trillion this week. (The Government is borrowing $5 Billion a day, BTW). But even the latest revision is a low-ball estimate. The WSJ thinks the real ten year deficit is made like $10.3 Billion. Even that may be low, The Concord Coalition estimates the real deficit could be as high as $14.4 Trillion.
Comment by V the K — August 26, 2009 @ 12:05 pm - August 26, 2009
That’s a rather poor comparison of Hitler. He was hot headed to the highest degree, very impulsive, and less intelligent (and competant) than Clinton at articulating policies, or forming them. Germans said that he was a man of the future, that he represented a disconnect from the corrupt and inefficient politicians of the old, that he would restore Germany’s honor and give them food and freedom after the terrible ravanges of the depression. He certainly wasn’t known as a man who could figure out the best thing to do. He couldn’t. He had no grounding in economics or sociology, nor a desire to learn.
Comment by TD — August 27, 2009 @ 10:04 pm - August 27, 2009