The following exchange took place on the eve of the FISA vote, July 8th, between myself and Virginia Senator James Webb. You can listen to this exchange at The Seminal.
All emphasis is mine.
Josh Nelson: You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.
Jim Webb: The blogs... the good news and bad news about blogs. First the bad news. The bad news is anybody can say anything about someone and they don't even have to put their name on it. In fact, the anonymity encourages irresponsibility. And it is pretty frustrating, I'll be honest with you, that's why I just stopped reading this stuff a long time ago.
The good is, when there are allegations made, in any variety of formats, there are people who know the facts, and step forward, and correct the facts. People who put their name on it and correct. We had, from day one we had strong support from people in the blogging community. In fact, I wasn't even sure I was going to run for office. After Katrina, I went up and saw my friend Bob Kerrey, the guy who told me that Moynihan wrote 17 books. And talked to him for the first time about the mechanics of running. I'd obviously been involved in political commentary for a very long time. In listening to Bob Kerrey I sort of thought I was going to do it and then I looked at what it would take to raise the money and all the rest of this and I wasn't sure. There were people in the blogging community who heard that I was thinking about running and on their own they started a draft Webb for Senate campaign. They got 1,000 signatures on this, they came over and saw me, I spent an hour and a half talking with them. And you know that was a big part in terms of convincing me that yea well maybe I oughtta step forward and do this.
With respect to legislation, what I, I think the blogs really communicate, in a very intelligent way, on a couple of these really complicated issues, I would hope they wouldn't lock themselves into positions so early, uh, there's some really complex pieces of legislation that kind of get boiled down...
Josh Nelson: Are you talking about FISA?
Jim Webb: Specifically I'm thinking about FISA since I have to vote on it tomorrow afternoon.
(laughter)
That's a very complicated issue and I've looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I'm very strong on privacy rights. It's not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.
In my opinion, he's brilliant, loves his country for the right reasons, and understands constitutional principles. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, unless I've actually read the legislation in question.
I disagreed with him on the carbon credits bill (I would have supported a carbon tax), but overall I think that I'd rather have a Senator that understands the intricacies and is trustworthy than someone who bows to the pressures of the public.
Or is he right about FISA and bloggers not appreciating the complexity of the issue? Is he serious? Go read the extensive reporting Glenn Greenwald has done on this issue and tell me he doesn't understand it.
What Webb really means is that he wishes us pesky citizens would just leave him alone and trust him to act in our best interests.
I think Webb has done a lot of great stuff, but he is seriously off-base here.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democracy is much tougher on our leaders, those who are elected and even those who are not, such as the owners, executives, editors and reporters of major media, when citizens are actually informed and participate. Blogs and the Internets, both on the Left and Right, encourage this citizen participation, and these institutions and the people who form them do not like it, for the most part.
The fact that he stopped reading blogs? This makes no sense to me, given the importance of blogs to both the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
But if we listen to every single blog, isn't that an internet mob rule? I mean, lots of non-bloggers also voted for this guy, where do they fit in? How about the people who vote,could be the same people,but aren't vigilant on every freaking subject? I also thought the purpose of the 2006 campaign was more to get George Allen out of office by any means necessary,and the vehicle for that was Webb, rather than hey everybody let's get this guy Jim Webb into office. Me thinks there is buyer remorse as people are realizing what that meant.
Or is he right about FISA and bloggers not appreciating the complexity of the issue? Is he serious? Go read the extensive reporting Glenn Greenwald has done on this issue and tell me he doesn't understand it.
Bloggers,maybe not all bloggers, are partisan people, blogging on an internet that was created in anarchy. Bloggers need to be urgent and get people's attention. They're often in the new tradition of muckraking as part of "the progressive movement" as you say. That's why I rarely blog. I say, these things like FISA are needed to take the bite out of the GOP's bark.There's nothing wrong with being urgent, but just like everything, there are limitations to it.
What Webb really means is that he wishes us pesky citizens would just leave him alone and trust him to act in our best interests.Techically speaking we are a Federal Republic and not a true democracy because we do let our elected officials vote for us in our absence.
No, I don't think we should listen to every blog. But nor do I think we should ignore every one, either, as Webb says he does.
Most bloggers are not partisan, but they are opinionated and often ideological. There is a big difference. Partisan, i.e., favoring a particular political party, tends to see the election of party members as an end in itself. Bloggers, I think, tend to be more issue oriented.
Yes, most Progressive blogs tend to lean Democratic, but because they view this as a means to an end. Many of these same blogs will challenge Democrats when they can (especially Blue Dog Democrats), not as part of an ideological litmus test, but because their goals are the enactment of policy, not the election of Democrats for their own sake.
Thanks for the correction on the form of government we have in the U.S. I suppose you could call the United States a Federal Republic, although it may actually be more accurate to call it a Representative Democracy (a Republic being a broad term that generally describes a state with an elected head of state, such as Iran). Even so, the term's commonly understood meaning could encompass the U.S., although were you to use it, Constitutional Republic would probably be better, since our Constitution is many significant ways is designed to limit majority rule and protect the minority.
But whatever term you wish to use, I think my point still holds. Webb is apparently bothered that citizens would have the temerity to hold opinions regarding legislation on which he votes. He says it is because we lack the ability to understand their complexity. Do you agree?
No, I don't think we should listen to every blog. But nor do I think we should ignore every one, either, as Webb says he does.
I don't believe it's in the best interests for any given constiuency at large for an elected official to make the conscious decision to selectively acknowledge the opinions of some of his constituents but not others. Senator Webb's mandate is to represent all Virginians to the best of his abilities, both bloggers and non-bloggers (and for that matter, both Democrats and Republicans).
If Webb was spending his time reading about how much Gerry Connolly and Tim Kaine suck on Not Larry Sabato instead of the letters that normal voting citizens were taking the time to write out and address specifically to him, I would frankly be a little bit ashamed.
Finally, I have to take issue with this:
Webb is apparently bothered that citizens would have the temerity to hold opinions regarding legislation on which he votes.
I have to say, truthfully I find this statement a little bit arrogant. After having 1.2 million Virginians vote against him in 2006, I'm pretty sure it's occured to Jim Webb by now that on any given issue and with any given position, there are going to be hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with him. The fact that he somehow finds a way to live with that knowledge does not make him some sort of autocratic tyrant; indeed I daresay that the Senator is better aware of the consequences of the plurality of opinions within our great Commonwealth that any one who hasn't had 1.2 million Virginians vote against him.
But to simply eliminate the entire medium by citing the lowest of the low on that medium -- the anonymous blogger who intentionally slanders -- makes no sense to me. It's like saying, "I refuse to watch the film "Citizen Kane" because Ishtar is a movie."
As for your assertion that my final comment was arrogant, perhaps it is. But on FISA, Webb said:
That's a very complicated issue and I've looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I'm very strong on privacy rights. It's not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.
Now, that is an insult to many very intelligent bloggers who have also looked at the FISA issue from "every single angle." Some of these bloggers may even be more intelligent and better informed than Sen. Webb on these issues. But he dismisses them out of hand by saying their opinions are invalid.
How does he know this? After all, he doesn't read blogs.
Silence,the arrogance here belongs to Sen. Webb. It is the same kind of arrogance that helped get us into Iraq. If you opposed the invasion, you were dismissed as "not serious about terrorism." It is a way of intellectually justifying your position without ever confronting and responding to the legitimate arguments against your position.
Perhaps if Jim Webb has bothered to read some blog's commentary on FISA, he would have learned something.
He can pick and choose what he reads. I do. You do.
I know it's confusing sometimes since I use a psuedonym as a hat-tip to a long tradition of psuedonyms, but to clarify: I've never been elected to the United States Senate and therefore do not have a responsibility to try and represent "everyone," whether they're reading the New York Times or the Washington Times. Certainly, as a human being Webb gets to pick what he reads, but he certainly can't base his opinion on cherrypicking opinions he wants to read while ignoring others.
Silence,the arrogance here belongs to Sen. Webb. It is the same kind of arrogance that helped get us into Iraq. If you opposed the invasion, you were dismissed as "not serious about terrorism." It is a way of intellectually justifying your position without ever confronting and responding to the legitimate arguments against your position.
Again, I feel compelled to point out that Senator Webb may know this as well as or better than you do, since he was an outspoken critic of the invasion before it began and, as a former Reagan official, he didn't have quite the same shield of relative anonymity that other private citizen critics had.
As far as FISA specifically goes, I of course have an opinion, and I could claim to be an informed citizen--hell, I AM an informed citizen compared to a lot of the public. However, I'm not precisely a credible expert on FISA just because I've read the iterations of the bill and watched "Breach" twice on DVD. So I didn't bother trying to persuade Senator Webb by voicing my opinion on a blog; rather, I called his office and put him in touch with someone who is an undisputed expert, a retired FBI agent we used to know professionally who as a lead investigator brought several high-profile espionage cases to successful prosection using warrants obtained in FISA courts. He's more knowledgable about the subject than anyone you'll find on any blog, he doesn't owe anything professionally to the FBI anymore so he's free to say what he wants, and he was a zealous defender of suspects' and witnesses' constitutional rights because he had personally seen evidence thrown out when presented by less-thorough agents.
Do I like the final legislation? Not really. Am I confident that Webb sought and was presented with a broad spectrum of expert opinions before making the best possible decision he could on the issue, even though he doesn't base his position on the blogs? That's a pretty easy "yes."
I have no doubt the FBI agent who advised him is an expert. So are the many bloggers who have extensive backgrounds in civil liberties and Fourth Amendment law. But Webb dismissed their views, according to his own words, because the medium in which they chose to express them was somehow evidence of their lack of an ability to understand.
And Silence, should you ever decide to run for the U.S. Senate, I'll vote for you. :)
Not to mention Jim Webb was savaged by an anonymous blogger called Thomas Payne Patriot or whatever he called himself. I disagree with Jim Webb about FISA, but i will never question his motives - and if he asks for the benefit of the doubt I will give it to him.
My full name, hometown, and employer have been posted here and there repeatedly. And gee, who could ever guess my identity since I have a big f'n picture of myself right on my blog. What do you need, a Google map to my front door?
And I love how you accuse other people of being anonymous while hiding behind a screen name of your own. Maybe your screen name should be PotCallingKettleBlack! Ha ha! Get it? Because ... aw, forget it.
And I was very clear that i was not accusing you of hiding your identity ... but i would like to reiterate that there are some people who don't spend their whole day reading this blog or any other. And these people may not have time to figure out if you're screen name is a not very clever play on the name of the movie "the green mile" or your actual name combined with your intense passion for the environment.
You will have to forgive me.
"i was not accusing you of hiding your identity."
-- by: notlowellfeld @ Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:07:49 PM EDT
That is what Obama learned to do in Chicago as a community organiser and that is what Nelson Mandela learned to do in South Africa, if you read the article in the Sunday Washington Post. As it happens, you do not end rigid partisanship by engaging in yet more rigid partisanship. This flexible approach is going to piss off some of your own supporters, but so be it, if your objective is to reach a higher goal. Keep your eye on the prize.