Reynoldistas?? Not Me!

I like and respect Rick Moran, so as I jump into this debate, I'll preface it by saying it is the larger discussion I'm interested in and not slamming Rick's post.

I have dubbed this group of GOP curmudgeons Reynoldistas after Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds whose “Pre Mortem” post on the election raised the hackles of many conservatives who felt the blogger was being a defeatist by listing the reasons for the GOP’s probable downfall. Reynolds makes it clear that he believes that the GOP deserves to lose while also saying that the Democrats don’t deserve to win. Is this defeatist? Or realism? Or, as Professor Reynolds claims, is it simply analysis?

The GOP, the GOP, the GOP ... zzzzzzz  According to some recent poling, party affiliation in the US runs about 33% D - 33% R - 33% I.

While I've only been reading and writing blog-ish for two years, I have managed to figure out that Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit is a Libertarian. And his seemingly now infamous premortem post - also see a follow up here -  is precisely what one would expect from Glenn - his objective, non-GOP gobbling point of view.

I resent the hell out of it when I fight with Liberals and they call me a liar when I mention I'm an Independent and always have been, since initially registering as a Dem for one election 20 some-plus years ago.

I'm a conservative (whatever the hell that actually means, because it seems to mean different things to different people) - Glenn is a Libertarian. I know popular Right-side bloggers who aren't even political beyond the War on Terror.

The GOP and the DNC had a pass during 2004 because blogging was just being discovered as a valuable political tool and the battle lines were clearly drawn among bloggers they sought to prop up. By that, I don't mean they weren't worthy of it, but they were propped up in some cases because they were churning out precisely what the GOP and the DNC wanted people to hear and they were elevated to the MSM, in part, because they were natural allies of individuals already there. That didn't mean those alliances weren't going to one day strain.

Alliance is not what blogging is ultimately all about, unless of course one wants to start a GOP or DNC fetish site to simply spout out the usual talking points. How boring is that?

By and large, most bloggers are just voters engaged in self-publishing, not in publishing for the GOP or the DNC. And both major political parties in America would do well to figure that out sooner, as opposed to later. To paraphrase my Mother, if Instapundit is going to jump off a bridge, (not that I believe he is) am I? Maybe, maybe not. Der Commissar, on the other hand, apparently already did. And good for him, that's the freedom of individual choice. And that's why most of us are here. If I wanted to be a GOP mouthpiece, I'd go work for the GOP. I imagine it pays much better than this.

As this revolves to an extent around Limbaugh, here's a Limbaugh / blog story I haven't seen make the rounds. I heard him mention Powerline one day and preface the remark by saying apparently they are a blog that doesn't think much of talk radio ... perhaps he meant his show, as I know that isn't true. Or perhaps Limbaugh didn't have a clue what he was talking about when it came to blogs. And that's fine as Limbaugh has his own gig and sits at the top of the talk radio heap. (Hoping I'm not offending Mark Levin here, who was kind enough to say on his show tonight he enjoyed this blog, for which I am mighty pleased!)

From all the DNC / GOP / blog blog blog talk I have been reading, apparently Limbaugh isn't alone in not getting blogs. Both the DNC and the GOP better get it. By and large, most bloggers aren't out here to serve one party or another. We are out here to express our political concerns and our views.

We are voters, pure and simple. And if the GOP and or the DNC want to remain major political parties, then they best get around to figuring out how it is that they are going to serve us, just the way it has always been.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't pony up however many bucks and hours a month it is to serve the GOP. And if they want this blog to be GOP friendly, than as I am a voter, they had better set to figuring out how it is they can best serve me.

They want to give me a job, subsidize my blog, heck, maybe I'll go all GOP on ya'. I don't know. But as long as I keep the lights on around here, I'll be blogging for me. And I haven't read a truly good blogger who does it any other way.

Comments

[richj]

Well said Dan.
Right now, I am just a one issue voter: who's willing to fight the war and even make mistakes and who's wants to turn the clock back to 9/10/01. I really don't care about many of the hot button issues out there that get most of the party faithful worked up. I'm one of those libertarian conservatives (or conservative libertarian) who doesn't normally care about party loyalty. I vote republican out of necessity not out of any love for the party.

[AST]

I've always leaned Republican but I've never voted a straight ticket. I've run for County Attorney once as a Republican and once as a Democrat, because the local Democrats are as conservative as the Republicans, but they're more competent.

I've supported Bush through this whole thing, but in the last week, I've decided that we've done about all we can do in Iraq and should start pulling out. I now endorse the plan Dennis Ross laid out in the WaPo earlier this week. I've been reading a book on the history of Shia Islam, and concluded that preventing Civil War in Iraq is about as much in our hands as preventing the American Civil War was when Lincoln was elected.

If Iraq's leaders get together and settle their differences, fine. But if the sectarian violence continues, it's probably not going to stop, because it's driven by 1400 years of hatred and attacks on Shiites. Let them them fight it out. The Shiites will probably win, and the fight will probably distract terrorists from attacking us.

It sounds as though our commanders in Iraq are coming to the same conclusion. I think we've done good things in Iraq, but I doubt that anything more can be done for it.

[anonymous]

Reynolds is no independent libertarian. Heh.

He's a GOP booster, whose team is losing. That doesn't all of a sudden make him a non-partisan and independent thinker. No, indeed.

His verbal ticks don't demonstrate clear headed thinking or independence. This is what he clings to in losing, having his predictions and thoughts proven wrong.

Face the music, Glenn. And pull Miss Helen on to her dancing feet too. *Snort of derision*

[Robin Benveneste]

Reynolds a libertarian? You gotta be kidding. Have you ever heard him once advocate reform or repeal of all the HUGE government intrusions of our life - like Americans with Disabilites Act requirements, Fair Labor Standards Act requirements, Safety and Health (OSHA) requirements, reverse/racisim quoat requirements, EPA requirements?

It's fashionable these days for liberals to claim that they're really libertarians, to avoid the stigma. What they really mean is they don't want the governemnt regulating homosexuality or abortion. Fine, fair enough. But they conveniently forget their "libertarian" principles when the government promotes liberal ideas on race, gender entitlements, etc. Don't forget that.

( And BTW, the GOP position on abortion IS libertarian. They want the states to decdie abortion for themselves. They would also advoate a libertarian stance on homosexuals, were it not for the Judges).

[Gekkobear]

I agree with Robin, Reynolds isn't a Libertarian.

Its not like he's for cutting Governemnt spending or ending earmarks or such.... well, except that whole PorkBusters thing.

But the big two spending items that will kill the budget...

1) he isn't for reforming Social Security. See his quote "A "PERSONAL LOCKBOX" FOR SOCIAL SECURITY? I'd like one."... oh, maybe he is then. He certainly was behind private accounts.

2) Medicare? See his questionaire answers at "http://instapundit.com/archives/030252.php"

In particular:
9) Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan. Here, I agree with Drezner: "Hell, no. Just kill the motherf#$er."

So, reform So-So Security and kill Medicare. Nope, not seeing any Libertarian leanings to me. that sounds like prettied up Liberal talking points to Robin too.

Robin, can you name some Liberals who say "kill the M*****F***er" about Medicare?

Also, how can he be a closet liberal, and a GOP Booster as anonymous states? He sure was with the Republicans on Schaivo, all for States Rights and keeping the Federal Government uninvolved just like the Republicans...

Oh wait, that wasn't the Republicans. Actually a "GOP booster" wouldn't go that far to slam his own side, would he?

Maybe he really does believe in smaller less intrusive Government both economically and socially. I wonder what party that would put him in...

I guess Libertarian really is a thousand different parties of one, with really really stringent entry qualifications. The "big tent" idea never caught on with Libertarians it seems.

[Matthew in Denver]

Reynolds is a Libertarian. He is also pro war on terror and, like myself, thinks the war on terror is the most important issue facing us today. The Republicans also feel that way about the war on terror, while the democrats do not. Thus, he typically will support Republican candidates since his own Libertarian party rarely has electable candidates. That doesn't make him a Republican, it makes him a pragmatist.

Reynolds and myself have nearly identical political views on most domestic issues, and these views are Libertarian.
1) We support science and we fight against government limitations on science. So we support stem cell research, and we support prize-based initiatives to encourage private spending in science and space travel. We are against legal limits on research into things like nanotechnology and stem cells and other sciences where the laws are obsolete before they reach the president's desk.
2) We support lower taxes, limited use of the constitutional interstate-commerce clause, and a general principle that government should only be active where it is absolutely needed.
3) We favor local government passing laws instead of the federal government wherever possible. In other words, let individual states decide whether abortion is legal, whether the death penalty should be allowed, whether assisted suicide should be legal, whether pot should be legal. Not the federal government.
4) The second ammendment is clear. If we want to restrict the right to bear arms, then we need to ammend the constitution. Anything else is unconstitutional and illegal.

Reynolds is very clear on all of this stuff, if you read his blog. I assure you, if the Republicans were taking an isolationist view on the war on terror, but the democratics were taking the fight seriously, then Reynolds would be supporting the Dems instead of the Repubs. So would I.

-Matthew

[Dan Riehl]

It's hard to characterize any individual as simply one thing, unless they are an ideologue. Frankly, I have a lot of Libertarian in me. I opt for an "I" for various reasons, one of them being that the most radical elements of any party can do serious damage.

In that sense, I'm unclear who is more dangerous, Libertarians, who almost seem like anarchists at the extreme ... or Dems, who are Marxists at the extreme and socialists in the center.

Basically, I fear the R's, politically, least of the three.

[Phoenix]

To define yourself by a single political affiliation is to admit you don't think.

[Tennwriter]

Reynolds I'll buy as a libertairian--a mild one with a strong pragmatist streak.

As to supporting stem cell research--how is that Libertarian? No, what that is is "My pork tastes good, your pork is evil." If Libertarians weren't so 'ideologically pure' I might not want to bust them for this hypocrisy, but they keep a front that all their actions flow from their principles--instead of admitting that frequently their actions flow from being horny white geeks, and that the Libertarian Party is the pressure group for the HWG vote.`

So I shan't bust Glenn's chops for this because he's not a doctrinaire libertarian, at least not too much. It is a bit amusing, but only teenagers get ragingly upset about lack of ideolgocical purity. Adults know that the world is too complicated to be fit into any one theory.

[Phoenix]

80% of human wisdom is minding your own business. The other 20% is making sure others mind theirs. Libertarians are fine with the 80% - It's the remaining 20% they can't grasp that makes true libertarianism a bit of a meltdown.

[Wrymouth]

I've started, with my Texan brother, a site that specifically plays both sides against the middle. He's a Dem stuck in Houston, and I'm a Republican/Libertarian stuck in California. We use the 'blog as a forum for discussing many things, but the politics comes from both angles. We would refer to think that most 'bloggers work the same way!