With the advent of Joe Klein's blog, we have the spectacle of a prominent pundit opening himself to public scutiny in real time (one wonders how soon it will be before Klein closes himself off to comments), and discovering that the nastiness and anger (see Digby for an analysis) he so righteously condemns is not generalized but very specific and long on details. More to the point, when one's views are scrutinized, and as has happened with Klein, debunked, so quickly and challenged so publicly (see Ezra Klein, Greg Sargent, and Booman which I came to via Duncan) there is the thought that either (a) Klein will change his mind and learn something; or (b) be confirmed that us liberal bloggers are nothing but a bunch of dirty, foul-mouthed hippies who want America to lose (as Klein has claimed).
This brings up part of the changing face of our public dialogue, and the nature of punditry. On my bookshelf are biographies of Walter Lippmann (Walter Lippmann and the American Century) and the Alsop brothers, Stuart and Joseph (Taking on the World). These biographies chronicle the careers and lives of three of the most influential political commentators of the 20th century. These men set the standard. Lippmann was a distant, haughty man, accustomed to being welcomed by those in power, and his columns and books were written for the powerful as advice and admonition. The Alsops, unlike Lippmann who lived in New York City most of his life, were the quintessential Georgetown pundits, partying with Presidents, Congressmen and Senators, and opening their homes to those who wanted to see and be seen with the best and brightest of Washington.
Their careers were spent in detachment from the advice they gave. While the Alsops went to war in World War II (and Joseph Alsop and Madame Chiang in China became a pernicious influence on one another), for the most part, they did not participate in American life so much as view it from a distance and comment upon it. They saw themselves (at least Lippmann clearly did; the Alsops less so; Stuart did write for The Saturday Evening Post after all) as a bit like philosopher-kings, dispensing advice with the authority that comes from detachment and distance. Since these men set the standard, many have tried to emulate them (George Will is the pre-eminent Lippmann wannabe), and some even believe they have achieved that kind of status. Tom Friedman, Klein, Robert Novak (who was helped in his early career by the Alsops), Mark Shields, and the rest of the Washington lip-flapping class think of themselves as sages to be listened to, rather than mere human beings offering opinions that can be challenged.
With the advent of blogging, that is no longer possible. I think Klein's anger at liberal bloggers is based partly on his own view of himself as working within a long line of philosopher kings, and partly on his own view that he is in fact a liberal and that we should be his natural constituency. Except, of course, Klein has never been a liberal. I doubt he has an ideology at all, unless sycophancy is an ideology. More importantly, Klein is being challenged because having an opinion is not enough (it never has been; now, however, voice can be given to challenges). You have to back up that opinion with facts. You have to be willing to engage in argument, exchanging views, and you have to be willing to say, "I was wrong" on occasion. Pundits have rarely done that, because the great unwashed were always empty vessels into which they poured their wisdom. What Klein sees as anger is actually the give-and-take of actual political debate and public dialogue in America, something from which Klein and his cohorts are almost ritually protected.
It is fine that Klein gets paid to spout off on what he thinks is true. That is what makes America great. It is also a new and wonderful reality that these opinions can be challenged and that pundits can be called to account for their opinions in public. They may not like it - and Klein clearly doesn't - but that doesn't make it any less of a real change in the way the American public disalogue happens. Klein is learning that - surprise!surprise! - opinions have consequences.
