One would assume that blogging — simply modern-day pamphleteering — is now commonplace to Americans. And yet, one sometimes runs across objections to it, and here are quick replies to some objections I’ve recently heard. Not one of these objections strikes me as compelling, but they’re interesting as evidence of the divide between people who respect free speech and those who don’t.
Comments should be delivered to officials privately before being published publicly.
This objection to blogging is an objection to independent blogging, and would afford every official a right of first review of anyone’s comments. There can be no independent speech under these circumstances.
Consider an example from a big city — should the New York Times submit its editorials to Mayor Bloomberg privately, so that the he could consider them before the NYT could print a critical editorial? The theory here is that the ‘goal of a better city’ would be advanced if the Times sent editorials to Bloomberg first, so that he could adopt any useful suggestions without public pressure.
New York would not be a better city for private submissions: it would be a city without free speech, and a place in which Bloomberg had a right of first review before anyone could speak. He would be free to discuss matters privately, and endlessly, by which public commentary would grind to a halt. Only a few insiders would know anything.
New York would be an autocracy.
No (independent) commentator could collude with officials in this corrupt — that is, a classically degenerate — political arrangement.
It’s one of the sad conditions of our time that men and women – American men and women — sometimes suggest a policy that would reduce them to the status of small children before a paternalistic state.
There is no reason to follow their example.
Officials will reject suggestions published online because they won’t ‘kowtow’ to a blogger.
Someone recently offered this critique of blogging to me — that suggestions, however useful, will not be accepted by officials whose pride is hurt. Perhaps not, and yet if not, one sees that officials put themselves ahead of their oft-professed commitment to public service.
If they can’t put the public good ahead of their thin skins, they should quit.
One should not be surprised that selfish officials behave selfishly. The objection only confirms the disorder in our current politics. Public office should not be used to satisfy officials’ emotional needs.
One more point — in my own case, I don’t expect anyone to kowtow, to use someone else’s description. This is true for many reasons. First, no one need kowtow, to anyone else, ever. As I would not do so, so I would not expect others to do so. Second, I’ve been very clear that I don’t expect bad officials to get better — I expect them to get worse.
The experiences of small factions in decline suggests that they grow more isolated, embittered, and extreme over time. Improvement, however much one might hope otherwise, doesn’t come from bad leaders’ reform, but only after they leave the political stage. (There would be nothing ‘better’ about kowtowing, in any event.)
There’s is an idea, in a place like Whitewater, that every person who complains can be satisfied with a deal, of the right kind. That’s why, when someone complains, he may hear someone ask of him: What is it you (really) want? Our town fathers assume that everyone wants a place at the table, next to them. They believe that everyone is a needy Babbitt, just as they are.
It’s not true; that they believe it to be true shows how self-regarding they are.
There’s no deal to be had, at any price. There’s the right thing of sound principles, simply done, and everything else.
Tone.
One will hear that others object to a blogger’s tone. I’d expect that some would, some wouldn’t, and most would be indifferent to the topic entirely. There’s a quick remedy for those who dislike something in print: stop reading, look away, and you’ll have your Potemkin village back in short order.
It’s the lack of a firm tone that’s contributed to our present mess, of mediocre and meddling bureaucrats, preening politicians, fawning reporters, and community busybodies. A subservient tone, a somnolent and proper tone, is what brought us to our present difficulties.
Early American commentary was far more robust that most of what passes as criticism today; it’s mediocre officials who ask for limits on criticism. They’ve not a principled objection — they have a self-interested objection masquerading as a principled one.
It’s too hard to put documents online.
One can see that the Planning Commission documents from Whitewater’s last meeting are online. (They were online two meetings ago, omitted one meeting ago, and are back for the most recent meeting.)
We can easily do what other cities do. We are right to do so.
It’s not too hard, especially if a leader of a department comes to see that this as part of his responsibility to the public. One may designate someone else, but the responsibility will always rest with a department leader.
We can do as well as other places, even larger ones. If there aren’t enough field workers to complete the task, then the leader should do so.
In a town as small as ours, every leader should be a working leader. We’re not Los Angeles or London — layers between the field and leadership in a city like Whitewater (pop. 14,296) are simply a sop to a small-town leader’s ego.
I’m sure there are lots of fancy, fussy, needy leaders in faraway cities — those in Whitewater who wish for that lifestyle should open a road atlas, and plot a course to one of those places.
