The RedState ban of new arrivals (less than 6 months) voicing support for Ron Paul (it seems that the precise terms of the ban have often been lost in the back and forth) has been generating a lot of online media attention. The old “there is no such thing as bad publicity” rule applies here–at least for Ron Paul. The ban ironically rewards the Paul supporters, both reasonable and obnoxious, with additional media coverage of our candidate. It makes more people ask a question that’s very helpful to Paul: “What do Republicans have against Ron Paul?” If RedState really wanted to vex and irritate the Paul supporters, they would never have turned whatever annoyance they felt from the legions of Paul supporters into a major story.
Even though the ban is aimed at his supporters (some of whom probably are as obnoxious and crude as they are accused of being–this is the Internet, folks, deal with it), the impression it leaves is that RedState is trying to cut Paul and his message out of their site, which redounds to Paul’s advantage and puts RedState in an awfully awkward position. Frankly, I find any post-ban complaining from Paul supporters about censorship a little silly, if only because proper libertarians and conservatives should acknowledge the right of voluntary associations (which is what a community blog is) to govern their memberships as they see fit. It is government censorship that should exercise us, not the stance of a few community blog mavens. Nonetheless, a decision taken out of frustration will be seen to have been taken out of fear and a feeling of inferiority. In the end, the ban is just one sign of the inability of the modern movement to maintain its support for the dreadful policies of the last six years and still have a space for antiwar libertarians and conservatives. If the war takes priority over everything else, as it seems to have done, it really becomes impossible for the movement to accommodate those whose chief difference with the movement is over the war.
These folks run a politics and commentary blog, but they seem to have no grasp on how politically clumsy their move truly is. There are already millions of people who think that the GOP and the movement are incapable of rationally coping with dissent, and this has just given them another reason to believe it. If politics is supposed to involve persuasion, RedState has just abandoned any attempt at persuading Paul supporters that there might be some grounds for compromise and cooperation. The typical objection is that Paul supporters are already implacably opposed to the rest of the GOP field, so there’s no point in trying to win any of them over. That’s certainly one way of approaching the problem, but it is a loser.
Think about it: Republicans and conservatives are already reportedly badly demoralised. Turnout is likely to be a major problem next year. Fundraising already is a problem. Who is generating some enthusiasm and better-than-expected fundraising? Ron Paul. Whose supporters do the geniuses choose to ban from talking about their candidate? Ron Paul’s. If I were Tom Cole and interested in maximising turnout next year, I would be banging my head against a wall at such patently self-destructive tactics. RedState is prominent and well known enough that its decisions will have consequences far beyond its own precincts. The thing is that Ron Paul supporters have known all along that they were not welcome in the modern GOP–this is just one more helpful reminder.
Update: The Politico story has an interesting detail:
Redstate founder Erick Erickson said he woke up this morning bombed with hundreds of e-mails, “the overwhelming majority very angry.” His own readers, though, loved the ban.
“It is the most recommended user diary in Redstate history,” he said.
That will simply reinforce the view of Paul supporters, such as myself, that RedState’s readers and we have little in common. This was not exactly news to me, but it is worth being reminded that this is not some arbitrary decision handed down by the people who run the blog, but is quite representative of the opinion of the regulars there.
Second Update: It’s a bad sign for RedState when Kossack diarists are more politically astute than the RedState folks.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 25th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Elvis Elvisberg
I find any post-ban complaining from Paul supporters about censorship a little silly, if only because proper libertarians and conservatives should acknowledge the right of voluntary associations (which is what a community blog is) to govern their memberships as they see fit.
I disagree with this sentence, Daniel. Paul supporters should not be claiming that the government must pass a law or issue a condemnation of RedState; rather, they should be claiming that RedState’s decision is politically unwise, and unbecoming of a site supposedly dedicated to political discussion. And as far as I’ve seen, that’s what they’re doing (though, this being the Internet, surely someone somewhere has made a contradictory argument).
One can harshly criticize bad decisions even if the government is not involved.
And no sane person can be surprised that DailyKos is more astute and consistent than RedState. I’m not a reader of either, but let’s be serious for a second here. RedState is the fanatical, rigidly politically correct fever swamp that conservatives fantasize DailyKos to be. It would be unthinkable for Kos to ban, say, Kucinich supporters, even though Obama and Edwards are, I think, more well regarded there.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Carter
I was curious how they would react to James Watson’s remarks and discovered they’ve banned discussions of race/genetics/IQ as well. If it’s not on a fax from the RNC it’s dangerous to think.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Roach
Of course, many Paul supporters are unserious, conspiracy-obsessed idiots and don’t deserve a hearing, even though Paul himself occasionally says something worth listening to. So if this trend emerged at Red State, I can’t say I think the policy is a bad one, any more than banning people that talk about “Who Really Blew Up the Towers?” or other such nonsense.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Daniel Larison
I appreciate the point about censorship. Most critics of the move, including myself, have been stressing its folly and attacking it along those lines. The point about Kos generally seems right. Comparing the two sites serve as a useful answer to the question why the “rightroots” never accomplishes anything.
Chris, many *voters* generally are unserious, conspiracy (or celebrity) obsessed idiots and don’t really deserve a hearing, if we are determining desert by value of contribution, but all the rest of them are having their say.
October 26th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Howard J. Harrison
Carter wrote:
Carter is right. Can we go hyberbolic for a moment? RedState should change its name to Sturmabteilung Standarte RedState. Old Ernst Roehm would have disagreed with RedState’s politics, but with its brownshirt editorial sensibilities, he would have felt right at home. Daniel naturally is 100 percent correct that RedState is a private forum whose editors can run it however they like, but the irony is brilliant: the Daily Kos handles opposition more gracefully than RedState does.
And, by the way, I who offer this view am no Ron Paul supporter; I happen to prefer Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Such as stance does not stop me from recognizing brownshirtism when I see it.
RedState’s editors are too uptight to see their own problem. It’s not that anything goes ought to be their editorial policy, or yours, or mine; but what they’re doing is reacting to criticism which is at least partially meritorious by banning it, because it upsets them really to have to think the criticism through. All this shows is that RedState’s editors are grown up enough to recycle “a fax from the RNC,” but not to run a major forum on RedState’s scale.
RedState wants to serve as the Republican Kos, which is a fine ambition, but let’s face it: it is failing—and not through lack of interest, only through lack of editorial discretion. If the ground is not fertile now to grow a conservative replacement for RedState, then when will it be?
Daniel, if you have ambition along these lines, then now is the time to assemble your team.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Howard J. Harrison
I neglected to mention that Elvis is right, too:
Spot on. It’s too bad, really.