July 27, 2010

Journolist "took a process that could have been public, democratic and transparent and gratuitously made it private, stratified and opaque."

"This was an odd move for 'progressives' to make when confronted with the revolutionary openness of the Web."

Says Mickey Kaus.


mesquito said...

Tom Wolfe has made a brilliant career writing books about exclusivity and hierarchy. He could have told us exactly how Journolist would spin out in the end.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob said...

Glenn Reynolds read this one right: "It’s all about the VIP rooms with these people. For them, 'private, stratified and opaque' isn’t a bug, it’s the desired end-state every time."

The JournoListers are the kind of people who are obsessed with status and driven by envy. Immature people who never outgrew junior high school shallowness.

1jpb said...

I'm assuming Kaus is looking for a blogging job.

That site seems like an odd home for his posts.

Doug Wright said...

Well, the Journolists were an elite, so what else could they do? They really couldn't mingle with the Hoi Polloi now could they? After, they wanted to provide us with their wisdom, their learned understanding of how the world should work, their vast insights into the direction discussions should take, and the goals of a true enlightened, elite led, society.

In other words, Journolist had to be, without it, what were they?

I wish the answer to that last question is that they'd all be searching the employment ads, a harsh yet just end for those miserable punks.

Now, let's hear about the end to Cabalist and other such endeavors too.


Michael said...

Lots of these are guys who did great in school and then found that the guy who skated through was now earning a ton of money in finance or software. Much envy. Much belief that they too could be making similar dough if only they wanted to, if only they decided to. Much envy followed by much boiling anger and disgust that, no matter what, they ain't gonna make a lot of money. Period. Thus their little club. Thus Obama.

1jpb said...


I see that you're speculating that these Jlist folks were pro-BHO because of envy of folks who make more dough.

Would you extend this logic to claim that folks who make more than $200M per year (which is rich in some parts of our country) went for BHO 52-46 because they envy themselves?

Are you north of $200M? Regardless of what you make, do you envy folks who make more than you? Projection?

Lance said...

Kaus is truly inimitable.

avwh said...

I wish Mickey had beaten Boxer in the primary.

He's a Democrat I could actually vote for, based on the uncommon sense he's shown in almost everything he's written that I've read.

New Political Analyst said...

There are a few great bloggers. I read them avidly. These include: Ann, Instapundit, and Mickey.

I am a democrat. I voted for Obama/Biden. I predict they will win in a landslide in 2012 again. GOP has no leaders.

Go figure.

Bruce Hayden said...


My theory about the really rich, and esp. those earning a lot of money, is that the money came too easily to them, they feel a bit guilty about it, want to make redress, and know that they would not be hurt very much if their taxes went up a bit.

You see this in the practice of law. Those working for the government, and, therefore often not earning all that much, tend to vote for Democrats. But so also do a lot of Big Law lawyers, as well as the big tort attorneys. Of course, the later can be attributed to having paid off the Democrats to take care of them, which became obvious during the Health Care "Reform" debate.

The Big Law lawyers though don't have as much riding on the line as do the tort attorneys (who can spend a million on legislators to make a hundred million). Why do they tend to be so much more liberal than many of the rest of the lawyers out there in private practice? I would guess that a starting salary of $120k to $170k or so right after graduation from LS, and then at least a quarter mil by the time they were thirty would leave them believing first that they were much better than everyone else, and second, maybe a bit of guilt at lucking out, as they did (great articles this last weekend at volokh.com on the bimodal distribution of attorneys' salaries, and in particular, starting salaries).

Let me suggest that what you will find voting Republican at those levels are the small and medium business creators and owners. And what you will find at those economic levels in the Democratic party, are entertainment, sports, etc. personnel, as well as those with inherited (or married) wealth, attorneys, CPAs, etc. in the big firms, and very successful contingency fee attorneys.

Of course, these are guesses about proclivities, and so are not authoritative.

Michael said...

1jpb: I don't care if chili goes to a hundred dollars a bowl if that answers your question. But leaping in with the projection bullshit suggests you might have a case of the green envy. I wouldn't have a clue as to why a sane rich person would have voted for Obama and many who did are now vocally voicing their anguish.

edutcher said...

The journolisters simply followed their Messiah's lead on transparency.

1jpb said...


I see that you're speculating that these Jlist folks were pro-BHO because of envy of folks who make more dough.

Would you extend this logic to claim that folks who make more than $200M per year (which is rich in some parts of our country) went for BHO 52-46 because they envy themselves?

Are you north of $200M? Regardless of what you make, do you envy folks who make more than you? Projection?

Fallacious assumption on Michael's part. The rich who voted against themselves thought they had bought and paid for a POTUS, as they had when The Zero was a Senator and as David Rockefeller did with Jimmy Carter and Sam Walton with Willie.

The projection is in pb&j's eyes more than Michael's.

1jpb said...


How about this theory:

Some rich folks were disgusted by the R fraud/BS (that did not start or end w/ only W). Suppose these folks thought that rewarding the Rs w/ votes would be unwise.

It's possible that these folks, being unencumbered by the complexities associated w/ living when budgeting is a concern/hindrance, have the breathing room to look at the big picture w/o thinking about their own personal self interest. Maybe they were able to realize that, in the long run, the tax-and-spend libs were not as bad for our country as the tax-cut-and-spend Rs.


It is interesting to me that you (as a self proclaimed ultra-rich person) think that poor jList folks voted for BHO because they envy you and folks like you. Clearly, since you are a self proclaimed ultra-rich person, I was wrong by assuming you were projecting (although I could still be justified in my speculation that you assume poor people are motivated by envy because you, as an ultra rich person are yourself envious of folks who are even more ultra rich than you--envy is still possible for rich folks, unless you are the richest person in the world, is your real name Carlos?).

How do you explain that the majority of folks making more than $200M (which is rich in some circles) voted for BHO? Do these folks envy themselves?

BTW, your comment about chili was vague. Do you make more than $2000M (three zeros preceding the roman M) per year? It is my understanding that folks in this income range would care about $100 chili, so I'm curious to know at what income level this price for chili would not be a concern. [It should go w/o saying that we're talking about cheap chili, i.e. not some sort of high-end chili in a restaurant, which could actually be worth $100.]

Seven Machos said...

You people having this argument are ridiculous. Most wealthy people are Democrats. Most poor people are Democrats. Republicans tend to be middle class.

This is easy.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Kaus is truly inimitable."

Indeed. Did anybody else notice he's even criticizing his friends?

The man understands integrity.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Well, the Journolists were an elite, so what else could they do?"

You say that as if you think they're not still doing it.

They are. Just quieter. They've learned the golden rule: Never write what you can say; never say what you can imply; never imply when you can wink.

This time, they have lawyer-driven non-disclosure agreements so if anyone leaks they can be sued and have all their possessions taken from them.

Even elites gotta be kept in line.

Michael said...

I never said they voted for o because they envied the rich. I said they formed up their little club in money envy. What else other than class envy holds the democrats and lefties together? Oh, yeah, racism.

1jpb: The allusion to the cost of chili is meant to be vague. But to help you out a bit I pay more in taxes than you assume I earn in income.

AlphaLiberal said...

And when conservative journalists, reporters, opinion writers and lobbyists gather at Grover Norquist's office to plan strategy and coordinate message, that's okay, right?

They do it once a month on Wednesdays, I have they for decades.

That's not a problem for Annie!

AlphaLiberal said...

Will Ann Althouse also demand that Grover Norquist open up his Wednesday meetings to the public?

No? Well, there's another double standard for you.

From the conservative American Spectator:

Since 1993, Grover Norquist has held an off-the-record meeting every Wednesday where conservative activists, policy wonks, and government officials exchange ideas about policy and politics. Sometimes journalists attend. Depending on a particular journalist's ideological and partisan disposition -- which can vary quite a lot given the state of our media landscape, which includes both 'straight news' reporters (i.e. people who attempt to hide the almost-always-left-of-center opinions that shape their journalistic choices) and opinion journalists with various worldviews and temperaments -- journalists may be there to get ideas that will influence how they think about issues, or they may just be there to get perspective on how conservatives are thinking about the issues of the day.

The Wednesday Meeting has periodically been the source of breathless fear-mongering on the left about the all-powerful conservative conspiracy to control media narratives. This is, of course, absurd. Much of the hyperventilating over Journolist is equally absurd, John Guardiano's included.

AlphaLiberal said...

More rational thinking from conservative John Tabin:

Everyone who has been shown to have their work influenced by conversations on Journolist is, likewise, a commentator. That Chris Hayes tries to get perspective from other liberals before he goes on TV to opine on a topic, or that Joe Klein incorporates ideas from off-the-record exchanges into his blog posts, is not exactly earthshaking news. Commentators on the right do exactly the same thing -- it's just our emails don't get leaked because we're smart enough not to conduct these exchanges on listservs where we let the audience expand to include 400 people.