George Will on bloggers

George Will, driven pissy with offense at Time's choice for its 2006 Person of the Year, says bloggers should be more serious, like he is:

There are expected to be 100 million bloggers worldwide by the middle of 2007, which is why none will be like Franklin or Paine. Both were geniuses; genius is scarce. Both had a revolutionary civic purpose, which they accomplished by amazing exertions. Most bloggers have the private purpose of expressing themselves for their own satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is nothing demanding or especially admirable about it, either. They do it successfully because there is nothing singular about it, and each is the judge of his or her own success.

Hey, George, why don't you stop acting like such a self-important dickhead? How's that for serious?

Comments

[Rockwell]

This is the typical flawed logic we have come to expect from this pundit. Just because there are millions blogging doesn't mean there isn't a Paine or a Franklin among us. I would hasten to add that history will not see Will in that category. Just what is a pundit like Will? He is not really a notable journalist. He is an apologist for some in power. He is a critic of others. He has been close to the White House at times. To use his own criteria, he's a footnote, at best.

[Daniel]

We should start a list: "Bloggers" who are better political and/or cultural analysts than George Will. But even that misses the point: I think Will's true object of scorn is a "system" in which people don't have to bow and scrape first in order to be granted a voice. Professional pundits, like the "bloggers" they so despise, are generally not generators of new information. In fact, the only difference between George Will and the rest of us is really the fact that that he gets paid, has personal assistants to do his research, and wears a bow tie.

And forget about left-side challengers like Josh Marshall. I think what really scares Will is the fact that he's routinely getting his clock cleaned by right-side bloggers like Dan McLaughlin and Austin Bay, two name a couple from a vast field of competitors. The Wills and Parkers have their influence over a dwindling demographic cohort, while the energy of conservatism is coming out of the blogosphere. The left-side netroots had their maiden voyage as a politically relevant force in 2004, but for the right-side netroots, that voyage will occur in 2008. Will isn't going to be invited along.

[Nightwind]

Will seems to also be presuming that the Time Person of Year issue always highlights great genius like Franklin or Paine. It doesn't. It highlights the influential, and you don't have to be a genius to be influential. George W. Bush has won twice for crying out loud. Influential, yes. Genius, no. And even Bono, who shared the honor last year and who I greatly respect, I wouldn't call "genius." Nor is the award a pat on the head and a thumbs up: it's been given to Hitler, Stalin, and Khomeini.

In short, Will seems to just be arguing for argument's sake.

[Blue Gal]

But I thought You were Time's Person of the Year. You know, You.

[Jill Foster]

Thanks for the cackle-inspiring post. A kazillion years ago I worked in corporate sales at the Borders Books downtown DC where George Will shopped steadily -- or Mr. Will as I called him because I was too nervous to call him George. Considering his background, his irked-ness about Time's choice is not surprising but it's a shame. Despite the dumb stuff on the Net, the present day e-forum the Net creates is so powerful to observe and experience.

[David Fuller]

Now we know what keeps George's bow tie in a knot!