The wages of moderation

Angry liberals frequently suggest that I criticize both sides to make money. For instance, Eric Alterman published a letter in which a reader said my "pox-on-both-your-housesism ... pays the rent." Tell that to my bank account! The truth is almost exactly the opposite. If Spinsanity had been partisan, we might have gotten Media Matters dollars. Instead, I've made pennies per hour. Outside of a rapidly shrinking circle of celebrity pundits in the DC/NY establishment (Broder, Friedman, etc.), moderation doesn't pay. My ideas may be wrong, but they're based solely on conviction.

Update 10/12 1:12 PM: Alterman, who complains publicly about Dan Rather not remembering his name, is accusing me of whining:

Alter-question: Whose whining about their own sad lives is funnier/more pathetic? The liberal hawks? Or poor (literally) Brendan Nyhan?

Stay classy, Eric!

Comments

[jason]

Brendan,
I believe your ideas are based on conviction. Your reliance on documentation and your granular parsing of the empirical claims of politicians and journalists are valuable. I don't think you make enough of an effort to engage or understand the reasoning of those who disagree with some of your more interpretive criticisms.

[frankly]

Yawn . . . eh . . . excuse me, were you saying something?

[Lettuce]

Err... Were you saying something?

[Junius Brutus]

Being "moderate" based on conviction?

hahaha

Being "moderate" is the opposite of conviction. Being moderate is a conviction only in the sense that your conviction is to not express any strong convictions.

Give it up, Nyhan. You are a moderate because you LACK conviction. People like you always take the "moderate" position because it gives you more room to maneuver and play the middle against both ends.

Being a willful moderate means you don't take whatever position the evidence leads to, it means you take the evidence and then weight it back toward the prevailing norm of opinion so as not to step on too many toes.

But most of all, being a willful moderate in a political context characterized by a two-party system in which one of the parties is constantly pushing the envelope of extremism (you know which one that is don't you Nyhan?) means that you will always be inclined to take positions more unjust than is warranted.

Yeats got it wrong. Yes in these days of Republican extremism, the worst certainly are full of passionate conviction -- but so are the best and necessarily so. It is the always strategizing moderate who lacks all conviction and who for that reason deserves no respect.

You're a dinosaur Nyhan. A dinosaur at what appears to to be about the age of 22 or 23 judging by your picture. The heyday of the vaguely liberal "moderate" is over. The ass-kissing approach is all played out.

But don't worry, Brendan. I have no doubt you will make a bundle after graduation. I predict that when it comes to cashing in your moderation will be nowhere to be seen.

[Rob]

Brendan takes heat from both the left and the right. For the most part, the criticism from the right is good-natured, respectful and not ad hominem. His critics from the left, whether Eric Alterman or commenters on his blog, are far more likely to be . . . what was the term the Democrats popularized in the mid-90's? . . . mean-spirited.

And the phenomenon isn't limited to criticism of Brendan's work. There's an ugliness on the left that can't be ignored. Gosh, it ought to be enough to make young academics who tend to lean left downright uncomfortable.

[Junius Brutus]

Rob: you're a typical conservative - completely lacking in self-understanding and constantly projecting. You're the kind of guy who looks in the mirror, sees an ugly reflection, and complains about how consistently mean-spirited mirrors are.

[Howard]

Hmmmm. I never though Broder was a moderate. Not at all.

No Brendan, you're doing a great job.

You try to keep the issues "reality based". We could use many more journalist and commentators with the same ethic.