Save Matthew Yglesias from CAP!

Back in July, I worried that the move of Matthew Yglesias from The Atlantic to the Center for American Progress would undermine his independence due to "the structural incentives of working for a movement organization and appealing to a more movement-centric audience."

Sadly, that seems to have to come true. After praising the group Third Way as a "neat organization" that "[does] a lot of clever messaging stuff," Yglesias referred to their domestic policy agenda as "hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit," prompting CAP to bigfoot on his blog tonight:

A Special Note Re: Third Way

This is Jennifer Palmieri, acting CEO of the Center for American Progess Action Fund.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Matt’s blog are his own and don’t always reflect the views of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Such is the case with regard to Matt’s comments about Third Way. Our institution has partnered with Third Way on a number of important projects - including a homeland security transition project - and have a great deal of respect for their critical thinking and excellent work product. They are key leaders in the progressive movement and we look forward to working with them in the future.

There's no way that this sort of reaction won't create a chilling effect on Yglesias. How could he not think twice about criticizing Third Way or other CAP partners in the future? It's the reason we need smart bloggers like him at independent outlets like The Atlantic that won't enforce a party line.

Update 12/22 7:01 PM: See the updates from Yglesias and CAPAF's Faiz Shakir as well as commentary from a slew of bloggers. I'm glad Yglesias didn't get directly censored (he reiterated his objections to Third Way in a later post) but the chilling effect scenario outlined above still seems very plausible.

Comments

[David]

BTW Yglesias continued his criticism of Third Way at http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/third_ways_first_100_days_retirement_security_edition.php

However, as one commenter pointed out:
Fair enough but “pretty weak tea” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as “hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit”.

[paul]

So what's your agenda? It sounds like you want Matt to work for some unimportant organization like the Atlantic so that there's one less genuinely progressive voice with a close tie to the new administration. The stir Matt's post has caused is indicative of the fact that he is potentially influencing some important people. Its better to negotiate with power than to have a soapbox on the street.

[Rob]

Mickey Kaus essentially shares Brendan's view.

It's so disheartening to see these ideological rifts on the left. Did they learn nothing from the Stalinist-Trotskyite imbroglio or the Gang of Four factionalism?