George Rebane

Sierra Business Council President Steven Frisch has proposed a “truce” in the local blogosphere – essentially between what is written on Jeff Pelline’s liberal blog, and on the conservative NC Media Watch and Rebane’s Ruminations.  The main thrust of his proposal is to focus our posted commentaries and comments on the topics of the commentaries, and not engage in ad hominem attacks on bloggers and commenters as individuals – contend the message and not attack the messenger.

Let me begin by setting the verifiable record straight.  I have repeatedly made this proposal on RR, and sought to calm my commenters in their respective enthusiastic engagement of their opposite numbers.  I’m not sure whether Steve is accusing me personally of carrying out the ad hominem attacks that apparently we all wish to stop.  If so, then I would like to have Steve pull up and cite such egregious attacks from my posts and comments.  Because such examples are seminal to what he proposes.

Before going further, please read Steve’s proposal which you can download here (Download FrischTruceProposal).  I will proceed on the basis that Steve’s proposal is serious and made in good faith.

Of course, in principle I fully support such deportment among the discussants, and maintain that I personally have hewn to that civil line.   Therefore, my own writings would not have to change (subject to corroboration by Mr Frisch).  But many of the classical facets of public debate are indirect and sophisticated characterizations which I and some others have labeled ‘churchillian’.  I would not want to sterilize our exchanges to exclude this genre.

Nor would I want to be prevented from characterizing an opposing viewpoint and its holder by one of the ideological labels common to the arenas of socio-political contention.  If I believe someone is, say, a ‘socialist’ and have made a case for it, then that appellation stands without prejudice.  It is my opinion of which I am trying to convince my reader.  In the past, I have been accused of “attacking” someone personally for such usage.  Going forward, this I cannot countenance.

Similarly, I have been accused of “throwing him under the bus” for the mere response of disagreeing with what the person has proposed and nothing else.  I have no problem to the continued use of such malapropisms, and believe that my readers are astute enough to parse such accusations correctly.  But I would not want to become the gatekeeping editor of such language from either side of a debate.

In the final analysis, on RR we discuss topics which IMHO are of prime importance to our continued existence as the historical America, and even our continued existence as the dominant species on this planet – no light fare there.  And the proposals and beliefs in such arenas are widely diverse and deeply held.  I don’t want to become an editor required by agreement to squeeze the juice out of either.

And what I sincerely hope that I have said above concerning me would apply equally to my readers.  Although I admit that my record there has been somewhat spotty.  But overall, I am more than pleased with the discussion threads that have developed and run their course on RR over the past years.  It has been an honor to provide such an environment for serious consideration of critical ideas.

Russ Steele on NCMW has posted his take on Steve Frisch’s proposal; one that treats the work involved in being a timely gatekeeper and purger of violations of what is agreed.  I fully agree with Russ’s concerns.

My counter proposal to Steve is that we take his proposal under advisement, let all of our readers consider them and comment as they will.  In all honesty, I do not take offense at what is said of me on Pelline’s blog by him or his readers.  I am aware of the attacks only to the extent that they are emailed to me by my readers on an FYI basis.  The treatment between our two blogs is definitely asymmetrical as anyone who can reliably count to fifty will verify.

So in light of Steve’s proposal, let’s see if we can all go forward in a churchillian manner, and debate our respective positions not necessarily to claim victory through conversions, but victory through the better structuring of our own beliefs, and the understanding of our equally fervent ideological opponents.  Each blogmeister will do what they determine must be done to gain such ends, and who knows, there we may actually witness the sunrise of a new beginning.