Swift Reactions 9: In Which Ann Althouse Tasks Me

You would think that my piece “Great Moments in Election-Year Blogging,” which brought well-deserved attention to the underreported stories on Obama in the conservative blogosphere, would have been greeted by those hard-working bloggers with great appreciation. Astonishingly, many of them responded with ingratitude and even hostility. Perhaps the most puzzling reaction came from Ann Althouse, who may have earned a place in Bartlett’s for her quote "You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see," thanks in no small part to the efforts of this modest blogger.

After I sent Ms. Althouse a link to the story as a courtesy, she wrote back to say, “Deceitful as usual. Thanks a whole hell of a lot.” I replied that I was “deeply troubled” that she would consider my piece “deceitful” and assured her that “like you, I am very scrupulous about what is published under my name (well, pseudonym), and I would hate to ruin my reputation by giving people the idea that I just publish whatever outrageous idea pops into my head without regard to what damage it might cause to myself and others.” Unfortunately, it was difficult to have a discussion with her about just what was wrong with my piece because she has a very strict policy against reading my work, lest the intellectual purity of her ideas be sullied by my clumsy attempts at reason, which I completely understand. Perhaps I didn’t praise her enough.

But her annoyance at me for my inadequate praise turned into rage after George Packer of the New Yorker linked to my piece and accused her of belonging to “a self-isolating political subculture gone rancid.” How did Ms. Althouse respond to this ridiculous and unfair charge? She and her commenters circled the wagons and viciously lashed out. “George Packer, names me and slams me, but doesn't link, so there's no way for readers to see the context” she wrote. “Shame on you, George Packer! That is truly sleazy!” Finally, she told Mr. Packer, “Look in a mirror, man. Look in a damn mirror, loser.” If Mr. Packer bothered to come to her site and read what she wrote as well as all of the supportive comments from her loyal and insular community of regular commenters, he would certainly see there was nothing “self-isolating” or “rancid” about her subculture. Later, she added, still fuming, “What Packer seems to have done is to have adopted another blogger's summary of what a lot of bloggers, including me, have done over the course of the election season. That other blogger paid no attention to my year of balanced blogging, under an explicit vow of cruel neutrality.” It seemed to me, however, that she undermined her case, and might even strike some as a wee bit hypocritical, when she referred to me as “that other blogger” without linking to me or even naming me, while accusing Mr. Packer of the very same violation of blogger ethics. Although I’m not a law professor like Ms. Althouse, from what experience I have gathered watching Matlock, I’m pretty sure that undermining your case is something you want to avoid.

When I politely pointed out this apparent contradiction in an email, she replied, “Your name has never appeared in a post on my blog. You smeared me by name on your blog and so did Packer. I chose only to write about Packer because of his prominence. I chose to ignore you other than to tell you by email that I regard what you wrote about me as deceitful.” I did not have the heart to tell Ms. Althouse that perhaps Mr. Packer applied her own reasoning to her and did not link to her because he did not consider her prominent enough to warrant such attention. Despite the fact that Ms. Althouse considers my blog to be The Blog That Dare Not Speak Its Name, said to me in her comments, “I don't like you, and screw you” and referred to me as a “little prick,” a “s---head,” a “hypocrite,” “boring,” and an “a--hole,” I know that this is just her colorful way of speaking, and probably how she speaks to her students as well to toughen them up, so I don’t take it personally. I only wish her well in her desire to someday earn the respect of the eastern elites, which she so clearly craves, like those other “wet-fingered conservatives” that Charles Krauthammer writes about.

Ace of Spades also seemed unhappy with my piece, cruelly drawing my attention in an email to the fact that his traffic is somewhat higher than mine. I pointed out that we have different goals: “I have aimed for a quality audience instead of simply quantity as you have,” I told him and encouraged him to “keep up the good work,” cheering him on by saying, “I know you're going to hit on a story that will actually have an effect on the election someday.” Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs took issue with my post as well, linking to it in a comment (see comment #79) and telling his readers, “If you want a graphic demonstration of how much damage is being done by the so-called ‘conservatives’ who are chasing after conspiracy fantasies and stupid ugly rumors, read it and weep.”

Some of my own commenters also expressed disappointment with my piece. First-time (and apparently last-time) reader Dawn Marie, wrote, “It would have been nice to find a conservative blog that I could read in order to get a balanced perspective on the news. Unfortunately, your blog is just a collection of unsubstantiated rumors.” Although she allowed that “there are moments when your writing is fair,” she went on to say, “Your bias comes out with statements such as (paraphrased) ‘supported the democrats until they nominated an unqualified African-American candidate.’ Why not just say they nominated an ‘unqualified candidate’? Is there something particularly juicy to the placement of unqualified and African-American next to each other?” I have to confess I'm not sure what she is trying to say here. Does she mean I should use fewer adjectives? My good friend Neddie Jingo quickly rallied to my defense: “How dare you come into this good conservative blog and imply that it's ‘unbalanced’? Mr. Swift is and always has been a deep conservative thinker of the first water. I get all my news from him, just as he gets his from Fox News and Jay Leno monologues. That way, it's extra-filtered and pure, pure, pure,” he wrote. “I suspect you are actually a LIEberal flying under false colors, trying to make us think you are a conservative in order to make our brains explode from the sheer contradiction.”

Although there were some naysayers, such as Lonewhacko, whose name, I think, is supposed to be ironic, most of the comments were enthusiastically respectful. I urge you to read them all, though if you are rushed for time, Mistah Charley summed them up nicely. I must say, however, I was a bit hurt when Driftglass compared my post to an old rug, though I’m sure he didn’t mean to be quite so unkind.

Finally, my piece “Pro-America vs. Anti-America,” which included a handy chart outlining the differences, really brought out the creativity of my dear readers, who provided their own wonderful illustrations of Pro-America/Anti-America. Here are a few examples: Distributorcap: Wheel of Fortune/Jeopardy; Dr. X: Fried/sautéed; PK: Dogma/Karma; Tom: glossolalia/stream of consciousness; rynato: Elvis Presley/Elvis Costello; Pamela D. Hart: lemonade/Kool-Aid; chicago dyke: meth/pot g4rg4ntu4: God/Boognish. Please go read them all. In the end I think I will take my very small, high-quality, not-particularly-loyal community over that of Ann Althouse and Ace of Spades any day.

Update: Ms. Althouse is still very angry.

Share This Post