Interview with Glenn Reynolds: Blogs at InstaPundit.com, University of Tennessee Law Professor
Interview with Glenn Reynolds: Blogs at InstaPundit.com
Mother Jones: We are talking about open-source politics as the idea that social networking and participatory technologies are going to revolutionize everyday citizens' abilities to follow, support, and influence political campaigns.
Glenn Reynolds: It's been more evolutionary than revolutionary. There's been a big tendency to open things up in the nomination process, ever since the McGovern reforms in the Democratic Party. The Republicans have sort of been dragged along in that, but it's a long time from the days when the backroom deals decided who was going to be the nominee. The difference is that now, instead of going to a few hundred or a few thousand people to raise money, you can go to a few million. Candidates who can raise money in small doses from a lot of people can compete with people who can raise money in bigger doses from a small number of rich people, and that's a big change. We saw Howard Dean with the initial indication of that, but Obama is taking it to the next level.
MJ: Do you think either party has an early lead or advantage in harnessing these technologies?
GR: I think the Democrats have the advantage. The Republicans had a better machine using the last generation of new media such as direct mail and email, but I think Republicans have been behind the curve on using the Internet for fundraising and campaigning. I think Dean was proof of concept. He made clear to everyone that was paying attention that there was a whole new game here. There's plenty of time for Republicans to step up their game, but I'm skeptical they will do it. They've gotten so used to winning that they are no longer open to new ideas, and don't have that hunger that you need to change your program. That's a big mistake on their part. Until the Republicans have someone like Joe Trippi, someone who really understands the Internet, I don't think they will change, unless they are forced to.
MJ: What is the most exciting new use of technology in politics?
GR: I think it's the way things get covered that wouldn't normally get covered. For example, John Edwards spoke in Nashville yesterday and several bloggers covered it and they posted video and they posted photos on Flickr. You can actually learn a lot more about that speech there than you can from even the coverage in the Nashville papers, much less the national papers, which pretty much ignored it. The next thing people are going to do, and campaigns can do this some, is start aggregating some of that coverage on a daily basis so that you can go to the campaign's web site and follow this stuff. But I think we're going to see blogs come into their own as a true reporting medium between now and the election.
MJ: On the flip side, what is the most overhyped use of Internet technology in politics?
GR: Candidates' use of YouTube. I mean, it's nice to put your commercials on YouTube, but it's still a commercial. Anything the candidates do on the web is always going to be drained of life and excitement compared to what people outside the campaign do because campaigns play it safe. They can't help it.
MJ: Does open-source politics force candidates to be more responsive?
GR: It does. You can't sit on a story, and you can't really set the agenda very well. If people are talking about something, you have got to talk about it. But politicians have to be careful—it's okay to be "responsive," but the Internet winds shift suddenly, and if you shift with them too much you look weak or opportunistic. Reading blogs gives you an idea what a sector of the electorate thinks, but politicians would be wise to stick to their own beliefs and use the Internet to reach people who share them, or who might be persuaded to share them.
MJ: Will it change the way candidates speak to the public? Will they step away from their talking points?
GR: There's this weird paradox, in that the more transparent you become, the less spontaneous you can be. For example, you had these stories of people like JFK and LBJ on a campaign airplane, shooting the bull off the record with reporters and saying all kinds of stuff that they would never say now. But there's no such thing as off the record anymore. You can't do that. And the result has been, so far, that candidates have gotten stiffer and more scripted. The question is whether at some point that turns around. At some point, the fact that everything is constantly covered means that no particular news is really that big, and people will be able to be more spontaneous again. I don't think that will happen this election cycle, but I'd love to be wrong.
The Internet is death to phonies. But politicians have a tendency to be phony. It's better to be honestly awkward than phonily slick.
MJ: Which features of this shift make it more democratic, and which features make it less democratic?
GR: What makes it more democratic is that more people can participate. But the thing that makes it less democratic is the thing that makes all of politics less democratic, which is that most people don't care enough to participate. You always have a self-selecting minority involved. It's a bigger self-selecting minority now, but it's still a tiny fraction of the electorate.
MJ: How heavily do you think elite bloggers, on the left and the right, will be courted by campaigns during this cycle?
GR: Oh, a lot. The thing about so-called elite bloggers is that they provide a certain degree of brand trustworthiness. People say there's a lot of hostility between blogs and the mainstream media, but it's really more of a symbiosis. Media often look to elite bloggers to decide if something is worth paying attention to, and vice versa.
MJ: What about bloggers going to work for candidates?
GR: When campaigns hire a blogger, they get a lot of expertise. The blogger, once they work for a candidate, they become part of the candidate's operation. But the glow wears off pretty fast. Everybody knows they're not independent anymore. Once I get an email from a blogger I know is working for a campaign, I treat it as campaign spam, because that's what it is.
More Interviews << >> Politics 2.0 Index
Page 1 of 1 
I'm not sure MJ decided to lend its luster to this hack. Anyone familiar with his "writings" can't take him seriously as en expert on much of anything, except home gadgets perhaps.
I'm disappointed that MJ didn't take him on as the thinly-veiled shill for the GOP that he is, rather than treating him as some kind of unaffiliated expert on campaign strategy.
Shame on you.
wow. Do you have any idea who Glen Reynolds is? Allow me to second paul's suggestion that your readers go here:
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2007/06/dear-mother-jones.html
as for the "interviewer" "Heck of a job Brownie!"
The US has a real problem with law professors. Reynolds, Althouse, and Yoo show why they're unsuited to be instructors of any sort on a daily basis. Why give a clown like this a platform and why ask him softball questions?
wow. i always thought of mother jones as a trustyworthy source of political info. now i see that it has little understanding of current ideology.
It all depends on what the meaning of "law" is.
Last time I read anything from Mother Jones.
Shame on you.
I love this guy. He'll drink any flavor Kool-Aide
Instaputz's questions posted here for comparison with the dreck that MJ served up:
# Do you believe it should be the United States' policy to assassinate Iranian civilians?
# You say you're a libertarian. When was the last time you voted for a libertarian candidate?
# What does "winning" in Iraq actually mean, and how much longer do you think that will take?
# If the United States doesn't "win" by your standard, who will be responsible?
# Throughout the war and before he was fired, you insisted that Donald Rumsfeld was being unfairly criticized for his performance and called the generals who did so "cowardly." Do you have second thoughts about that after he was fired?
# Also, from 2003-2006, you insisted that more troops in Iraq weren't necessary. But when the President called for more troops, you changed your mind. Why?
# You claim the GOP lost the midterm elections because of pork. Do you have any polling evidence to support this theory?
# Do you really believe, as you wrote, that Andrew Sullivan is a "bigot" when he maintains that the GOP has a problem with "Christianism" -- that is, Christian activists in the GOP who fuse a specific religious doctrine with politics?
# Why do you think so many Republicans have a problem with evolution?
# Are you against the Bush Administration's use of torture? If so, why haven't you called for the resignation of those responsible?
# I'm sure you're aware that the Cato Institute has been documenting the Constitutional abuses by the Bush Administration for years. Are you concerned about that, as a libertarian?
# You claimed, again and again, that Valerie Plame wasn't covert. But Patrick Fitzgerald clearly indicated that she was, and, in any case, if she wasn't, why would the CIA ask the DOJ to investigate her outing? How did you arrive at such a false conclusion?
# Who are you supporting in 2008? Ron Paul or another libertarian candidate?
# You've been an enthusiastic supporter of the surge since it began, and have written extensively about how it's working. Do you still believe that?
"Mother Jones: Smart, Fearless Journalism"
Where? When?
First you diss Digby, now you fluff the Great Fluffer?
Is this bizarro world?
wow. instapundit is a partisan republican hack who falsely claims to be a libertarian. Don't give him a platform.
I expect better of MJ - where were the real questions? Shame. You can, and have, done better. Why was Mr. Reynolds given a pass? Smart, fearless journalism would have turned him into toast (or milquetoast as the case may be).
This interview was a joke. On us, the readers. Where were the real questions for this partisan hack? Here are a few I'd like to see: http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2007/06/dear-mother-jones.html
Mother Jones, you can't claim to be "Smart, Fearless Journalism" and then provide us this dreck full of softballs to one of the biggest hacks in punditland. Huge dissapointment!
relax, libs.
first, it is very possible to be a libertarian and vote Republican. i'm a self-declared anarchist and i voted Dem last time around.
second, this interview is not a "let's get to know glen reynolds" article. i thought that would have been obvious from the explicit opening to the interview ("We are talking about open-source politics as the idea that social networking..."), but maybe it's just because i can read at or above the third grade level.
as for MJ giving this racist, genocidal, Republican hack a platform - i can't see any excuse for that.
as for MJ not declaring that Reynolds is a Republican hack instead of "Blogs at InstaPundit.com, University of Tennessee law professor" - no excuse there, either.
Apparently either Mother Jones wants to become the next New Republic, or its editors are excedingly stupid.
Either way, it's another old-fashioned print publication no longer worth bothering about.
"it is very possible to be a libertarian and vote Republican."
Yeah, and it's possible to be an atheist and go to Church. What's your point, [deleted]?
Oh, I didn't realize Mother Jones sees fit to give the obscene Glenn Reynolds a platform yet can't handle a naughty word in the comments section.
Pathetic.
Youtube as the most overhyped use of new technology? Only if you ignore how it was used to let Allen take himself out of the Senate with his "Macaca moment."
Why bother at all with insta-panned-it?
Anything out of his mouth has a better than even chance of being utter horsesh*t.
Surely there are well-known bloggers with thoughts on the intersection of campaigns and blogging--Kos Moulitsas and Jane Hamsher come to mind--that you didn't to get the skinny from a shill to everything that ought to be anathema to Mother Jones.
I'm confused as to why MJ chose to interview Reynolds rather than someone who has really been involved in using the Internet for real political activism beyond merely a lot of linking. While it's true Reynolds has been blogging for a long time, it would have made more sense to talk to someone from MyDD or Daily Kos, or one of the blogs involved in state politics (e.g., gotv.blogspot.com).
RE: "this is not a 'get to know Glen Reynolds' interview"
That's a fair point, Monica. However, it's hard to excuse completely ignoring Reynolds' own noxiousness and his tacit approval of some of the darkest hatemongers in the blogosphere (see Max Sawicky's "Vicious Instapundit Blogroll Contest," on MaxSpeak, circa 2004).
No attorney in their right mind would call Reynolds as an expert witness on any subject. His credibility is thoroughly impeached.
"What's your point, [deleted]?"
there's this thing called the two-party system. check it out, sometime.
This interview is a joke, right?
RIGHT!?
.
You've totally missed the point, Ms. Bauerlein. Reynolds is so poisonous and so noxious that he's thoroughly disqualified himself from "tell me about the blogosphere" chit-chats like this.
More here:
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2007/06/monika-bauerlein-of-mother-jones.h...
This point has been made already, but I'll reiterate that "interviewing" someone of Reynolds' credibility on anything beyond his choice of home gadgets is ludicrous. For MJ, a magazine named for someone who would give the professor the drubbing he richly deserves, to give him any space at all is an embarrassment to progressive journalism.
Some other worthwhile (ie, non-hacky) names were submitted: try adding them to the rolodex.
Thanks, Peter, for pointing out that this is not a "get to know Glen Reynolds" interview; it's one of dozens of interviews that we conducted for a package on politics 2.0, asking various bloggers and netizens for their view on how technology is changing politics. We didn't ask Reynolds OR the other interviewees (including Jerome Armstrong, Esther Dyson, Howard Dean et al.) about general political topics either; that wasn't the point. With Reynolds, we were specifically interested in his views on why the right is so far behind in the blogosphere--interviewing only lefties on that topic would have made a pretty boring conversation. Check out the rest of the package at motherjones.com/fightdifferent.
Sorry, not sure why my comment posted twice. But thanks, Blue, for the response. (and thanks, Paul, for the thoughtful note. by the way, I don't get much love from the LGF crowd: As for whether some people should not be dignified with including them in a conversation--yes, probably, some, but in general, I tend to want to hear from the people I disagree with. So disagree away, everyone.
Oh, and of course we would interview Karl Rove! I can think of a few choice questions.
Wow!
Mother Jones worked to organize workers here in WV back when it was illegal to join a union. Glenn, I have no doubt, wishes very much it was still illegal to organize.
So why didn't you ask him how he feels about the upcoming labor organizing bill that might speed union organizing?
Why didn't you ask him how he feels about "Killer" Yoo's memos about torture?
Why didn't you ask him how he thinks we could win in Iraq?
Why didn't you...
never mind. . . .what a disappointment!
"I tend to want to hear from the people I disagree with"...... The question is whether you want to hear from someone who's raison d'etre is making bad faith arguments. And in that respect, LGF has far higher standards than Glenn Reynolds.
I'm guessing those "choice questions" you'd ask Rove wouldn't be softballs.
You just made my point for me.
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2007/06/monika-bauerlein-of-mother-jones.h...
Mother Jones gives Glen Reynolds a BJ.That explains why I haven't read MJ since the dark Reagan era.Too bad you dumped Michael Moore.What ever happened to that guy ??
Mother Mary Jones: Pray for the Dead and fight like hell for the living! And what is her namesake magazine doing? Interviewing a radio spewing pre-war Adolf Hitler about his views on art, along with various academics, poor artists and dealers and claiming apples equal scorpions. Shame!
I apologize for my fellow lefties for getting their collective heads up their ass over this interview.
Mother Jones is a fantastic magazine, and this interview is extremely harmless. I know and dislike Glenn Reynolds quite alot, but if I didn't know this interview was with him, there's no way I could've guessed.
Some people just get way too crazy over so little. And it's sad.
Still not getting it!
Read this carefully: Glenn Reynolds is a RACIST a**hole and you are only enabling him by including this interview with him as if he were anything else.
"I apologize for my fellow lefties for getting their collective heads up their ass over this interview."
If you believe this guy is really a "fellow lefty," I've got a bridge to sell you.
I've got a suggestion for the next issue, based on one of Reynolds' posts today.
http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2007/06/putz-left-is-rooting-for-america-t...
dear Monica
this interview reminded me of the hard-hitting journalism of David Broder. In fact, I don't think the Dean would have written or asked different questions.
You are doing a Heck of a job Brownie...
And I loved your response! It reminded me of a high school paper. Go left! Beat Rove! Hoo Ray!!!!
I was under the impression that Mother Jones was somehow on the liberal end of the political spectrum.
This pandering interview of an extremist right-wing hack, treating him as if he was a credible interviewee on any topic (other than his Führer-Prinzip worship of dictator-wannabe Bush and Cheney and his hatred for the rule of law), sure has diabused me of that notion.
What point is there in ever reading Mother Jones ever again, if they sit down with someone like InstaPutz and only proceed to fluff his ego, instead of asking IMPORTANT questions???
How pointless.
Let's face it, Mother Jones has suffered an extraordinary decline under the watch of Ms. Bauerlein. This is just another symptom.
WAHHH WAHHH, HOW DARE OUT PROGRESSIVE SANCTUARY BE TAINTED BY THE INFIDEL REYNOLDS!! Wow, what a bunch of pussies MoJo readers are!
As a center-right libertarian who typically votes Republican, I rarely make my way to the MJ site, but I have always had the impression that it was a very liberal but intellectual publication. The responses to this interview demonstrate that MJ's readership lacks the intellectual "heft" to even understand the nature of the interview, let alone the complexities of the world around us. I find this disappointing, as I was hoping to find a reasonable and smart discussion in the comments.
You--the readers--should be ashamed of yourselves, and, perhaps, a bit embarrassed.
I used to subscribe to MJ, but I have not read it for a long time, and this my first visit to the web version. I am shocked at the vicious comments about this interview. I have visited instapundit and although it does not support many progressive idea, I have not seen anything rascist, or vitriolic
What happened to the possibility of principled disagreement among Americans?
Clearly some progressives are unable to tolerate disagreement with their agenda without dismissing others as hacks, putzes, or "unsuited to be instructors of any sort."
Let's see, now. One of the most popular bloggers around is interviewed about the intersection between blogs and politics. And half the people in the comments - or more - want to execute, ostracize, fire, or otherwise discommode everybody involved.
Right. I'm not a blogger, so I'm safe for the moment. But if you know you're going to an attack interview, why not stay home instead? I would! And MJ will end up talking to itself.
Or, at risk of invoking Godwin's Law -- if Bush is Hitler, how come you aren't a lampshade? Glenn Reynolds isn't an SS stormtrooper, either. Worst I've heard, he blends puppies.
To Jay G.(and other commenters): What's with the unsubstantiated ad hominem potty language attacking Glenn Reynolds as a racist?
I doubt that you can point to a *single* item in his enormous body of posts and podcasts that is in any way racist.
Prove me wrong if you can with specifics, but please skip the generalized nastiness and name-calling.
Very intelligent commentary on the interview. Very cogent. Most perceptive. Exactly what one would expect from the readership.
