I have been asked what I think about this cry from Freddie at L'Hôte, so I have to admit to my bemusement at what seems to me to be the central complaint of the piece:
Many neoliberal bloggers maintain an unspoken but meticulously curated policy of not allowing left-wing criticism to enter their rhetorical space.Is this a plea for belonging? A complaint about link-backs? If you want to get Matthew Yglesias to throw some traffic your way, your best bet is to spend a few posts calling him "an odious, totalitarian, albino squirrel," at which point he will harumph over to twatter and send five thousand liberals nattering off in your direction to tell you that you are a fool, a crank, and a reactionary whose, uh, um, policy preferences will ever come to pass, hosana, eli, hallelujah. Yes, but a very tall and naturally thin reactionary with full and beautiful lips. Anyway, what was I saying? Oh, yes. The inclusion of genuine, authentic, bite-it-like-a-golden-coin leftwardishism in the rhetorical condominium association of the rump American liberal-slash-democratic-socialist faction.
Plainly I come to this particular form of writing from a different non-rhetorical space than Freddie; I certainly don't conceive of this sort of thing as some kind of political activism, and although many of my sympathies are with people of the left, or the far-left, or the far-far-left, or wherever one goes before the sidewalk ends, I do not think of myself as a leftist. So to me, the question of how one gets to be included in the conversation, the discourse, what have you, is essentially meaningless. The reason that a conservative militarist like Matthew Yglesias does not spend a great deal of time acknowledging the socialist critique of redistributive economic policies within the context of global capitalism is that there is no viable socialism within the context of global capitalism. Just ask this Eurozone! The idea that rent-seeking careerists within the media apparatus of the American state are somehow allies in a social and economic struggle is completely absurd. Wondering why Matthew Yglesias ended up writing reliably, banally conservative opinion pieces on his blog when he was once a man of the left is like wondering why Joe Blow, Attorney-at-Law ended up creating corporate tax shelters when he was once an undergraduate student of poetry. He did not find new beliefs. He got a job. I am exquisitely doubtful that Matthew Yglesias has any beliefs so to speak. He has an internalized range of opinions which he repeats and rearranges for publication, just as an assembly-line robotic arm has a programmed range of motions that it repeats and rearranges while putting together the latest light truck.
By the way, there are of course plenty of left-wingers and far-right kooks and privileged anarchist faggots and conspiracy theorists and lawd only knows what else writing on the internet.
Update: Empirical proof, by the way.