Today's Wall Street Journal had two op-eds that particularly caught my eye.
The first dealt with the question of the suggestion put forth by the Iraq panel that the US begin negotiations with Iran and Syria. The opinion, written by Stanford's Abraham Sofaer, positioned itself as the "Reagan strategy" to hostile countries. I found the general sentiment a sound one. I especially agree with the idea of limited and segmented negotiations with the two countries on less controversial issues. As Sofaer put it, "The distrust between the U.S. and Irani suggests that negotiations between them should commence on limited issues, in a noncontroversial forum." His suggestion of the U.S./Iran tribunal at the Hague was an interesting one. I feel that Bush's policy of complete rejection and pre-condition is futile. Negotiation will not work without diplomacy, which is what I feel the American public at large is finally realizing.
The
second editorial discussed the phenomenon of blogging, and specifically its impact on public political discussion. Written by Joseph Rago, an editor at the WSJ, it takes a highly negative position (incidentally, the article begins by referring to Iran, noting that blogs are so popular that "Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has one."). This position, which is actually discussed extensively by Alireza Doodstar in his article
"The Vulgar Spirit of Blogging," (pdf) argues that blogging has debased debate about important issues. Rago believes that the internet, and specifically blogging, has created an atmosphere where the very style of writing has become so sloppy and informal as to be undignified. Says Rago, "The
way we write affects both style and substance... The closest analogue [to blogging] might be the (poorly kept) diary or common place book, or the note scrawled to oneself on the back of an envelope- though these things are not meant for public consumption." While I can't argue with many of Rago's points, I think that he in turn misses an important point when it comes to substance. His is the response one would expect from a elite writer, positioned high above "the fray." Perhaps Rago doesn't understand power that the informality of blogging contains, the freedom or accessibility that it implies. Of course, if he is being published in the WSJ, I guess there is no incentive for him to see this.
On the other hand, I do want to point out an important point he makes that has been a
point discussed on
Sounds Iranian. This deals with participants on the internet talking
past each other rather than to each other. As Rago puts it (rather well), "The Internet is very good at connecting and isolating people who are in agreement, not so good at engaging those who aren't." Very apt words that I think bloggers need to deal with.
