Contra Jonah I

It was indeed a lame-ass post. But AL goes in for the kill:

The suggestion that someone like Publius' contribution to the general political dialogue in this country is insignificant because he is simply "opin[ing] on the news of the day for fun" is pretty insulting. Publius, like most political bloggers, is attempting to engage and influence the national discussion on those issues he chooses to write about. That's absolutely no different than what Goldberg does (except for the quality of writing and analysis being much higher). And though he has to compete with a great many more voices due to advances in technology, what this Publius was doing is no different in nature from what Madison, Hamilton, and Jay attempted to do with the same pseudonym two hundred years ago.

With the hindsight of history, we now know who the original "publius" was and the significance of his (their) writings. But there's no way to apply a "significance" test to the present. There's no way to pick and choose who is worthy enough to write under a pseudonym (because we don't know who they are!). And without knowing the future, there's no way to fairly or reliably judge the relative significance of people's writings.

Actually, I think one can discern the likely endurance of Jonah Goldberg's professional work, as opposed to the "amateur" commentary of Publius. And it has gained prominence not because it pierces through the discourse despite anonymity, but because a ready frattish sense of humor, a dash of nepotism, a right-wing welfare state, and a team-player's mentality allow such a writer to prosper. All Jonah needed to know was that Whelan was on his "team". An argument in defense of him was thereby necessary, even if it is transparently stupid. What Publius does is much harder and far deeper. Anonymity and all.