Monday, June 08, 2009

Anonyblogging Cont'd   [Jonah Goldberg]

A (anonyblogging) reader writes, in part:

Jonah-

If it's cowardly to blog anonymously, were Madison, Hamilton, and Jay cowards for publishing the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius"?

Answer: No. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay weren't amateur pundits. Seems like a pretty big category error.

Update: Several readers take offense to my use of the word "amateur." For instance:

Hang on a second.

Pundits are divided into "amateur" and, I would suppose, "professional" catagories?

Isn't one of the joys of the internet the ease with which previously unknown wise voices can be heard?

Meanwhile, others say that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were in fact "amateur pundits."

Jonah,

Actually, Madison, Hamilton and Jay were amateur pundits. They wrote in newspapers on subjects of opinion, so they were pundits. They weren't paid for it, so they were amateur pundits. I don't see what could be controversial about this.

Both complaints miss the point. First, yes there are professional and amateur pundits. Who disputes this? Are the professionals always better than the amateurs? Of course not. But some people do work as pundits for a living, some do it as a hobby.

The second point is technically fine, but misses the larger and more important point. Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were anonymous not because they wanted opine on the news of the day for fun. They were anonymous because they were heroically successful revolutionaries trying to secure a republic and a constitution. Whatever the merits of this Blevins guy, he ain't Madison, Hamilton, or Jay, even if he does call himself Publius. My point was that the comparison is silly, and my point stands.

06/08 11:30 AMShare