By indirect means, I ended up on Conservative Commentary. I'm not setting out to engage in the actual issues within the post, or the comments, but more my initial reaction to it. This post was intended to be a rant, philosophising or waffle rebutting this comment
The key point here is that the only webloggers that really matter are the ones who do engage with their opponents, which in practice includes linking to them and posting comments on their blogs. Navel-gazers of all political persuasions are irrelevant because they are refusing to engage in any political debate at all.by Andrew Zalotocky
I initially read it to say, "Blogs that are not political are navel-gazing and therefore irrelevant."
My second reading of it is - in the context of the post and previous comments - is "If you have a political blog, it is pointless unless you engage in debate."
Which could lead to an interesting (or, maybe boring) meander on whether political blogging has any merit in itself and is it of greater value than other blogging, which could end up in a discussion about the meaning of life.
I am creating a post and destroying it as I write. I want to know what political blogging is, indeed what politics is.
The BBC News front page currently has on it two quasi-political stories: Pauline Prescott's Reunion Delight and Cherie braced for pop hit. I'm not going to go into a rant about celebrities. I'm not even going to go into a rant about how the wives of senior politicians are treated merely as adjuncts to their husbands.
I have never quite worked out what politics is. If you believe the mainstream media, it's about how a small bunch of elite score points off one another. Ask Oxford gives four definitions, which seem all encompassing.
Stung by the comment above - or, at least, how I originally read it - I prepared my rebuttal. My post below, about Architecture was never designed as evidence for the rebuttal. But it set me thinking - if I were to restrict this blog to issues such as Architecture, Celebrity Worship, Trains Going Slow, even if I didn't mention party politics , could I call myself a political blogger?
If I included posts about office summer attire and the plethora of titles available at John Lewis, would I still be a political blogger?
Could I post about clay kitty shooting and feel obliged to include a view on why I feel that the shooting of real kittens is generally a bad thing (I was the person who condemned a friend for his typical right wing Tory cruel disregard for life, when he went clay pigeon shooting. Look, I'm a townie...).
This post has been one drift towards nothingness. To conclude: I thought Politics was about ideas and about how one set of ideologies collides with another set. I am now unconvinced - they are just the side-show to the decisions and actions being taken every day. To return to architecture as a an analogy - it is a deeply political subject. Opinions can clash, and run deep - the traditional versus the new, eyesore vs cutting edge, not in my back yard. But how buildings are designed for people, and how the state must act as arbiter, regulator, enabler, and, often, provider, is far more an important a subject for the political bloggers than many other subjects that are teased to death. I am far more interested in how the state and other powers interface with people than in fisking a newspaper article or imagining myself to have an influence over foreign policy. Because, in my humble opinion, that is where life, and, therefore, blogging, is interesting.
