There can and should be much discussion of causes and cures, but can be no doubt about the result.

Part of the problem is classic liberal entropy -- the People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front stuff. Authoritarians will always be better at focusing their efforts and massing their forces. We aren't anarchists (well, not by design, anyway), but we tend toward anarchy regardless.

I think the more interesting and perhaps preventable part is the sort of symbiotic Stockholm Syndrome that leads lefties to cede so much to anyone who promises to beat less of the snot out of us than the last guy. The left has so internalized its own demonization that we are like the waifs in Mr. Bumble's orphanage, terrified of asking for more. Our timidity and collective self-loathing make it all too easy for our "betters" to ignore us -- they need allocate no grease to wheels that do not squeak.

Our collective voices subsumed themselves in Obama's, which allowed us to "win." But that win will be his, not ours, so long as we remain so meek.

Isn't it interesting that the ones who tend to insist that America is different, that we are better, tend to be the ones who are comfortable using that exceptionalism to ignore inconvenient laws -- in other words, to make us like everybody else?

What would truly prove American exceptionalism? Holding our elites to the same standards we seek to apply to the rest of the world.

A second point: one of the infuriating "professional courtesies" that seems near-universal in Big Media is to avoid criticizing the work of colleagues. Olbermann goes after Fox, but I think he does not consider Roger Ailes' folks journalists. He never went after Saint Timothy or any of the other NBC shills, even during the worst of Scootergate. He does good work mostly, but he knows whence his bread is buttered.

Thank you, Glenn, for ignoring that harmful rule. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, for the point at which your principles will be subsumed to personal gain or expedience. I am happy to say I haven't heard that shoe yet (though I fear you'll never get a TV gig until it does....).

This issue, and your elegant presentation of it, really put the gobsmacking hypocrisy of these folks on display like a diamond in a solitaire.

But Glenn, do you ever get the feeling that you are holding up the moral equivalent of those color blindness tests -- like the red numbers against a green background -- only to hear the subjects respond, "what numbers?"

Because I think that is exactly what is happening here -- a form of blindness.

The problem isn't a failure to apply the test. The real problem is that the test is scored backwards: if you see the numbers, you are banished from the Village.

This was my comment to your treaties post two days ago:

Isn't it interesting that the ones who tend to insist that America is different, that we are better, tend to be the ones who are comfortable using that exceptionalism to ignore inconvenient laws -- in other words, to make us like everybody else?

What would truly prove American exceptionalism? Holding our elites to the same standards we seek to apply to the rest of the world.

It seems to fit better here.

You appropriately used scare quotes ("journalism", etc.), but I think we need better terminology -- scare quotes are ineffective on TV. And as our Republican friends have known for years, controlling the terminology is a big part of winning the debate.

May I suggest that we call the Woodward wannabes like Ambinder and Lizza "access whores"? And we can call what they do prostitution. After all, it is difficult to deliver the literal versions of the services our Fourth Estate friends give metaphorically without access either.

"Wurlitzer Prize"

I don't usually go in for LOL-speak, but man, you got me. Out loud.

You win the Internets for a whole month.

We need to run with this and make it real and high-profile -- press conference, award dinner, the whole schmear.

Wurlitzer Prize....

he is also a former federal and state prosecutor and thus instinctively considers lawbreaking to be wrong no matter who is doing the lawbreaking

After Ashcroft, Gonzales and Mukasey, I'm afraid I have trouble following the implied "if-then" here....

On the whole I of course agree.

But in the same way that the Milton Friedman acolytes really need universal acceptance of basic principles for their laissez faire utopia to work, and that assumption in turn implies government and regulation, the kind of cross-silo debate you extoll assumes some rules of the road -- specifically, the verifiability of facts and the fundamentals of logic. But as you point out on a daily basis, those assumptions are no longer justified.

I understand that you can (and do; good on you) venture into Wingnut World without that common ground. You can make your case and lay out the arguments. But what often happens -- your own comment section is an example -- is that facts and logic are met with "Zombies rule Belgium!"

You feel constrained by certain rules, and play the game accordingly. The Beavis and Butthead game ("Heh. Heh. Volcano monitoring. Heh.") is scored by a completely different set of rules.

You should keep on keeping on -- it is better than nothing, and has some effect at the margins. But there is a bigger problem limiting your effectiveness.