You can count me among those that would have very much preferred Harriet Miers not be the newest nominee to the Supreme Court. I'm not devestated as some people seem to be, but I am disappointed. I may or may not write about this at a later date. But I find the conversation (to put it euphemistically) that has come forth since the nomination to be interesting both on how it pertains to a schism between two different kinds of Republicans and what an office-holder owes to its ideological base and how that pertains to the blogosphere.

I'm going to explore the latter in this post.

Stephen Bainbridge made the following comment, to seemingly universal approval:

I have the distinct impression that the Democratic Party sees the liberal blogosphere as being inside the tent, while the Republican Party views the conservative blogosphere as being somewhere between an irrelevance and a minor nuisance. Maybe this is true, at least in part, because many prominent "conservative" bloggers (Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, and Eugene Volokh spring to mind) are not exactly stalwart Republican party loyalists but rather libertarians (or whatever) who put routinely put their principles ahead of party interests. Alternatively, maybe the Democrats have just decided to follow Lyndon Johnson's advice about keeping your critics inside the tent peeing out rather than outside the tent peeing in.

The man answers his own question. The fact that the liberal blogosphere fervently aligns itself with the Democratic Party and that the "conservative" blogosphere aligns itself with nobody is not incidental. It is not "a possible factor" or even "a factor." It is the factor.

Kos didn't win his influence with Democrats by talking about ideas. He didn't actually win it by talking at all. He earned it by using his words to attract an audience, build a movement, and raise thousands upon thousands of dollars! While libertarian conservatives were saying "Bush is so wrong on so many issues, but he's better than Kerry by a longshot" Kos was saying "Our very lives depend on Bush being impeached and, if possible, impaled!" and while the staunch right was playing a holier-than-thou stance that they couldn't support Bush because insufficiently anti-immigration, pro-gun, or whatever, Kos was saying "Kerry is all that stands between us and oblivion!!!!!"

And while the right complained, the left raised money not just for Kerry but for countless congressional candidates.

No, you don't get to say "We're your base, you f'in sell-out" and get a seat at the table. You don't get to say "I guess you're acceptable to us" and get whatever you have to say after that heard. You can talk all you like about being committed to ideas, but as long as you're more committed to ideas than you are to working for those you want to carry those ideas out, your ideas don't matter. The blogoleft is heard because they're working. The blogoright isn't heard because they're just talking.

And you know what? The Republican Party is probably better off for it.

For all the money that Kos has raised, he hasn't won a single race. Not one. For all the influence that they've got in the Democratic Party, it's in a party whose only prayer into office is continuing Republican ineffectualism. They've got a party that's given in to their rhetoric and yet been able to do nothing to advance their ideology. The Kossacks ideas are even less popular than the much-maligned Religious Right's and they Democrats are increasingly tied to that anchor. The only thing that Kossacks ideas are more popular than is their rhetoric, is increasingly used to the Democrats' peril (see Durbin, Richard).

But we're right and they're wrong, the harpers of the right contend. And we are right and they are wrong. But if there's a class of people with a greater gap between what they think is a good idea politically and what is than bloggers, I don't know what it is, and that's a bipartisan assessment.

I'm not saying that we should all just shut up and continue to let the Republican leadership continue to borrow-and-spend with nary a word said. I share many of the frustrations. And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what to do about them. But the sense of entitlement is unbecoming and the Kos Method is winless in all its attempts. I'd like to think that there is a way that does more than just blow off steam and wash hands clean of ideological impurity.

Update: There seems to be a little confusion. I'm not telling anyone that they don't have a right to express their opinion. Especially not the libertarian right, where I could somewhat accurately be placed.

Those that have done a good amount of heavy lifting for the party have every right to be irate. Those that have stood by the president and actively supported his campaign (despite whatever reservations they had personally) have bought in. That's not to say that they should always get what they want, but they've a right to expectations.

What I'm talking about are those that distance themselves from the party whenever convenient. I'm talking about those that make a point not to sully themselves with the compromise that politics requires. Those that don't even try to understand. When you start to run purity tests that no electable politician could pass, you're excused yourself from realtime politics. Don't be surprised when you're not consulted when political decisions are made.

I understand the frustration, though, and I share it. There's a good chance that I'll be voting Democrat in the 2006 House elections. I've all but stopped boosting the party on this site. But by doing so I recognize that by not being a team player, I'm not really a part of the team. Being in a free country and all that, I'm certainly free to complain about the current leadership's shortcomings. But my views on the issues alone do not entitle me to the Republican Party caring.