What's so bad about Journolist?

Secret caucuses turn Americans off. They long have. This is why the Democratic party in 1828 instituted the practice of the party convention, a broad, open public meeting of the party’s members to work out differences in the light of day. Over time, the convention degenerated from an open and inclusive process into the “smoke filled” room that nominated Warren Harding. After the riots in Chicago in 1968, it was all but done away with. Today, the people, acting through primary elections, make the most important partisan decisions…

Advertisement

JournoList has too much in common with the old party caucus. First of all, it was secretive. Members only! “NO GIRLZ!” As Ezra Klein notes today, Carlson asked for admission, but was denied it by the list – much as John Adams would have been denied invitation to a meeting of the congressional Anti-Federalists. And, much like the party caucus, the reasons for the denial were ideological: he disagreed with them too much in public to have access to their private thoughts.

Was it used as a private forum to coordinate public activities? Klein and other JournoListers swear up one end and down the other that it was not, but the stories from the Daily Caller suggest that it was on occasion a place for ideologues to plan in secret. Honestly, we’ll never know – and this is a chief problem with such a caucus. It inherently breeds suspicion, distrust, and ultimately conspiracy theories – thereby distorting and perverting the public discourse. JournoList was a years-long secret caucus that discussed…who knows what?…in private prior to public statements. Semi-knowledge of its existence and practices can only worsen ideological tensions, promote bad blood, and further sour an already acerbic public discourse.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement