The argument appears to be centered on whether or not Jeff has the 'right' to call himself a liberal. Oliver and Mithras say no, while Michael and Armed Liberal disagree. Personally, I think the whole thing is rather silly.

Obviously, to argue about such a thing is silly, pointless and fun. But I think labels have more meaning than you seem to give them. And meaning is important to all of us who care about the power of words. Obviously, it's important to Jarvis, who felt the need to label himself a liberal in the first place.

Which is why it's interesting how you describe the argument. You say Willis says Jarvis doesn't have the right to call himself a liberal. It's not about "rights" (which are pesky, liberal things), it just that Willis puts a different label on Jarvis's views (not on Jarvis himself) than Jarvis does.

That's where I think your analogy to names breaks down. If I walked up to you on the street and ask your name, and you responded "Andy", it is silly if I contradicted you and said your name was Peter. But if I asked you if you were short and you said yes, and in fact you were 6', I could contradict you and I would have a reasonable basis for my opinion. It might be silly to get heated about, because it's a trivial matter. Politics is a bit more important, though.

Jarvis's approach - you could call it his "marketing strategy" - to blogging is to take the position that he is "the liberal Democrat who criticizes other liberals and Democrats." That way, it shows his dedication to principle, his knowledgability of the subject, and purity of his motive. It's instant credibility. It also makes people madder quicker and obviously appeals to the enemies of liberalism as much as its friends, both of which are good for the hit count. It's like a family member tossing out verbal hand grenades at Christmas dinner, which I think someone else said in describing this whole discussion.

It might be this is all a cynical ploy on Jarvis's part. He might be a conservative Republican who calls himself a liberal Democrat (and adopts some "safe" critical opinions of some things conservatives and Republicans do) just to gain that "instant credibility." That has the elements of a joke: "See how stupid those liberals are? I can completely snow them!" Willis would just like to find out if he's laughing with us or at us.

You want to come sit at our Christmas dinner table? Prove you're cousin Andy, not just some random guy off the street who is posing at him. You're a liberal? Show us your bona fides. That's all.

I could easily consider myself short even at 6' if my entire family was 6'6" or taller; short is a relative term, after all. And so too, clearly, is liberal. What you consider liberal others might consider leftist or centrist or even conservative. It all depends on where that person sits and where they think they are on the political spectrum. Jeff considers himself a liberal. He may therefore see you and Oliver as leftists, while you both may consider yourselves only run-of-the-mill liberals. Trying to argue where someone stands on the political spectrum is useless unless there's a commonly agreed upon definition, and it's clear there isn't one in this case.

As for this being a 'ploy,' that sounds a little too much like a tinfoil hat theory for me. Jeff has been blogging for over two years, so the odds he's using the self-label liberal only to dupe audiences seems improbable at best...how long do you think he's planning on keeping up the facade? Further, not to put too fine a point on it, it's a blog. Who, outside of Andrew Sullivan and maybe Bill Quick, has a marketing strategy for a blog? We're talking about a personal web site that people use to express their opinions. The idea someone is going to use a label simply to establish their blog strikes me as beyond unlikely.

Finally, Jeff's not asking to sit at anyone's dinner table. You don't own the rights to the term liberal, nor does Oliver. If he wants to call himself a liberal, I'm afraid all your shouting and carrying on won't make a damn bit of difference to the rest of us. Indeed, most of us classify bloggers with a certain political label regardless of how they classify themselves; if someone reads one of your posts and decides that makes you a conservative, is there really any point in getting excited about that? I thought the real issue was the real issue, not how it's labeled. Prescription drug coverage through Medicare is now a Republican issue, if not necessarily a conservative one. Does that mean that you and I should change our views on it now? Perhaps I'm overly simple, but I think the label slapped on a program doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not it's a good idea.

I was under the impression that liberals preferred a big tent. You and Oliver seem to consider liberalism more of a very exclusive club. That's your right, of course, but unless you can establish more extensive barriers to membership, I think you're stuck with people like Jeff, Michael, and Armed Liberal walking in the door whether you like it or not.

Further, not to put too fine a point on it, it's a blog. Who, outside of Andrew Sullivan and maybe Bill Quick, has a marketing strategy for a blog?

Okay, color me paranoid. That was funny. (Hey, can't you include Totten on that list, since he wants to launch into a real journo career now? That would be funnier.)

But the rest of your post confuses me. I'm not allowed to label Jarvis, but "most of us classify bloggers with a certain political label regardless of how they classify themselves." I thought that's what I was doing. You completely elided my point about credibility - an essential coin of the blog realm. (And I thought I was being real articulate, too.) Also, the "big tent" crack is off the mark - the Democratic party is a big tent, because it can accomodate lots of viewpoints. Liberalism, conservatism, centrism - those are viewpoints (or, at least, narrower ranges of viewpoints.) You can be a liberal, or you can be a conservative, but can you be a conservative liberal? (Totten thinks so; I think he's confused.)

Look, I'm not trying to get all categorical. I just want to know who I'm dealing with. You convince me maybe I'm overly paranoid. But it's like a baseball team. (Here's a metaphor you might like.) Some guys are great ballplayers, but they are such pains in the ass, constantly complaining about everything, that you don't want them on the team.

I didn't say that you couldn't label Jeff as a liberal, only that I thought it didn't matter whether you did or not. My point regarding categorization is that people are going to call Jarvis what they think he is, regardless of what he says or what you say. Me, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's a liberal since he says he is. You, obviously, won't call him by that label unless he can prove it to you. And people reading his site probably fall into both categories. Some read it and assume he's a conservative, some read it and assume he's a liberal.

As for the question of credibility, I didn't address it because I don't see it. I don't care if Jeff calls himself a liberal or not; I'm going to try and judge his arguments on the strength of his arguments, not give him bonus points for zapping liberals because he calls himself one as well. Case in point: whether Jeff is a liberal or a conservative, I think he had a good point about MoveOn's ad contest. Speaking as someone else who's still looking for someone to support in the 2004 election, I would be thrilled to learn that one of the Nazgul was a candidate I could support. But an ad comparing Bush with Hitler isn't going to do it. That's the case regardless of Jeff's political/philosophical belief structure. So I don't see him being a liberal (or not) giving him any additional credibility.

As for a big tent, perhaps that's another difference between how you and I define liberalism. I see liberalism as (at least ideally) a more inclusive philosophy. Note that I was talking about liberalism, not Democrats.

As for knowing who you're dealing with, that's my whole problem with labels. From what I'm reading, you figure if someone calls themself liberal, you'll be more likely to accept their arguments and to assume they're on your 'team.' So you're offended because you don't think Jeff is on your team, but he's using your team's name. Might I suggest that you ignore the labels, since they're not particularly descriptive in any case, and focus on the arguments. Perhaps you and Jeff are on the same team when it comes to education reform, but on different teams when it comes to the war. (Just an example, I don't know where either of you stand on education reform, and I'm not sure where you stand on the war.) That's where I'm coming from: throw out the labels and focus on the issues. It may be harder, but I think it's far more effective.

Reminds me that conservative seek out converts, while liberals seek out heretics. A pox on both their houses.