In other words: A tempest in a teapot.

And Bit:

but this example gives us a rather nasty illustrattion of what happens when less than lockstep leftism is employed.

There is plenty of "lockstep" on both sides. Take note of the "Operation Leper" project at Redstate.

THE CAP KERFUFFLE.... You've probably heard a little bit about the blogospheric issue of the day. If you're just joining us, the estimable Matt Yglesias had a brief item on Friday afternoon, principally about Barack Obama convincing centrists that an...

Discretion isn't the hallmark fot the blogger. If that's not what CAP wanted, it picked the wrong guy.

Or maybe writing a blog for an institution paying you to advance their cause isn't "blogging" in the same sense as writing on a personal blog?

My point is that the conflict here, and the response, is not something that only "lockstep leftism" would engage in.

This doesn't strike me as an ideological situation, but rather one clearly, as James notes in the post, about the type of organization MY is working for:

So, did Matt run afoul of their ideology, or not?

That depends entirely on what MY's agreement with CAP was when he came on board. [...] Either he should be edited or not, if edited his work should be edited beforehand rather than with disclaimers afterwards, and that policy should be the same for all of CAP's writers.

We agree.

It would be unusual for an ideologically driven organization like CAP to pay someone to simply write whatever they feel like. Presumably, they pre-screened Matt's writings and felt that he was generally in line with them and Matt did the same before hiring on.

At New Atlanticist, I set an editorial policy from the outset that said that people writing under their own byline speak only for themselves and that if we intended to write as an institution we'd do so as "The Editors" to make that clear. I'm free to say what's on my mind.

At the same time, however, I'm cognizant that I'm a senior staffer at an institution and not just spouting off on a blog. So, I've got slightly different internal checks there than I do here. For that matter, the fact that I post under my real name makes me a different blogger than I'd be were I anonymous.

but this example gives us a rather nasty illustrattion of what happens when less than lockstep leftism is employed.

This doesn't strike me as an ideological situation, but rather one clearly, as James notes in the post, about the type of organization MY is working for:

Institutions start blogs with the purpose of advancing their institutional agenda. Writing for CAP is different from writing for a general interest magazine or on one’s own space, both of which Matt did previously.

I have my problems with Yglesias, but this example gives us a rather nasty illustrattion of what happens when less than lockstep leftism is employed.

If he’s forced to tow the CAP party line on issues, regardless of what he believes, that’s problematic.

Well, clearly what happened here is two things. First, CAP needed the prestige of a first circle blogger writing for them.

Secondly, as seems typical for the left, it was beyond their wildest imagination that someone of the first circle would not be in lockstep with them. The objection, apparently, it that (Amazingly) Yglesias came a bit close to the truth for their comfort.

As in, when you are lining up for formation in the Army, your toes are supposed to line up on the line.

it’s absurd to expect that they should simply let him post whatever he feels like posting

?

I don't know whether it's absurd or not. That depends entirely on what MY's agreement with CAP was when he came on board. I'm in no position to decide what CAP sees as in its interests or against them.

However, I do think it's absurd to edit after the fact. Either he should be edited or not, if edited his work should be edited beforehand rather than with disclaimers afterwards, and that policy should be the same for all of CAP's writers.