Charles Johnson And His Little Green Footballs: Holding Down The Center
Comments (34)
Photo Courtesy of Charles Johnson
When Charles Johnson, a jazz musician and software developer, first started blogging at Little Green Footballs, he wrote mostly about web design, programming, and quirky stories he saw online. That all changed on 9/11. After the world trade center attacks, he began immediately blogging about politics. He was hawkish on the wars, strongly pro-Israel, and deeply critical of the media. His site won acclaim in 2004 after it played a key role in exposing "Rathergate."
Like most political bloggers living in Los Angeles, far from the partisan rules of Washington, Johnson is an iconoclast. He has, of late, devoted more and more time to criticizing the right wing fringe.
On Monday November 30th, Johnson wrote a post, Why I Parted Ways With The Right, listing ten reasons for his change of heart, taking specific aim at Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, James Inhofe, Michele Bachmann, the Christian Right, the tea parties, the birthers, and so on:
"The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.
I won't be going over the cliff with them."
The post received more than 1,400 comments, and was re-tweeted over 9,000 times. I interviewed Johnson over the phone on Thursday, and asked him about the controversial post.
How long had you been thinking about writing it?
Actually, it had sort of been brewing in my subconscious for a long, long time. At least the past two years. But I really didn't intend to it really just all came out in about three minutes.
You just wrote it in three minutes and hit post? You didn't deliberate?
That's about it. I wasn't expecting all this furor, because what I said was basically just an encapsulation of pretty much everything I've been writing for the past year. Something just triggered it off, I don't know what it was. I guess it was just time.
Your views have evolved over the last couple years. Is that safe to say?
Well, to be honest, the main issues that I have with the right wing these days are things that I've always felt. I've been telling people for a long time, if they wanted to listen, that I was a social liberal. I actually fought against being classified as a right-wing blog for a long time.
But your views on Global Warming have changed, right?
Well yeah, that definitely has changed. No question about it.
Was there a moment where you started to change your mind?
Yeah. There was a documentary that came out of the UK called The Great Global Warming Swindle. When that was released I looked at it and I thought, 'Wow, this really is a hoax. All these evil scientists are lying to us.' Within about six months or so, I started to read articles that were debunking the movie. And I realized that a lot of the information that was in that movie was not only false, but deliberately misleading. I understood that this was gonna be a huge issue. I began to read everything I could get my hands on about the subject. Scientific journals, books. And the evidence just piled up and piled up, until I could no longer be a denier.
What about the jihadist debate? I feel like you've softened on that as well.
Well, I kind of have. What started the break for me was when I realized a lot of the right wing bloggers, the so-called anti-jihad bloggers, were making alliances with groups, in Europe, that I consider to have fascist roots. And I didn't want to be part of that.
It's pretty rare today for a blogger or pundit to come out and say, I've changed my mind about something.
It sure is.
Why is that?
Human beings have a strong resistance to change. For most people, it's a lot more attractive to just stay where you are, as long as it's comfortable. But I've always been a contrarian that way. I like to shake my beliefs up every few years. I wish that more bloggers would start to think critically about what they're writing. Blogging was originally an alternative to mainstream media, but now it's kind of been dominated, especially on the right, by people who are emotionally driven, and not very rational about a lot of things.
Do you still own a piece of Pajamas Media, which you founded with Roger Simon in 2005?
No I don't.
Did you get bought out?
Yeah, basically.
What was the reason?
It was actually a mutual decision, because I wanted to spend more time on Little Green Footballs. And also I saw PJ media going in a direction that I didn't really agree with anymore.
What direction is that?
Look what it's become. It's pretty much World Net Daily lite. The vision that we had when we started it was that we were gonna bring both left wing and right wing bloggers on board. And I think that that's pretty much been left by the wayside.
Are you still friends with Glenn Reynolds?
I haven't spoken to Glenn is quite a long time. I don't know how he feels, but I'm kind of disappointed in the direction he's taken lately. He's been posting a lot of articles about revolution. He's basically promoting the tea parties. All kinds of stuff that I just can't be on board with.
I know you voted for John McCain, and after the election, I think either your first or second post you noted that the Muslim Brotherhood was pleased.
Well that was true.
There's not a part of you that cringes when you hear that post?

No, I think it's important for people to know these things. Because it's true that the Muslim Brotherhood was pleased when Obama was elected. But I don't think they're quite as pleased now. He's pretty much kept a lot of the foreign policies of the Bush administration intact.
How do you think Obama's doing so far?
I've actually changed my mind quite a bit about Barack Obama. You know how things are during an election, everybody gets hyper-partisan, and I guess I was guilty of that as much as anyone. But I've seen him be a lot more centrist than I ever expected during the election, based on his background, and the people that he got his political start with, you know, Bill Ayeres, Reverend Wright. If I had to go back, knowing what I do now, I probably would have voted for him.
Wow.
Also, I've become extremely negative toward Sarah Palin.
Didn't you feel that way in the beginning?
I was skeptical of her, but I was ready to defend her, because it was hyper-partisan time.
What's going on with the Republican Party? Is it about to split into two?
I don't pretend to be some genius political analyst. But I do think the Republican Party is on the ropes big time. It's been dominated by zealots. And the religious right has far too much influence. Who knows what's gonna happen, but I think that if it continues down the course it's going we're gonna see Democrats in power for the next 20 years.
Why is there such a difference between the two parties' relationship to their fringes?
For one thing, look at the leaders of the Republican party, they all seem to be 60-plus years old. And the country itself is getting younger. And attitudes are changing. Attitudes toward homosexuality, science, the whole bit. And a lot of these people who run the Republican Party are reactionaries of the first order. They can see themselves losing power, so what they're doing is going further to the right, in an attempt to appeal to the dwindling base.
Does Little Green Footballs make money?
From advertising, yes.
And from donations?
Much less.
And you make enough money on the site to get by?
Yes. Our traffic has remained high despite the fact that I've told the right wing to take a flying jump.
Despite? I'm sure because of.
Well partly because of, yeah. I think for all the people I've lost, I've also managed to attract people from the other side, or from the middle, who missed having people that are rational. We're still in the neighborhood of over a million page views a month.
Well they have you down on Wikipedia as center-left.
Oh, that's good. You know they had a big argument about that on Wikipedia.
As of last night you were center-left, I don't know what you are now.
I think it goes back and forth, depending on who's editing it.
That's right where you want to be, right?
Absolutely, I don't like being easy to classify. I don't like being put in a box.
Note: Little Green Football's "political affiliation" on Wikipedia has since been changed to "Independent."
Comments
"Our traffic has remained high despite the fact that I've told the right wing to take a flying jump."
YOU LIE, "Icarus!" You spent the last year telling the right to take a flying leap by banning commenters who posted articles you didn't like, or who dared to disagree with you.
You never were on the right to begin with. You've just proven how you're just an opportunist (and a religious bigot) who is willing to go whichever direction the wind blows.
Enjoy your new friends, such as Daily "Screw Them" Kos and Media Matters, funded by the Nazi-collaborator George Soros.
I'm curious, is Charles Johnson a high school graduate?
Charles banned me for questioning the updings the sycophants on LGF left him for his comment about "being on hold for Alan Colmes!!!". I guess when you're busy fostering a cult of personality there is no time for someone to point out the irony of the suck-ups. Regardless, the blog has become nothing but an echo chamber for his views - an earlier person commented he'll be done in a year or so. They are correct: there is already a Daily Kos.
"I was skeptical of her, but I was ready to defend her, because it was hyper-partisan time. "
This is virtually the definition of "irrational".
You call (the new) Charles Johnson, "Center"? Yeah, right (I mean left).
It's interesting that Charles claims the reason he switched sides, is because he didn't like some things he saw going on among the group he was (to use his words) "part of". How does that make any sense? Presuming his accusations are true (they aren't) that should have no bearing on one's own opinions.
To use "ClimateGate" as an example, let's say we presume that the scientists' actions are indefensible and undermine the credibility of the natural sciences (e.g., destroying data, preventing peer review of the raw data, trying to exclude journals and scientists who offer dissenting theses, etc.). That alone doesn't undermine the case for anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It just shows some ugly stuff going on by top scientists, responsible for potentially doing damage to economies, world-wide (something we sure don't need now). But by Charles Johnson type of logic, this should lead one to becoming a full-blown "denier," because of bad things found to be happening by some voices in the movement. Again, the two are unrelated: one's opinion of AGW, and un-scientific things done by top scientists in the field. AGW is true and significant, or it isn't. It has no connection to anything said or done by any of the True Believers (albeit, hiding data does make it suspect).
So, now Charles has joined the loony Left that he used to poke fun at every day. And in the same way as before: he finds the worst examples of "the other side," adds in some jibes, and then everybody who agrees with him is happy. I suppose that's one way to make a living. Not an honorable one, but it works.
For the record, I used to be a regular participant at LGF back when it was conservative, but it was too extreme for my values and tastes so I left it. Now it seems that's part of Charles' personality: to go from one extreme to another. Wonder what team he'll join up with next, when he finds something about his new friends he doesn't like...
Charles Johnson the center? That's a rich one. Johnson is all about settling scores. He feels like some right bloggers didn't show him enough deference, so he unilaterally declared war on them. All this talk about the right rejecting Johnson because he has moderate views is bullshit: he started all this by violently attacking other bloggers and smearing them in the most vile terms immaginable. After that, he began attacking anyone who even LINKED to his enemies. As you would imagine, this narrowed his circle of "friends" and widened his circle of enemies. In almost every case, HE is the one who frantically attacks other bloggers and then bans or denounces anyone who won't join in his side of the feud. Far from being a "moderate" , he is a hard core "with me or against" me type with zero tolerance for dissent. Those above saying he doesn't ban anyone unless they get personal: bullshit. He bans anyone who tries to defend any subject on which he disagrees. If he decides you are a "birther" (anyone who has doubts about why Obama refuses to release his long-form birth certificate, which might also reveal embarrassing facts like his real birth name, religions, etc), "religious nut" (any religious person), "far right extremist" (average Republican), "climate denialist" (rational person) etc.
Johnson is a mean-spirited, narcissistic, uneducated, shallow little man who lucked into notoriety on the backs of people who actually did the work (Rathergate), then bailed on the right when he didn't have the depth to be a leader. He is eaten up with envy that people like Michelle Malkin regularly appear on cable and after a few failures, he was rejected. He ran a rabid anti-Islamic site posting every kind of smear and hate post about Muslims, and it grated on him to be called for it, so he switched gears 180 degrees and now attacks anyone for perceived bigotry with all the zealotry of the converted.
He's a loser, a failure and a fraud. The left will publicize him as a useful idiot for a time, then discard him. Look for him to leave blogging altogether in the next year or less.
it's interesting to see the pretzel that johnson's loyalists bend themselves into in order to maintain the party line. on the one hand charles hasn't changed at all, the right has moved away from him. on the other hand, the reason charles changed is because he's a critical thinker
of course it isn't anything like "critical thinking" which has driven charles to the left any more than it was "critical thinking" which drove him to the right in the first place. charles is mastered by humid passions. his manner of pursuing a topic is largely bias confirmation. charles is directed by prejudices: he attacks people he hates, and when familiarity breeds contempt again, he'll be hating on democrats and covering for republicans again with the reliability one of those little plastic drinking bird toys.
when people discuss charles johnson's deficits in the only forums available, charles' loyalists are there.
i'm afraid i sparked a little tailgate fight here, when my intention was only to point to something interesting and ironic about the interview.
i noted that charles would not allow the sorts of questions asked in this interview to be asked on his own blog. this seems to have signalled his loyalists to "avenge" him or something. their method is to recite the "party line", which is to say that no one has been abused by charles apart from those who were "asking for it".
i've told and others can tell their stories of being banned arbitrarily. for my sake, i was banned for asking, in these words, "are you going toward John Cole?" it was my third post. the other two were one heaping (sincere) praise on him for confronting creationists and crypto-nazis and another asking for technical help. after charles banned me, he then lied to the remaining commenters, claiming that i was logging in and out of three other sockpuppets. that's my experience: charles banned me without cause and lied about why he banned me.
the loyalists in this thread can dispute this only by calling me a liar and supposing that i called johnson a nasty name or something. if they try another round of "nuh-uh!" i'm not going to join them in calling "nuh-uh" back.
the fact is that charles doesn't just ban people for asking questions which, for no fault of the questioner, annoy him. charles bans people for taking positions in topical arguments which he disagrees with, or which he suspects he might disagree with. he bans people for not commenting at all. he bans people for rating down posts he's decided should only be rated up and vice versa. he sifts through his user base and bans people according to some algorythm he coded which he claims can automatically identify sockpuppets. but perhaps the most interesting extension of this obcession with control is that he tracks the ips and mac addresses of his users as they leave and reenter his servers to investigate whether they are visiting sites he disapproves of, and bans them accordingly.
which is part of the reason that it's not productive to enter into a "he said, she said" dispute with the loyalists who have come here to defend charles. they are probably best approached as if they were hostages who know they're being watched. perhaps they accidentally said something which got down-dinged yesterday and are here in a harrowed attempt to curry favor with the executioner. i don't know.
i do know why people like myself come to places where charles is being discussed to mention these things. it's for roughly the same reason charles obcessively reads robert spencer's blog, or obcessively follows stacy mccain around the internet (these, by the way, are both causes with which i agree with charles on. in fact, i was on record identifying robert spenser as a racist when johnson was still buddies with him). it's for the same reason charles monitors the comments threads at website he doesn't like and consolidates the ones he finds offensive into posts on his own blog.
simply put, charles is a bad person who is misrepresenting himself as a noble person. intelligent people should have the benefit of hearing his deficits discussed. that's all.
@ werwolf
Hey werwolf [sic] - nice way to start your post with name calling. Isn't that exactly what Charles is so concerned about - incivility, hysteria and name calling?
A post like that would get you banned on LGF if directed at Sharmuta, Kilgore or the master himself.
Look at this collection of sad bastards. Poor, decrepit White Men who spend all their time as keyboard bombardiers. They obsessively read Charles' blog and can ever remember the time and date when this or that precious little comment of theirs was allegedly expunged-- as of a any blogger doesnt have the right to delete posts he doesnt like or finds offensive. And yet, as mentioned below, the only reason they are here today is that they CONTINUE to read the blog and the man they hate. This what is called Having a Tiny Life (and probably a tiny something else). Charles, if you want to make these critics disappear....it's easy. Buy them inflatable girlie dolls for Xmas and that will occupy them for months.