Ed Whelan's outing of the liberal legal blogger Publius has
started some debate over anonymous and pseudonymous blogging.
Personally, I woudn't have outed him -- a position Whelan himself
now
come around to -- for his offenses. But not all reasons for
anonymity strike me as equally valid.
One of Publius' reasons for wanting to remain anonymous was that
his political opinions differed from his family's. It seems to me
that the solution to that is to keep quiet about your political
opinions. Even as a political commentator, I don't like to shove
my politics down people's throats. I figure people who visit
political websites, read newspaper op-ed pages and political
magazines, and tune into political shows on TV or radio are fair
game because they are actively seeking out political commentary.
But I don't forward my articles to friends and family who haven't
expressed an interest. I don't go out of my way to share my
opinions with people I meet in a non-political context. And I
only recently and reluctantly began posting my articles on my
Facebook page, at the request of my more political friends.
But I am not going to start writing under the name Rhinocerous 55
because I have friends and family members who will undoubtedly
disagree with my political opinions. Having people disagree with
you -- even people you are close to -- is the price of making
political commentary. If you don't want to pay it, then you
should probably try stamp collecting or some other hobby.
Concealing your identity so that people will not know your actual
beliefs -- while criticizing people who write under their own
names -- is quite a bit less honorable than concealing your
identity to protect your family's physical security.