An affair of honor

More astute bloggers than I have observed that today’s blogging world most nearly resembles the pamphleteering era of the 18th century. Thomas Paine set a standard for reach and influence that no blogger has come close to matching.

Less often observed is that 18th century political enthusiasts had a way of settling disputes that no longer exists: dueling. It’s a useful tradition that ought to be restored.

Readers with long memories and little else to do may recall my ongoing unpleasantness with Bill Quick at Daily Pundit. It started when he published a post that accused mainstream media of treason. MSM get accused of all sorts of things, and many of the accusations are stupid and irresponsible but essentially harmless. Treason is a different matter. Allegations of treason require a prompt and unsparing rebuttal because those allegations (1) devalue a concept that should not be devalued and (2) slur the honor of people who have served their country honorably and with distinction.

If dueling were socially acceptable, then when Quick posts such loathsome and scurrilous charges, I could insist that he produce either indictable evidence or a retraction. He would respond in his usual churlish way, I would demand satisfaction and, provided he could screw up enough courage, we would meet some clear morning on the field of honor, accompanied by our seconds, and I would shoot him dead.

Why would I win? I’m no gunman, but I did qualify as an expert marksman in the Army, and even at my age I think I have one good shot left in me. Doesn’t God guide the aim of those whose hearts are true?

But as matters stand, there would be an unpleasant police investigation, depositions and indictments, and I might have to do prison time (although, in Quick’s bizarro world, I could get off with a reprimand).

So I am reduced to merely publicly ridiculing his more outrageous lies and indiscretions from time to time, prompting him to reply with a string of imprecations that essentially all make exactly the same rhetorical point: His shit smells better than mine. And since nobody wins a shit-smelling contest, nobody comes away happy.

I’ve considered other options. There could be a blogger’s court, for instance, where aggrieved parties could state their claims before a neutral arbiter. But that probably would perpetuate more feuds than it would resolve.

Fights in the alley behind a bar tend to be tawdry affairs, and boxing matches, popular for settling some disputes, unfairly favor the better pugilist, an irrelevant consideration in matters of honor. Duels may favor the better marksman, to be sure, but the whole apparatus of dueling – the strict adherence to rules and procedure, the need to stand stock still and let the antagonist have his chance, the uniformity of weapons – rewards courage over mere technical competence.

Dueling is, in fact, the only way to extinguish flame wars in the blogosphere. If blogging is to endure, Americans will have to overcome our senseless prejudice against settling affairs of honor in an honorable way. We have nothing to lose but a few ignorant blowhards.