Theodicius

Good. Evil. Bratwurst.

Political Blogging (a disjointed ramble)

Posted on by arlen

Yes, I blog about some politics. But when I think about blogging and politics, I have to chuckle. For example:

Mark Glaser writes about something called BlogNashville, apparently a kind of blogger conference started by a conservative who found too many liberals at the previous blogger conference. And there is a bit of a brew-up going on about the lack of civility in the discussions there.

A lack of civility in a discussion between internet bloggers? What a surprise. Next thing you’ll be telling me is that there’s a lot of water in the oceans on this planet.

Seriously, those two statements do rank pretty closely on the credibility scale. I mean, just why would you think that people who have grown accustomed to belittling and abusing folks would stop doing it simply because the targets were physically present in the room? I suppose if you come from the point of view that they were basically hypocrites, and were only talking the way they were because the other person wasn’t in view you might be surprised.

But that’s the problem. They’re not hypocrites, they’re perfectly sincere.

And that’s the main problem with politics in our world today. Extremism is the fashion. Barry Goldwater one said “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” I can easily and cheerfully agree with him. But that is as far as I, and I suspect he, would go towards the politics of today.

Politics has taken a nasty turn. Some date it from Newt Gingrich, some from the fall of Speaker Wright, some from the confirmation hearings of Justice Thomas or Judge Bork. I’m not trying to point to the precise moment the first Hatfield (and it wasn’t Mark) fired a shot at the first McCoy. I’m merely observing that the feud is in full swing. And it’s destroying us.

Whether you look at Al Franken, or Ann Coulter, you’re not seeing the kind of reasoned debate we need to see. When you demonize the opposition, you make compromise impossible. And without compromise, democracy is impossible. When both sides draw a line in the sand and demand total, unconditional surrender from the opposition, they invite war. They even invite terrorism.

Terrorism? Am I saying 9/11 happened because the democrats refuse to speak civilly about the republicans? No. At least not precisely. What I am saying is that once you accept the premise that your opponents are evil people who despise America and all it stands for or can be, you accept the premise, derived from the Goldwater quote above, that any tactic to combat them is permissable. You create resistance to anything and everything. Which means nothing gets done, and all everyone attempts to do is stop the other side from accomplishing anything, or undo every accomplishment of theirs at the first opportunity.

If the opposition is evil, then fabricating stories is fighting for a worthy cause and an honorable act. If the opposition is bent on destroying liberty, then we have to fight them to the last drop of blood, never yielding, never giving so much as an inch. Extremism is not only permitted, it is demanded.

But what if the opposition isn’t evil? What Ann Coulter is wrong, and liberals don’t despise the US? What if Al Franken is wrong, and conservatives aren’t trying to take from the poor and give to the rich? What if, instead, each group is only trying to protect and defend the US in the best way they know how? Can you justify the rock-throwing, then?

Of course not. We’ve talked as a nation about how money affects the political process. But have we really looked at it? At how the discourteous, the thoughtless, the outrageous, actually makes money? Ann Coulter could dial down the rhetoric; but if she did, just how many books would she sell? Calling liberals treasonous sells books, simply saying they are wrong wouldn’t sell as many. Calling conservatives hypocritical liars sells books; simple rational discourse about the ideas and programs doesn’t.

This is the path we’ve chosen, whether I like it or not. We’re going to continue to name-call and demonize; our arguments will be ad hominem, not reasoned discourse. Perhaps we’ll survive; in my darker moments I don’t believe so, but there’s little I can do about it but watch the train wreck that is American political discussion.

Which brings me back to political blogger conferences. Why would any rational person attend one? You know ahead of time the arguments will not be rational, that they will be filled with appeal to emotions. The howler monkeys from both sides of the ailse will do their level best to ensure nothing gets done that the other side might possibly agree with.

I remember when Bill Proxmire was in trouble with the state democratic party for supporting some of Reagan’s economic policy. At the convention where they were considering a censure of him, he stood up and spoke, refusing to apologize and making the point, “The proposals I voted for were the same proposals I have been advocating for over a decade. Should I now change my mind and vote against them just when the president has come around to my way of thinking?”

Where are the Proxmires and the Mansfields of today (Mike Mansfield once said, “If they come out in favor of good health, should I come out in favor of illness, just to oppose them”)? The opposition isn’t entirely comprised of idiots, charlatans, and demons. Many of them share the same goal as I, a healthy United States.

Welcome to the first draft of what should probably be broken down into several essays. It will be as time goes on, but I just wanted to set the basic points before you tonight, while I was thinking about them. Sorry about rambling; I’ll do better next time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

It sounds like SK2 has recently been updated on this blog. But not fully configured. You MUST visit Spam Karma's admin page at least once before letting it filter your comments (chaos may ensue otherwise).
May 2005
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031