Obi wan Liberali recently asked others if he was considered liberal. Apparently some of his liberal friends thought he was not liberal enough because he is not inflammatory. The discussion that followed in the comments got me thinking about different sites that I have visited and my perceptions. I try to follow sites across the spectrum of political thinking. In doing so I have found some sites (liberal and conservative) where I cannot bring myself to follow closely. In my case most of the ones I avoid are liberal. I suspect that a reasonable liberal, such as Obi wan, would find that there are more conservative sites he cannot bring himself to follow closely (I am not suggesting that he does, or should, read across the spectrum – only guessing about what I would find if I were liberal like him). That got me thinking that public discourse could be measured along two axis – liberal/conservative and reasonable/unreasonable.
I believe that reasonable discussants find it easy to read other reasonable discussants across the spectrum and less than reasonable discussants who match up with them ideologically. I also believe that unreasonable discussants provide fuel to other unreasonable discussants who are ideologically opposed to them. In other words it is probably fairly easy to follow those in adjacent quadrants, but unreasonable contributors tend to drive away reasonable contributors who are ideologically opposed to them. (Reasonable contributors probably bore unreasonable contributors who are ideologically opposed to them.)
It’s time for another grid:
I have tried to depict who would be alienated by a person who fell at various positions on the grid. For each dot, those on the other side of the line matching the color of the dot would be alienated (according to my theory).
By way of experiment, I am cross posting this at Pursuit of Liberty to see how the discussion differs since that site attracts a very different set of commentors.
#1 by Cliff Lyon on August 24, 2008 - 7:23 pm
Hi David,
Thanks for posting this. I hits on an interesting subject little discussed here.
I wonder if we can find a better axis than un/reasonable. It seems too subjective.
I know for instance you could measure levels of moderation across archetypes.
Hey, lets get you picture up ASAP. Will you send it to me?
Tks
Cliff
#2 by rmwarnick on August 24, 2008 - 7:30 pm
What’s your definition of “unreasonable”? Snark and personal attacks in defense of the truth a la Sadly, No!? Dedicated wingnuttery unfettered by reality as epitomized by Michelle Malkin? Both?
#3 by Who is watching the watchers on August 24, 2008 - 8:36 pm
No matter what the arguments and opinions, the fall out from the facts, no matter how people agree or disagree with them, will come like winter follows fall.
Sadly agreement/disagreement about issues before the outcomes become evident is pretty worthless.
What we need is a calculus to determine who is most correct in their assumptions on issues when the scenarios play themselves out. If we could put our egos aside it would then be an act of wisdom to follow that person as they make their assumptions. Of course we would all have to keep track.
I have a pretty good idea since things have not worked very well for anyone in political spectrum by way of prediction for at least 8 years, that the person who may be out there, that is most perceptive, could very well be a unreasonable asshole, that has no political orientation, or affiliations of ideology.
We have had people who knew Bush would be a disaster, but the same people didn’t predict that the Democrat party would be as lilly livered as it has been. Wonder where that person is?
#4 by David Miller on August 24, 2008 - 9:11 pm
Definitely unfettered wingnuttery, but many (most?) personal attacks would also qualify.
Cliff,
I agree that the un/reasonable axis is subjective, but it was the best I could come up with at the time. I’m open to suggestions.
#5 by Larry Bergan on August 25, 2008 - 12:03 am
How about truth/lies. I have to laugh when Republicans call for bipartisan discussions. The Democrats give them every thing they want including Supreme Court justices. Things are WAY to cozy in Washington and that is the problem.
I’m sorry, but what this country needs is more rancor from the Democratic side. Turn on C-Span some time and look at the British Parliament.
Politics ain’t beanbag! If somebody is lying and causing deaths, it’s time for personal attacks.
#6 by David Miller on August 25, 2008 - 6:04 am
Define personal attacks. I’m not against naming names. If someone is lying, or breaking the law in any other way, they should be called out personally and specifically. My problem with personal attacks is when we get into “. . . and he smells bad too!” Name-calling and attacking a person in ways that are not relevant is simply childish.
More rancor will increase divisiveness and probably even gain some seats for Democrats – after all, it worked for Rove and the Republicans – but it does not lead to better policies (as proven by Rove and the Republicans). I don’t care what party is in power – I only care to get good policies. Bush has not delivered good policy and adding rancor will not help Obama, McCain, or any other candidate to deliver good policy either.
#7 by Obi wan liberali on August 25, 2008 - 6:09 am
Interesting discussion. Reasonable certainly is subjective, but to me it has to do with one’s ability to disagree without being disagreeable. It has to do with one’s ability to separate ideas from the individuals espousing those ideas. Generally reasonable people often espouse a few unreasonable ideas, and generally unreasonable people often espouse some reasonable ideas. In order to sift through the noise and figure out whether an idea is reasonable, you have to separate the idea from the author.
I have found that there are some fairly reasonable and well-spoken conservative political bloggers out there. I’ve also found that there are in my opinion, some unreasonable ones. I seek to engage the reasonable ones and try to gain an understanding where they are coming from. The less than reasonable right-wing bloggers are beyond reason, so why waste pearls before such swine? But I also think there are liberals who are also impervious to reason. So convinced of their inherent rightness, that evidence that does not conform to their preconceived world view is simply disregarded as unreliable. It does cut both ways.
#8 by David Miller on August 25, 2008 - 6:17 am
Obi wan is exactly right (as he often is). The Un/Reasonable axis on my chart was meant to depict the difference between those who can stick to the subject and present a coherent, rational perspective on the topics they are discussing and those who find no need to find or cite facts to back up their positions, but instead prefer to call names and try to use playground intimidation tactics to shut up those who disagree with them.
I could have called the axis Ir/Rational instead, but I’m not sure that’s any less subjective.
#9 by Richard Warnick on August 25, 2008 - 7:58 am
I might directly question the accuracy or the adequacy of someone’s stock of information on a given topic. I might get snarky regarding the veracity of a public figure. I don’t think it’s worthwhile to hold fellow bloggers up to ridicule, the result is usually the end of discussion, and that’s not my goal.
The right-leaning sites I’ve been on seem to be full of commenters ready to tar and feather anyone who disagrees, and run them out of town on a rail.
#10 by David on August 25, 2008 - 8:03 am
Who,
I must have missed your comment when it first came through. I have to say that I help out hope in 2000 that Bush could be decent if he was advised by good advisers – unfortunately that hope was soon dashed. On the other hand, I have not been surprised by the Democrats – of course back then I was much closer to being a party-line Republican than I ever will be again.
#11 by Who is watching the watchers on August 25, 2008 - 9:21 am
A leader is a person that points his people in the right direction. We are not a people, and no one currently set to be president has any ability to knit the disparate groups of this country together.
Myself I knew that bush would be bad, and then quite early on knew that the power structure within the Democrat party was complicit with Bushs’ disregard for the law, There were a few voices from the peanut gallery of the dem party that gave it the look of an opposition but by and large it has become what I explained to Cliff less than 2 years in….
A bi-partisan fascism,
with the trappings of legitimacy, the People, like urchin children, hanging on to the tattered dress of Lady Liberty, as she marches to the whorehouse.
#12 by David on August 25, 2008 - 9:37 am
That is a disturbing but sadly accurate depiction of our political reality.
#13 by Who is watching the watchers on August 25, 2008 - 9:45 am
False optimism, is true pessimism.
#14 by Just & Holy on August 25, 2008 - 9:52 am
This is the most reasonable post I’ve seen on this site; thanks for posting it. I wish we could eliminate all the personal attacks, childishness, and hate in the Utah blog forum. Just like road rage, blog rage is ridiculous. Just because we’re not face to face doesn’t mean civility is not required.
#15 by David on August 25, 2008 - 9:54 am
Richard,
Have you ever been on a left-leaning site where the commenters are equally unreasonable?
#16 by Who is watching the watchers on August 25, 2008 - 10:09 am
Better figure it out quickly and come to it. Fascism isn’t voted out of office.
It is destroyed. Use your imagination what that means once a people has allowed a fascism to take hold of its institutions, and reins of power. A people fights. Or a people is enslaved.
From Winnie the winner.
“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Or what our own John Stark said upon the lesson of what the Revolution meant to him when he asked upon an anniversary as a very old man…
“Live free or die, there are evils worse than death”.
While we watch the evils continue, while we wait for change they carry on, when we get change, shall we ask what Roman poet Juvenal asked?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers?
That would be us.
I am reminded of Fromms book, “Escape from Freedom” wherein he describes that societies devolve once freedom is achieved due to discovering what it really takes to keep it. Only the truly committed societies keep it. All have been armed.
Some understand this and will give unto their lives for it, others cannot keep up the vigilance, and in in my own interpretation would just as soon have their lives run by their Mommy.
Hoffer wrote a companian reader to Fromms’ book, he too understood that freedom has a price.
“The only index by which to judge a government or a way of life is by the quality of the people it acts upon. No matter how noble the objectives of a government, if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion- it is an evil government.”
#17 by Richard Warnick on August 25, 2008 - 10:25 am
David– Your question sort of contains the answer, because on the left-leaning sites the locals tend to be simpatico (perhaps not knowing I’m a registered Republican and former McCainiac in 2000). Not to say we always agree– ask Cliff what he thinks of my explanation for the 9/11 attacks.
OTOH, I’ve been accused of crimes up to and including treason on some other blogs, e.g. Danger Room and The Long War Journal. In the latter case, it happened almost every time I made a comment. To be fair, in both cases it wasn’t coming from the blog admin, and on Danger Room some commenters pointed out the accusations were unfounded.
I’ve lost interest in writing comments where my motives are always questioned. My experience tends to confirm the general opinion of right-leaning blogs– lock-step orthodoxy, strictly enforced.
#18 by David on August 25, 2008 - 10:41 am
Thanks for sharing Richard.
#19 by Larry Bergan on August 25, 2008 - 2:47 pm
David Miller: (is there more then one David here?)
I don’t ever attack someone personally unless I think they’re lying or pretending to be somebody they’re not for political purposes, (like Jim Matheson.) I did jump the gun a little when Bob S. and jdberger showed up by calling them “gun nuts”, because it’s been a burning question of mine that they always disappear for the most part when Republicans are in office. When I got them to admit a DEEP admiration for Ted Nugent, I knew my original characterization was correct. I still don’t know for sure, but I think they have less then honest motivations for being here. That makes me crazy!
Obi wan liberali:
It cuts both ways, but lets not be too fair and balanced here. I think you know where I’m going with that one.
#20 by Larry Bergan on August 25, 2008 - 3:02 pm
I think I heard somewhere that Bill Clinton said ‘I don’t have any more cheeks to turn.’ That’s kind of where I’m at.
#21 by Larry Bergan on August 25, 2008 - 3:18 pm
Just & Holy:
Thank you for your sacred presence. Asshole.
#22 by David on August 25, 2008 - 3:25 pm
There is only one David here. (Some comments are where I’m logged in and other are where I’m not.)
#23 by Who is watching the watchers on August 25, 2008 - 3:52 pm
You dumbshit Larry, Just and Holy, that is Cliff.
#24 by Albert O. on August 25, 2008 - 5:18 pm
Just & Holy:
You crack me up! You also give me hope that east coast liberals will move to Utah in ever increasing numbers so to dilute nutcases like you out of existence!
#25 by Cliff Lyon on August 25, 2008 - 6:17 pm
Just and Holy is a Sutherland Scholar. Please people (Ed you especially), try to be respectful…at least until he steps out of line.:)
#26 by Who is watching the watchers on August 25, 2008 - 6:49 pm
C’mon Cliff, it is your alter ego, the good side come out to play! Just Holy Cow already.