Thursday, June 23, 2005
Reflections
Now that things have simmered down, I would like to reflect on some things regarding the recent blog debate.
Lyon, you said that the main thing you are bothered by is not liberalism but intolerance. And I agree that when I use declarative words and TYPE IN ANGRY CAPS I convey intolerance. I am actually pretty open-minded, but the reason for my intolerant tone could be due to a few reasons:
1) I am not reacting primarily to you Lyon and dismissing your view, but instead am responding through reaction to your comments to the prevalent argument methods of conservative leaders. While you might think that intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair was inappropriate and that I Love Gitmo t-shirts are tacky and unproductive, the prominent leaders of the right, through their words and actions have cheapened the discourse to leave no room for in the first case, science, or in the latter case, promoting human rights. This simplification and dumbing down of things makes me angry, because you can no longer argue based of policy values using these rules of engagement. In both of these cases I challenge you to find an intellectual defense of the Terri right-to-lifers that doesn't involve outright falsehoods or an intellectual defense of torture policies in American detention centers that doesn't involve calling investigations into these policies as harming our troops.
2) I think Lyon and I have both really got into political blogs in recent years and there's an element of maniacal fun in getting into a vigorous discussion. Online though, while you can immediately source things online, you can't convey what you are really trying to say exactly. There have been a couple of instances where while writing I deleted what I typed and tried to make something sound more powerful or eloquent. In the process of doing that, I used choices of words that made me sound more absolute and extreme than I really think I am. I think I got really excited to finally get into a blog political debate after watching spirited ideas develop on Atrios, Daily Kos, and other sites.
3) Finally the anonymity of this format allowed me to feel like I could jump into the abyss with no fear of retribution. While I know everyone that comes by and comments... Lyon... I haven't talked to you or seen you in close to 6 years, except for a phone conversation a few years ago when you first settled in Vermont. Like it or not, that setup, as well as a warning from Amy that you have joined (or were always a part of?) the Dark Side aka Conservatism, made you in a way an online conservative charicature I could react to without any worries about offending you personally. It's no wonder you reacted so harshly to my friend Leigha's quick comment, since you never met her in person and you can't put a face and voice to what she is saying. There are no real consequences to snapping at an online screename, as long as we're all nice enough to not look up profiles and send nasty e-mails to eachother. By also introducing yourself for the first time to pick a political fight with me in my domain here (there goes that dramatic blogger talk again), you defined yourself in my online space as someone to be in conflict with.
Since I think you agree with a lot of my arguments and beliefs and just have a problem with the words and tone I choose, I think the above might explain some of my over the top words. To someone so used to communicating over the years through the typing on screens, this blogger thing can do crazy things to your persona, and I have no doubt that once I meet a rational conservative like yourself in a different context, we'll all get along.
Finally, you lament the days when people of different stripes and political persuasions could argue during the day and go out for drinks later....
I don't know if the conservative blogs are mentioning or defending this:
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.... Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.... No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.
That was said by the Chief Political Advisor and the President's chief strategist Karl Rove. The White House has fully defended Rove's remarks.
I'm not much for dramatic pronouncements but that is what I feel I am dealing with when I post on my blog and defend my Democratic and liberal identity. Any intolerance that might be projected can be attributed to an emotional reaction to repeated statements similar to the ones above, by the people running our country.
Lyon, you said that the main thing you are bothered by is not liberalism but intolerance. And I agree that when I use declarative words and TYPE IN ANGRY CAPS I convey intolerance. I am actually pretty open-minded, but the reason for my intolerant tone could be due to a few reasons:
1) I am not reacting primarily to you Lyon and dismissing your view, but instead am responding through reaction to your comments to the prevalent argument methods of conservative leaders. While you might think that intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair was inappropriate and that I Love Gitmo t-shirts are tacky and unproductive, the prominent leaders of the right, through their words and actions have cheapened the discourse to leave no room for in the first case, science, or in the latter case, promoting human rights. This simplification and dumbing down of things makes me angry, because you can no longer argue based of policy values using these rules of engagement. In both of these cases I challenge you to find an intellectual defense of the Terri right-to-lifers that doesn't involve outright falsehoods or an intellectual defense of torture policies in American detention centers that doesn't involve calling investigations into these policies as harming our troops.
2) I think Lyon and I have both really got into political blogs in recent years and there's an element of maniacal fun in getting into a vigorous discussion. Online though, while you can immediately source things online, you can't convey what you are really trying to say exactly. There have been a couple of instances where while writing I deleted what I typed and tried to make something sound more powerful or eloquent. In the process of doing that, I used choices of words that made me sound more absolute and extreme than I really think I am. I think I got really excited to finally get into a blog political debate after watching spirited ideas develop on Atrios, Daily Kos, and other sites.
3) Finally the anonymity of this format allowed me to feel like I could jump into the abyss with no fear of retribution. While I know everyone that comes by and comments... Lyon... I haven't talked to you or seen you in close to 6 years, except for a phone conversation a few years ago when you first settled in Vermont. Like it or not, that setup, as well as a warning from Amy that you have joined (or were always a part of?) the Dark Side aka Conservatism, made you in a way an online conservative charicature I could react to without any worries about offending you personally. It's no wonder you reacted so harshly to my friend Leigha's quick comment, since you never met her in person and you can't put a face and voice to what she is saying. There are no real consequences to snapping at an online screename, as long as we're all nice enough to not look up profiles and send nasty e-mails to eachother. By also introducing yourself for the first time to pick a political fight with me in my domain here (there goes that dramatic blogger talk again), you defined yourself in my online space as someone to be in conflict with.
Since I think you agree with a lot of my arguments and beliefs and just have a problem with the words and tone I choose, I think the above might explain some of my over the top words. To someone so used to communicating over the years through the typing on screens, this blogger thing can do crazy things to your persona, and I have no doubt that once I meet a rational conservative like yourself in a different context, we'll all get along.
Finally, you lament the days when people of different stripes and political persuasions could argue during the day and go out for drinks later....
I don't know if the conservative blogs are mentioning or defending this:
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.... Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies.... No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.
That was said by the Chief Political Advisor and the President's chief strategist Karl Rove. The White House has fully defended Rove's remarks.
I'm not much for dramatic pronouncements but that is what I feel I am dealing with when I post on my blog and defend my Democratic and liberal identity. Any intolerance that might be projected can be attributed to an emotional reaction to repeated statements similar to the ones above, by the people running our country.
Comments:
<< Home
ooooo, my first mystery commenter. Welcome. Are you Mark Sauer by chance?
The only reference I can think of to simpler political times is the anecdote about Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy playing golf and being friends when they are not part of partisan battles on the Senate floor. Which kind of rubs me the wrong way, given the passionate ideological gulfs they have between eachother, it makes both of their beliefs seem inauthentic, like they smoke cigars and pat themselves of eachother's backs for doing a good job of shoring up their respective voter bases in their states. By that's more a question of political elitism then increasing partisan among common people like you and me.
The only reference I can think of to simpler political times is the anecdote about Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy playing golf and being friends when they are not part of partisan battles on the Senate floor. Which kind of rubs me the wrong way, given the passionate ideological gulfs they have between eachother, it makes both of their beliefs seem inauthentic, like they smoke cigars and pat themselves of eachother's backs for doing a good job of shoring up their respective voter bases in their states. By that's more a question of political elitism then increasing partisan among common people like you and me.
You must not know many Marks...you've guessed correctly.
I think there are still some great examples of unlikely partnerships. For example, John Kerry and Rick Santorum published a joint statement about Pharmacists dispensing the "morning after pill". I think John Mccain has quite a few friends too from both sides.
Basically, I think reporters just like to complain because they're hearing politicians constantly tear at each other. This has happened since before Dizzy and Gladstone.
Post a Comment
I think there are still some great examples of unlikely partnerships. For example, John Kerry and Rick Santorum published a joint statement about Pharmacists dispensing the "morning after pill". I think John Mccain has quite a few friends too from both sides.
Basically, I think reporters just like to complain because they're hearing politicians constantly tear at each other. This has happened since before Dizzy and Gladstone.
# posted by 
: 9:33 PM
: 9:33 PM << Home
