Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 11:22 AM

Big words from a FASCIST POOPY-HEAD like yourself.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 12:32 PM

I haven't read any of your past missives, so I don't have a clue as to whether your startingly lucid writing here is normal or a sudden outbreak of sense, reason and decency. But bravo either way. I'm firmly on the left on most issues, yet hold some positions regarding criminal justice and personal responsibility that could be called conservative.

In other words, like most of the millions of Americans who are not caricatured in the news media as "red" or "blue" staters, I'm an amalgam of positions, philosophies and ideas. I'm me, with my own ideas that don't fit a platform, which is why I'm registered "decline to state." That leaves me grossly under-represented in this sound bite day and age.

Unlike most liberals/progressives/free thinkers/whatevers, I don't blame Bush or the Neocons for what's going on in this country. Fish will swim, birds will crap on just-washed cars, and the fringe Right will do its thing. That's the nature of the beast. No, I blame us. Americans. I mourn the age of intelligent discourse and civic involvement, when we actually took the time to learn about a political issue before expressing an opinion.

Now we simply turn to Fox or Air America to have our simplistic, pre-concreted notions confirmed, then lash out venomousy at anyone who disagrees with us. Our democracy is being consumed in an acid bath of hateful, robotic, ideology-driven talking points, and thoughtful, objective analysis, such as what you offer in this blog entry, is scorned. And this doesn't just occur on the Right; you should see my Lefty friends when I try to talk to them about the benefits of new nuclear power technology!

The cure? Who the hell knows? Keep talking, I suppose. Keep opening a few eyes at a time to the fact that the nation's peril truly stems from a public that won't ask questions, won't dissent, won't respect opposing views, won't hold authority accountable for its actions, and won't accept the fact that if we hold to this course, we'll become a nation of blind consumers, perfectly happy to give up our democractic rights as long as we can score an MP3 player at Best Buy and soothe our souls with talk radio.

Keep talking. Keep pissing people off. Some will listen.

Peace.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 12:41 PM

And I am more than a little tired of "moderates" who keep pretending there's still a natural right-left divide in this country. The Democrats, a corporation-controlled political entity, are in no way socialist or even socialist-leaning. The right, otoh, is aggressively pushing for fascist government. Just google up Dr. Britt's 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism, and tell me which of the 14 points you don't think a strong case can be made for.

We are not a fascist government, but we are headed down that path whether you like to think so or not. Moderates who continue to go with he said/she said binary logic will never get this because you assume, wrongly, that the right is not being duped by a proto-facist administration.

Dude, wake up and smell the jackboots before it's too late.

Again, google up that list and then tell me we shouldn't be concerned. It's not a liberal list, just the actual definition of what fascism is (not nazism, a variant on fascism).

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 12:50 PM

Nice post! But it is not just the internet. The American Spectator publishes an ad painting the AARP (!) as anti-US troops and pro-gay marriage. Yup, to discredit the AARP, the ad paints grandma and grampa, the WWII generation, as unpatriotic and militantly pro-homosexual.

It's utter nonsense, of course, but the fingerprints lead back to Rove and the WH. It's not even crazy to conjecture that funding is somehow out of tax dollars, after the recent scandals.

So the problem is much deeper than the phenomenon of the internet. Personally I think talk radio plays a huge role in the cheap labeling and hate-by-association discourse.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 12:59 PM

Thanks from an unapologetic liberal. We can find common ground and there can be peace between us if there are people like you. You are right that the name calling on both sides pollutes the discourse. It does nobody any good to be calling each other names like "fascist poopyhead" or "part of the blame-America-first crowd."
We're not enemies, conservatives and liberals. If anybody tries to tell you that we are, use your God-given judgement. Ask why. If you get the urge to flame someone, use your mommy-taught manners--talk to them as though you were face to face in the same room.
I'm a former Marine--traditionally a group considered "conservative."
I'm also a former Peace Corps Volunteer--traditionally a "liberal" crowd.
Just wanted to share that with you.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 1:10 PM

A former Marine myself, Brian.

PW - If you read my past articles, you'll note that I am primarily a sarcastic alcoholic who thinks he's funny, but pretty much an ugly bastard child of Libertarian & Republican ideas when it comes to politics.

Dude, wake up and smell the jackboots before it's too late.

You illustrate my point completely. You sound just like the nutjobs on the right who, during the Clinton years, were positive we'd have socialized medicine and kindergarten porn by 1998. Wake up and smell reality. I'd be considered the 'right' and I'm by far not fascist. We're not moving in that direction, no matter how hard you try to use 14 random points to make the case (yes I've read that before and noticed how vague the points are).

Tubino, one of my links points to a story regarding that nonesense.

Again, labelling right and left is as accurate as saying people are divided between young and old. I catch myself doing it all the time and get frustrated at it as well.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 1:26 PM

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 1:52 PM

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 1:59 PM

This is a great post. I wish more people (myself included) could begin to come together on the things that unify us rather than the things that keep us apart. I think we'd find, if we talked to one another in a civil tone, that we're not too different, most of us.

I think what's separated so many Americans is a tendency to react to those people on the furthest fringes--like the nutty professor from Colorado or the folks who think intelligent design and evolution have to be exclusive of one another--by combating them with reactive and negative remarks.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 2:20 PM

Again, thanks to Vern there for saving me from my bad SQL coding that erased this post!!!!

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 2:21 PM

It's sudden.

:-)

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 2:29 PM

here's part of your post from The Daou Report
"Look. Bush is not Hitler, nor is his administration fascist. Those on the right aren't all gun-loving nuts who think gays should be executed and hate poor people. There isn't even really a 'right' anymore. Look at the divide starting to pop up in the GOP already. To classify people as right-wingers and automatically denounce them is a seriously flawed flow of logic that does more to hinder your argument than help... Most liberals do not hate America. Most liberals do not want a pure socialist state. They love their country..."

The fact is, your right. Though I have to say I think the republicans started to paint the democrats as extremeists before the democrats painted the republicans as extremists. Probably a five minute difference but....
This election was the first time I have been politically active, I am only 20 years old and quite frankly I have to say my animus towards the republican party at large is due to the fact that my entire image of the republican party is george bush. And george bush really is an extremist.
But no, I don't think that all republicans are the same as him. I have a close family member who is republican simply because she is under the, mistaken IMHO, opinion that George Bush is stronger on security.
I know several republican congresspeople (what is the gender-neutral term for that) personally and quite frankly I like most of them and for the most part agree with their politics. But then there are people like Tom DeLay and Senator Rick Santorum whoose politics quite frankly I cannot abide. They disgust me. So yes, painting the democrats as a whole as ultra-left crazy liberals who are obsessed with raising taxes is just as bad as painting the republicans as ultra-left crazy conservatives who sometimes act like gay marriage would hurt this country more than a terrorist with a small nuke.
What we really need, is a coalition of people to come together and say to politicans across the country, we don't care what party your from, we just want you to support sane policy.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 2:34 PM

This is a valid point. That I, a liberal, jump to commend your post shows that the left-right divisions which appear to be so ingrained in the blogosphere are perhaps more a consequence of bloggers' tones than of deeply-ingrained views and behavior. Consider: most right-leaning blogs would have taken a one-sided approach to your observations (i.e., "why are lefty blogs so vitriolic?"). The same can probably be said for those on the left (and in fact, the current Hindrocket bantering seems to show this to be true).

You identify the interesting question--why the phenomenon? Blogging, being relatively new, seems to be shaped by both real--world events and "blog-world" competition. That is, reality provides the context for discussion, but blogs provide an avenue for interpretation and debate. At the moment, however, bloggers seem more interested in making slanted interpretations than making real observations and predictions---the latter of which require justification and a consderation possible counterarguments. Of course, since the mid-90s, it has been Republicans--or their mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh--who have most willingly adopted the strategy of twisting facts (as I see it).

As an educated person, it pains me to read most comments on most blogs--left or right--because they almost always degenerate into uninformative, partisan rants. "Facists, moonbats, mouth-breathers," etc. Though I side with the viewpoints of the left, I rarely find value in the discussions which emanate from the leftist blogs. And reading rightist blogs, I never stop and think: "hmm, I hadn't though about it like that." Quality discourse requires real--world arguments and attention to the valid points made by the other side. Unfortunately, because they lack accountability and speak to a predominantly like-minded audience, blogs seem ill-equipped to foster this sort of debate.

I really enjoy politics and at first found political blogs fascinating. But with greater exposure to them, I am coming to the conclusion that blogs, in general, are more tabloid-worthy than newsworthy.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 3:33 PM

Finally some sanity out here. This country would be in so much better shape with you in the MSM than Coulter and Horowitz.

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 6:02 PM

I got this link in an email from a Right Wing Reader today. I am glad I clicked through. I represents exactly what I feel about the current state of affairs is in Political Blogging. Look. Bush is not Hitler,...

Rolled Out On: 2/22/2005 8:31 PM

This response really supports the idea that the left-right divide is mostly a manufactured concept, most visible if you haunt the mainstream news, blogosphere, talk radio or the more partisan websites or e-mail lists. I think the power brokers, both left and right, want nothing more than to make us believe we are divided into two hateful camps with a mutually assured destruction policy.

The reality, I believe, offers hope. When you get away from the lunatic fringe on either side, 95% of Americans want primarily the same things: good schools, affordable healthcare, decent jobs, clean air and water for our kids, security from foreign enemies, civil rights and freedom of expression, to be respected around the world, and to do good. We don't give one blob of sour owl poop who marries who as long as they're good neighbors, and while we agree that abortion is sad, it's necessary for women to have control over their reproductive lives. The need for abortions should be reduced by giving kids accurate, intelligent information about birth control and safe sex rather than putting our heads in the sand, and church and state should remain separate for the health of both.

I don't think I'm too far off here. This reality, more than any other reason, demonstrates why we need alternative media in this country that is not controlled by corporations that are sucking up to the right wing, or by special interests that are brown nosing the left wing. As Adam said, we need to get the message out to pols that "You won't divide us, so you damned well better listen to us."

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 2:25 AM

As Margaret Cho said, "Bush isn't Hitler. But that's just because he's lazy."

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 10:24 AM

Nice job SaaM.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 12:11 PM

Bravo, my friend, bravo.

I can only hope people like you gain influence in the Republican party.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 1:02 PM

Well, JD, therein lies the problem. I'm not really a pundit, I only play one on the Internet. I have no voice with the (R)'s. The only thing we can hope the party hears is the silence as those of us tired of the BS move elsewhere.

Part of me wants to go independent, but as dominant as the Republicans are, it would behoove me to be able to insert myself into the process of choosing the leaders-to-be.

With the types of response I've been getting from this post. it's apparent I'm not the only one feelng this way.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 4:23 PM

While I appreciate the sentiment, SaaM, I think you may be conflating two different things. I certainly agree with you that the tone emanating from parties on both sides leaves much to be desired. Overgeneralizations and ad hominem arguments don't advance arguments whenever they're used (although they may advance positions, which is why they are used.)

But all of that is different from holding a strong position. A strong position that falls on the extreme end of a spectrum can nonetheless be defended with respectful language and honest conviction. For instance, I hold what most would consider an "extreme" position on abortion (morally acceptable only when the life--not health--of the mother is at stake; it's based on the ontological status of the entity within her as being fully human.) But I can defend this position in an attempt to persuade with varying degrees of polemical rhetoric depending on what I'm trying to accomplish. Likewise, someone can hold a purportedly "moderate" position on something while being a total jerk about it.

I wrote something like this on the issue of open v. closed minds; while the criticism ought to be on how positions are reached and defended, the term instead gets placed on the content of those positions. It's a subtle mistake that's frequently made including, I submit, in your laudable post.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 11:35 PM

"The only solution I can imagine is to develop some sort of Code of Conduct for the blogosphere. Not as centrally-enforced regulations or anything; just a set of guidelines that can be widely distributed to at least give people a framework for understanding what is considered valuable input and what is not."

It's been tried on USENET newsgroups. It usually leads to more flamewars between the people trying to enforce standards and the people saying "you can't tell me what to do, this is a public forum, etc."

The Internet, by its very nature, abhors regulation.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 11:42 PM

IMHO, Mike C. gets most of the way there:

<quote>The reason I'm offering this surely fascinating little anecdote is to illustrate my belief that the highly asynchronous nature of communication on the Internet greatly exacerbates the problem I describe. This is particularly true on blogs, because they are both a public forum and personal venture.</quote>

He left out one facet, tho - PASSION.

Blogging is time-consuming. You have to WANT to do it. See how many bloggers have dropped off of the page since the election ended. See how much content has fallen off.

Pixel costs can add up from time to time, especially if Reynolds or Drudge gets your number. And researching stuff and composing into somewhat readable HTML doesn't come as second nature to some folks.

As a result, a passion for doing it enters into the fray. And where there is passion, there is the opportunity for conflict. And the impersonal nature of the blog allows for two things:
1) A lot of "Am-not, Are-too" conversation.
2) Echo chambering of political views.

And this is beginning to manifest itself in the choices the major parties make for leadership. The only member of the four leadership positions in the Congress who is even close to middle-of-the-road is Speaker Hastert, but he also has the personality of Santa Claus. DeLay? Frist? Reid? Pelosi?!? Yumpin' yiminy, Nancy Pelosi makes Hillary Clinton sound like Newt Gingrich on most days. The most recent election of Howard Yeaaargh!!! to head of the DNC is not going to help matters, either.

So. Since the parties are swinging to the edges, which one will fracture first and move back toward the center a smidge, leaving its representative moonbat fringe to the side of the road? The GOP has already done so somewhat with the excommunication of Pat Buchanan, but is swinging back to the right under the influence of DeLay. But I honestly believe that the Dems are beyond repair right now - Hillary may try to talk a moderate game, but everyone on the right side of the fence (and many in the middle) are going to have a more-than-valid suspicion that she's full of crap, just mouthing platitudes.

Feh. One man's extremist is another man's moderate.

The good news is that the political discussions we are having, on the right and the left, bear a great resemblance to the nature of political conversations had at the close of the 18th Century, if the biographies of Adams and Hamilton are accurate. The union managed even to survive the War of the Northern Aggression, so I don't think the BLOG (sound effect: EEEEEK!!!!) and its perceived excesses will sunder the nation.

Then again, I have been on more than one occasion been called an Evil, God-worshipping, bigoted RethugliKKKan for having those very thoughts.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 11:43 PM

Crap. Sorry about the HTML F-up on the bold. Maybe someone can fix?

1000 apologies!!!
Fixed - Robb

Rolled Out On: 2/24/2005 1:08 PM

It's been tried on USENET newsgroups. It usually leads to more flamewars between the people trying to enforce standards and the people saying "you can't tell me what to do, this is a public forum, etc."

That's a good point, but the big difference I would see with blogging is that there is absolutely no question about who is in charge at a blog: the blogger who owns the site. A Usenet forum may have moderators, but that's not really the same as ownership. A blogger could choose to ban someone because he's in a bad mood, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it, because it's his site. By the same token, if there were some sort of well-defined consensus about what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior, it would be relatively simple to figure out when a blogger was just being peevish rather than reacting to a personal attack or other violation.

Believe me, I understand how difficult something like that would be to implement in a comprehensive way, and that's why I think it shouldn't really be a rigid set of hard and fast rules, but rather a sort of ideal toward which to strive, and a reminder to those with quick tempers to take a minute and consider how their words will be interpreted.

Of course, JDRhoades is also right that the level of passion among bloggers (and commenters) is probably well above average, but that's true of politics in general. The most involved people are almost always the most passionate and opinionated, in any forum. What I'm talking about is just a way to reduce the additional stresses that are created by the nature of Internet communication. Politics will always be contentious, emotional, and sometimes downright vicious, but removing or compensating for "aggravating factors" like asynchronicity seems to me like one way to, at the very least, slow down the polarizing effect. Really, if people are always reminded to take the time to formulate their thoughts clearly, that very same asynchronicity might even be turned into an advantage, if used properly.

Eh, whatever... I'm probably being way too Pollyannish. But when I read posts like this, it really makes the happy thoughts just dance around in my little head.

Rolled Out On: 2/25/2005 12:03 PM

An island of sanity in a sea of madness.

I, too, often feel left out of either side; I don't view abortion as murder but I end up arguing with the pro-choice people over their inability to grasp the idea that it's not about who has the right to make what choice, it's about whether or not abortion is murder, and if you think it is, then it would be immoral to do anything other than pursue means to make it illegal like any other form of murder.

In other words, unless you're willing to understand that the other side has a reason for believing what they believe, you're not going to get anywhere. Right?

In the end, I'm an Atheist who voted for Bush; making the people that I relate to rather few and far between. I cannot avoid discussion because I disagree with everyone about something, but I find that certain attitudes make reasonable discussion impossible, as you have said, on the right and on the left.

Good to see there's someone out there willing to look at both sides with a cold observational eye :)

Rolled Out On: 2/26/2005 4:06 PM

There are two primary reasons people stop listening and processing information. Most frothing-at-the-mouth, anti-the-other-guy pundits fall into one or both patterns. These patterns are cultural block and emotional block, respectively.

Cultural block occurs when somebody hears an assertion that is disagreeable and is perceived as coming from an outside cultural group. Here I mean not only ethnic and national culture, but political and institutional culture as well. If somebody perceives you as a "foreigner," they are more likely to simply ignore you if what you say rubs them the wrong way or contradicts one of the accepted ideas of their cultural group (in any event, they react as though the statement were self-evidently false, whether that means simply ignoring it or hurling insults around).

Emotional block occurs when somebody hears an assertion that they percieve as assaulting their self-image somehow. Many people hold specifically onto ideas that help them to excuse their doubts about themselves or their world. This kind of block can take a lot of different forms, I'm sure you've met plenty. When confronted with disagreement, rather than ignore the offending statement, these people will often take offense, either shutting down completely or flying into completely inappropriate hysterics.

In my experience, most of the really rabid disputes between people of opposing political views have occurred because people have blocks and refuse to acknowledge them. (It is worth noting that by subjecting all of your beliefs to rigorous examination, most blocks can be declawed or at least reduced to biases. It is also worth noting that anyone who thinks this is self-appointed psychologizing rubbish may be right.)

Rolled Out On: 4/3/2005 4:32 AM

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 4:53 PM

I think its about time we sort out the (classical) liberals from the progressives. When the right harps about the "barking moonbats" on the left, it's generally the progressives they are whining about.

Similarly, when the left sticks the "fundamentalist conservatives" label on the GOP, they aren't doing much to engender goodwill with the libertarian-leaning segments of the GOP.

Further evidence that our party divisions don't work anymore is when you get people like Buchanan and Pilger agreeing on policy issues.

The thing that I find really striking is that the people who have made comments to this post consider themselves to be members of different parties, yet we seem to agree on most of the important things. We spend so much time hurling mud at the "other side" that we don't bother to actually learn what their positions are.

I'd love to see like-minded people in both major parties dump the crazies and form a new party.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 5:06 PM

Is it the Internet and it's inability to conduct conversation in real time that's causing this or are people really this coarse and they're just now able to show it?

It's funny, I was just thinking about that today. First, let me say, great post, and I agree completely. I, as a liberal, have just about had it with being told that I hate America and freedom and applie pie. At the same time, I found myself completely disgusted with "my side"'s behavior in the Jeff Gannon affair. I've actually been completely driven away from the left, a region of the spectrum I occupied briefly, by the "Bush=Hitler" nonsense and other over-the-top vitriol.

As to your question: I have a friend who's a hardcore leftist. He and I frequently discuss our political views, and up until about the last six months or so, we basically agreed on everything substantive. The only real difference was that I have a better understanding of economics, and therefore was never able to fully agree with his out-and-out anarcho-collectivist views (don't ask me how I bought into the rest of it despite my education - I really can't answer that question).

In any case, our conversations usually take place by IM, once in a while by e-mail, occasionally by phone, and even more occasionally face-to-face. I can tell you that by far, without question, the most civil and productive exchanges take place in our face-to-face conversations. Even the asynchronous almost-real-time of instant messaging is often too limited to really clarify our respective views. What I find happening most often is that, when I disagree on one specific point or another, my friend seems to assume that I'm advocating a diametrically opposite position to his. Sometimes his responses seem like straight-up intentional straw men, but then once I elaborate further, more clarity is generally achieved.

The reason I'm offering this surely fascinating little anecdote is to illustrate my belief that the highly asynchronous nature of communication on the Internet greatly exacerbates the problem I describe. This is particularly true on blogs, because they are both a public forum and personal venture. But the main problem is simply that, without immediate feedback, it's easy for any participants in a discussion to place their own naturally-biased interpretation on anything that's said. Since no one likes to be wrong, this usually means placing a negative interpretation on the words of one's opponents. Combine that with, as you pointed out, the incivility of anonymity, and it's a formula for continually-increasing discord and polarization.

And that's just when people are behaving honestly and in good faith. Besides the obvious low barriers to entry for those who seek to spread disinformation, it's also unfortunately very easy to cherry-pick comments by fringe elements of either side (e.g. DU and Free Republic) as ready-made straw men, and portray them as reprentative of the other side. This is, I think, the most intellectually dishonest and frustrating element of politics generally - and that's only magnified by the Internet because there are so many cherries to be picked, and they're all (or at least mostly) easily searchable by Google.

The only solution I can imagine is to develop some sort of Code of Conduct for the blogosphere. Not as centrally-enforced regulations or anything; just a set of guidelines that can be widely distributed to at least give people a framework for understanding what is considered valuable input and what is not. Something that can, for example, be linked to or displayed next to the Submit button in a comments section. Plenty of people would violate the rules, of course, but I think an awful lot of others might be encouraged to take a deep breath and rein in their emotions before posting. Just a thought. Anyway, great post. I'll be hitting the tipjar on my way out the door.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 5:33 PM

Idea to Educate America on PBS -

How about if PBS ran a weekly show that was a televised debate. But instead of allowing the left and the right to staff the teams have university or champion high school debating teams on as the debaters. Have the same 2 teams go up against each other 2 weeks in a row and have them switch sides, liberal/conservative. Then have a place to vote for the winner on the PBS website. Just think, no personal attacks, no neo-con or fascists slurs hurled about, some actual facts on display for both sides of an argument.

Rolled Out On: 2/23/2005 6:22 PM

First, let me just say WOW. I am truly honored to have received such a warm bit of attention to this. And to think it simply was a rant off the top of my head! I really wrote this for myself, so that I had something in writing that people could hold me to and force myself to tone down my responses to posts.

Second, I want to clear up something that might be misconstrued by a comment up above - I am no moderate. I have my positions, and I do my best to educate myself on them so that I am not just taking them because I'm expected to. Everyone believes in something and saying 'moderate' is akin to saying 'sane' - it automatically labels your opponents as extreme or insane.

Finally, with the exception of a few posts (and that's to be expected), this is the type of dialog I wish was more prevalent. Unfortunately, as Mike C said from above, this is difficult in the medium we use. As a seasoned web professional (10 years), I can tell you that while the Internet is a phenomenal tool for delivering information, it sucks at personal communication.

Of course, these rules of politeness do not apply to Green Bay Packers fans. ;)