« Video of the Day | Main | An E-Z Pass Model for Web Content »
On the subject of how we talk to one another about politics -- discussed before here and here -- I'd like to posit a perverse symmetry between this post by Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, and this post by Andy McCarthy at The Corner. Though they differ in important respects, both posts serve as a caution to ideologically alligned bloggers: if you assume, without clear evidence, that your political or ideological opponents are motivated by extraordinarily dark motives, you're probably going to end up gravely misjudging reality.
Let's take a closer look at the posts in question.
Ms. Marcotte writes:
...one wonders why, when straight Republican politicians are caught with their pants down, anyone thinks they owe the world an apology. Apologies are hypocritical. Their stance is clear---straight men get to have all the sex they want with all the women they want. It's not straight male sexuality, in any of its manifestations, that's bringing down society. It's women having sex without being punished repeatedly for it, and of course, gay men need to be run out of town for it. But this belief has become embarrassing for some reason to conservatives, and now they feel like they have to put on this whole front about male fidelity and responsibility.These are extraordinary claims given the longstanding taboo against politicians on either side of the aisle having extra-marital affairs. To cite the most obvious example, did any Republican claim that Bill Clinton's extra-marital indiscretions were problematic because Monica Lewinsky was having sex without being punished repeatedly for it? Has any Republican ever made the claim that a male politician is blameless, whereas the female he cheated with ought to be punished?
Ms. Marcotte continues in a way sure to convince anyone who isn't yet persuaded by my analysis:
I think they think it's a tradeoff---straight women, you get to be forced to have babies against your will and die from cervical cancer. Gay men and lesbians, you get to be discriminated against and, if the system works right, you also get to fuck off and die without health insurance because you can't get married or have a job under the conservative regime. In exchange, to show their interest in fairness, conservatives will require straight men to pretend to be sorry when they commit adultery. See? Everyone loses and so it's fair. You lose your freedom, dignity, or health, and they lose entire minutes of pretending to be sorry. But only if they're politicians. Having a fraction of a percentage of straight men required to sacrifice is enough to justify taking away the human rights of everyone else.It may be tempting to explain this away as hyperbole. Surely there is room for that in political debate. If this is an exaggerated statement of her views, however, ask yourself what Ms. Marcotte's underlying point could be. It is impossible to read out the argument that conservatives are deliberately propagating a system whereby, for example, gay people get and die for lack of health insurance by design. As it happens, I often tell fellow conservatives that they ought to support full marriage rights for gays, and I constantly listens to very earnest entreaties about how the alternative of civil unions can and should provide all the material benefits. Let me assure Ms. Marcotte that the vast majority of conservatives want sick gay people to have access to treatment, among other things.
Keep all that in mind as we consider Mr. McCarthy's post:
The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).The typical reader might desire evidence for the assertion that President Obama is "a man of the hard left," but let's turn our attention to the assertion that he is "more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society." Mr. McCarthy cannot point to a single statement made by Pres. Obama or anyone in his administration as evidence for that assertion, or any action he's taken to advance that aim.
There is, in fact, no direct evidence for Mr. McCarthy's claim at all -- he is extrapolating rather wildly about President Obama's inner motives, without any way to verify his analysis. Here is the most fleshed out reasoning he offers to back up his stance: the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayres are comfortable with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, and President Obama is allied with the CBC and Ayres, therefore he is no different from them in wanting a totalitarian Iran (a position they've never taken either, though neither "ally" is averse to taking controversial positions).
Let's move onto a later paragraph:
The key to understanding Obama, on Iran as on other matters, is that he is a power-politician of the hard Left: He is steeped in Leftist ideology, fueled in anger and resentment over what he chooses to see in America's history, but a "pragmatist" in the sense that where ideology and power collide (as they are apt to do when your ideology becomes less popular the more people understand it), Obama will always give ground on ideology (as little as circumstances allow) in order to maintain his grip on power.Here is an assertion that runs directly contrary to President Obama's words and actions. Throughout his rise to the presidency, and after taking office, he's been famously cool -- is there a single instance when his actions or words betray anger or resentment? There are, however, many times where he has noted that only in America is the story of his success possible, that American history has an exceptional inheritance of ideals alongside awful imperfections like slavery, and that he himself buys into American exceptionalism.
So where does Mr. McCarthy get this idea that President Obama is steeped in an ideology that is fueled by anger and resentment, so much so that it would motivate him to support -- in fact, to be comfortable with -- Islamic totalitarians? The reader can only speculate, though we know from a followup post that Mr. McCarthy is not being hyperbolic.
Ironically, I think that if Mr. McCarthy reads this post, he'll agree with my critique of Ms. Marcotte, and that if Ms. Marcotte readers this post, she'll agree with my critique of Mr. McCarthy. They might also be upset by my criticism of their posts, though it is certainly not my intention to tweak them. The problem isn't that they're nefarious or unintelligent. In fact, both argue rather passionately for their beliefs, and possess obvious intelligence. The problem is one of approach.
Any writer who allows him or herself to speculate wildly about the motives of ideological opponents, relying on analysis more than evidence and extrapolation more than direct links, is inevitably going to be led far astray. As George Orwell said, it is a constant struggle to see what is right in front of one's nose. The approach to argument and analysis I've highlighted above makes that struggle far harder than it need be.
Connor--
You are doping yeoman's work by calling attention to the incredibly vulgar level of political discourse in this country. Keep up the good work.
I'd also say that it's quite revealing that your critics on the previous posts on this matter brought no compelling arguments to bear. They were reduced to either (a) Simply parroting the paranoid style of far-right and far-left blogs and talk radio or (b) Parsing the words of folks like Marcotte, McCarthy, and Levin to the point litigiously to make their tone seem far less outrageous than it truly is.
Keep the flame alight for an American politics based on reason, rather than rage.
I wouldn't be quite that dismissive.
I could be mistaken, but I do not recall a lot of parroting, and the "word parsing" was required due to the context of Conor's question as to whether or not a coherent argument was perceivable by Levin's audience. The key contention was the relevance of the Opening Question posed: Is talk radio bad for political discourse in this country. Conor argues that it's over the top style robs its followers of the where-with-all to appreciate the political questions being presented, and the respondents questioned the validity of that statement, given the nature of politics, and the easy access to the left's position throughout the main stream media.
So much for the recap.
I loved Erin's comments below:
"I'm not sure any argument about motivations could be very strong; the subject itself is like quicksand."
Yet political arguments are always directed at the motivations of the proponents. Politics does not lend itself to dispassionate arguments advanced by dispassionate debaters.
It is a conundrum which Conor will need to answer to make his case. I wouldn't bet against him.
"Politics does not lend itself to dispassionate arguments advanced by dispassionate debaters."
Federalist papers?
Maybe we should bring back duels. That way we'd have less pundits.
I actually like the idea of forcing pundits (has anyone seen this?) to put their money where their mouth is, and place bets on their analysis coming to pass.
As it stands no one has any skin in the game, and can cough up whatever bile they so choose. No one's held accountable.
Well, there is a blurring between those that would provide analysis and those that are polemicists. The more strident that Conor is referring to are speaking of values and making arguments for a particular political side. The question he poses is Is this helpful to political discourse or not? With his presumptive answer being Not.
I believe there is a place for both, for both reasoned debate and for rallying and energizing the people of your side.
There is a huge bait and switch here. Implicit in each blogger's post is the claim that they have uncovered a mystery. The object of their wrath, it is assumed, is not self-aware enough to see the truth they are pointing out.
Now, you can show very easily that X person and Y group are not aware of their own hidden motivations. Well, of course not. They're hidden.
Just because Obama seems calm and collected all the time doesn't mean he's not driven by rage - rage that he is potentially unaware of. Serial killers seem mild-mannered and nice to most of their neighbors. It's a similar principle.
Likewise, family values Republicans might give all kinds of lip service to gender equality or gay rights - and think they mean it, too. That doesn't make it true. Especially with sexual issues, a lot of people spend their lives building a huge barrier between base thoughts and desires, and conscious awareness.
You really haven't addressed the claims that the bloggers are making at all. But there's a silver lining: if people were as self-aware as you're assuming them to be in this post, there'd be no need for bloggers.
"The object of their wrath, it is assumed, is not self-aware enough to see the truth they are pointing out."
Actually I think you're wrong about that -- both Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Marcotte are saying that their respective targets are doing awful things consciously and by design.
"Just because Obama seems calm and collected all the time doesn't mean he's not driven by rage - rage that he is potentially unaware of. Serial killers seem mild-mannered and nice to most of their neighbors. It's a similar principle."
Of course, serial killers don't lead very public lives wherein their every action and utterance is intensely scrutinized. President Obama, and to a lesser extent the Republican Congressional delegation, occupy a position so distinct as to make the comparison meaningless.
There is also the fact that it would be mighty strange to choose a mild-mannered, nice person who you just happen to have intense ideological disagreements with, accuse them of being a serial killer without any evidence save your own hunch, and have anyone take you seriously.
This is just another, kind of clever slip. When you say the authors think their targets are "doing awful things" you've shifted the subject from motivations (the topic under discussion) to outward behavior (different, and much easier to discuss).
Phrased that way, I agree - Marcotte and McCarthy would probably agree that their subjects are "doing awful things consciously and by design." Each author has expressed an opinion about their target's behavior (it's awful), and credits the target with free will.
That still has nothing to do with whether or not (either of) the bloggers think that their subjects are aware of being driven by the motivations attributed to them in these articles. In the case of Marcotte, that would require a pretty elaborate conspiracy theory - and there are much simpler explanations.
As for point about calling a mild-mannered man a serial killer; that was my point, and I agree - the whistleblower would be fighting an uphill battle. The conservative blogger was making a much more common and widely accepted argument, that the apple does not fall far from the tree.
I agree with your conclusion, by the way. But the argument seems weak to me. I'm not sure any argument about motivations could be very strong; the subject itself is like quicksand.
@ Erin "The conservative blogger was making a much more common and widely accepted argument. . ."
I don't know where a baseless accussation that someone favores Islamic fundamentalism, in contradiction of every known public comment, is a more widely accepted argument, except among the people making it. And that's Connor's point. These arguments are based on speculation wild enough to qualify as conspiracy theories, but writers otherwise intelligent don't see any logical fallacies contained within them.
Well, I think you've got a very solid general point Conor, but I must nitpick with one part of your deconstruction of the examples given: specifically, your criticism of Marcotte's analysis actually takes aim at the more reasonable part of her enraged post (the idea that conservatives want very bad things to happen to sexually active women and gays), and not with the wholly unsupported part of her post (that those same conservatives also embrace philandering, etc, from straight men).
The example you give of the Clinton/Lewinsky example was a good one, but you misused it: you should have pointed out that conservatives were just as scornful of Clinton, a straight man, having an affair, as they are of women who have sex outside of marraige, or choose not to have children when they become pregnant, or of gay men or women in general. They're just generally anti-sex (at least outside of the bonds of heterosexual matrimony).
Instead, you attempted to give Marcotte's conservative targets a pass they do not deserve - the self-serving idea that somehow conservatives DON'T believe that gays getting sick and dying is by design, or that women who choose to have sex outside of marriage don't deserve cervical cancer, etc. Nonsense - social conservativism is in fact defined by this very worldview, and the design in question is the almighty's. HE hates gays, HE hates promiscuous women, and so it is HIS will that dictates the awful punishments visited upon these sinners. Supported, crucially, by a bulwark of conservative legislation (or, more commonly, votes against liberal legislation) which serves little function other than to deny protection (be it health insurance for gays, subsidies for birth control, or the HPV shot) to them.
Marcotte had that bit right.
To more briefly point out the clearest example of this self-serving flaw in your argument - If it were really true, as you say it is, that most conservatives want sick gays to get medical treatment, then why do they so reflexively and overwhelmingly stand in the way of effort by liberals to grant them the medical benefits of their same-sex partners?
Actions tend to speak louder than words, so please don't let a few non-bigoted private words from conservatives you've spoken to blind you to the mountain of bigoted actions that define the social conservative movement.
I rather enjoy how your two examples work at my own personal biases. I was rather annoyed at McCarthy's (has anyone named McCarthy ever done anything politically good?), while I kinda agreed with Marcotte's main point.
While I still clearly see the histrionics endemic in both, it was a clever way of revealing liberal and conservative biases.