I'm back from my long hiatus from blogging!
I've mostly been active on other people's blogs for what time I've had available for blograstinating. Jan 05 was my last post...and a lot has happened during that time in current affairs and on everything else. Oh well, I never pretended to be a reliable chronicler of world events.
I leave that to people with may more spare time than I have or a job that actually requires them to report on current events with some regularity. Its interesting though. I've had some time to reflect on my blog over the past couple weeks, and I've realized that I've skewed towards more current events stuff than I actually intended to. The reason for that has a lot to do with my wanderings through the blogosphere and my happening upon a few blog authors who have gotten me 'hooked' on their blogs. Hopefully in the future, I shall return more to academic issues more in line with the title of this blog!
In any case, the blogs in question are 'the loonatic left,' 'title of liberty' and the best of all, 'weapons of mass discussion'. You couldn't see that pun coming could you?
Anyways, as you might guess from the earnestly derisive title of 'the loonatic left,' atleast one of these blogs is written by a conservative of some variety. In fact, they're all conservatives, in both the economic and social sense of that term. Arguably, they're neo-conservatives, but one doesn't need to get too technical. I say neo-conservative, because many aspects of this particular brand of conservatism differ from traditional (english) tory-ism. For example, in Britain, the conservative tories are actually against the Iraq war, and some even recognize that environmental protection and global warming issues are inseperable from the health of human society/families (and therefore environmentalism is indirectly a 'family value').
Now, for anyone who has read my blog with any regularity, they will realize that I am probably pretty far from conservative on the political spectrum. As a breif segue, its funny when thinking about one's own political leanings - can someone really be summarized correctly by the terms 'left' or 'right'/ 'conservative' or 'liberal'? Just as many object to being neatly categorized into a neat little demographics 'adult/white/black/heterosexual etc, I frequently chafe at the inadequacy of labelling myself or others according to simplistic binarisms.
As Foucault argued with gender, the subject is thoroughly unfit for the assignation of stable identities. One could extrapolate this reasoning and apply it to an individuals political philosophy, one which can easily change throughout a person's lifetime; and even change fairly radically from issue to issue.
Personally, I would describe my general leanings as social-democratic and humanistic. That said however, my views on matters can range considerably on particular issues.
In any case, these self-described leanings are to a large extent a product of national and cultural norms. In Canada, social-democratism, social liberalism and even outright socialism (medicare) are reasonable, mainstream ideas.
In my traipsing over to conservative American midwestern blog authors however, I have encountered radically divergent viewpoints. What is fascinating to me about conservative blogs, ostensibly written from 'everday' people that take a conservative outlook on politics and current events, is how commonsensical such views are assumed to be.
That's really the impression I get from reading these blogs. Over the course of a month or so, I've left many comments on these blogs, quizzed particular lines of logic I didn't understand (why they think Kyoto is a waste of time, why global warming is a myth, why the Iraq war is really about democracy and not oil etc).
Although my inner "liberal" often got the best of me, and I left an occasinal tirade or two, on the whole the many debates I had on these blogs were surprisingly civil.
One might ask why I would bother to visit a bunch of blogs from a political spectrum far from my own. Well, the first answer to that is, it frequently becomes boring (but reassuring at the same time) to visit blogs/websites which reinforce your own convictions about the world. It is nice to read from people who write from a completely different perspective. Whether blogs are the best place to look to find good examples of different perspective is open for debate. Its probably not the best place to look for 'expert opinion' (by definition almost - with the exception of some blogs by prestigious academics - although even 'expert opinion' can be painfully orthodox) or even reasonably well-supported opinion, but it can be an addictive way to waste time.
Now one might ask, what did you find out? Well, to answer that one has to preface the question. Politics and religion are perhaps the two most contentious issues that people disagree on in society. To have a civil discussion between vehement advocates of diverse political and religious/secular views is to ask for a shouting match 99% of the time. Thus, the fact that in my discussions on conservative/religious blogs did not devolve into such tirades is complementary for both parties.
That said however, my discussions nourished an already formed hypothesis about people's religious/political views. That hypothesis is that by the time individuals reach adulthood (19-24 perhaps) they have already formed a strong sense of political and social identity. If this identity is deeply connected to religiosity or political views, it is generally unlikely that radical change is in the cards.
Thus, one of the first trends I noticed in my discussions was
a. Give and Take. Discussants rarely changed a position on an issue. For example, John Kerry is a 'flip-flopper,' and has no credibility despite an argument that it is reasonable to change positions on an issue over time and/or to approve of Saddam being removed from power while not ultimately approving of the Iraq invasion (i.e. one can suboordinate one desirable end to a more important desirable end). Lack of movement is not necessarily a bad thing if one is defending a solidly supported position against weak argumentative criticisms. However, a lack of movement can signal that a person has made up their mind on an issue and is unwilling to consider counter-arguments or alternate positions. In other terms, it can signal dogmatism (circular argumentation; i.e. I'm right because I'm right...). These problems are by no means specific to any political spectrum, but they frequently crop up in non-academic fields of controversy (i.e. politicians, daily editorials etc).
Other trends include,
b. Binarisms. Discussants appear to subscribe to absolutes and binarisms. The democrats for example have zero credibility, are 100% completely wrong on virtually all issues, while republicans are generally correct on all issues. That said, If republicans change positions on an issue (i.e. Bush warming up to Europe) then it is ok to follow suit to a degree. These binarisms can be quite derogatory at times; for example, the UN is wholly 'corrupt' and 'useless,' with little in the way of redeeming characteristics. In criticims of of the UN for ineptitude in the face of crisis (Rwanda, Sudan etc) it is extremely unlikely that criticisms will include a US role in such ineptitude (i.e. many point to the US experience in Somalia and indirect culpability in the inaction during the Rwanda genocide (along with other nations as well). Binarisms are also prominent in the worldview espoused by authors of WMD for example, the world can be essentially broken down into a "World War IV" conflict between the agents of good and freedom (USA) and that of "Islamofascism" (purportedly Islamic terrorist groups, but a distinction between wider Islamic culture and Islamic terrorist groups is not always made). Binarisms are also at work in the conflation of 'critics of US policy' as 'Anti-American'; i.e. nuance and differentiation are not a priority.
c. Loyalty. On a given issue, deference to a given institution of authority (particular interpretations of Christian doctrine, the espoused principles and policies of the current US president) is preferred over "bashing". In other words, legitimate criticism of US policy and politicians is often termed "desparaging," "shameful," etc.
d. Deflection. A frequently employed defence of an argument is to refer to flaws and mistakes on the 'side' which the critic belongs to. In other words, if one accuses an individual on one side, the current republican president, George Bush of "lying" on an issue, one can defend that "side" by pointing out that a previous democratic president, Bill Clinton also lied on several issues. Ostensibly, by pointing out that prominent representatives of a particular side (The democratic party as a fill in for anything liberal) have failings, then one should avoid offering any criticisms of another side. This deflection is essentially an 'argument-ender' signalling that rational argument is not a priority - since it fails to respond to the criticism in the first place. Double standards and hypocrisy are of course general issues to be aware of when one makes a criticism of a camp not one's own (however problematic totalizing people's beliefs into particular political party's and their representatives) but it is also a convenient way to essentially avoid addressing the criticism in question.
e. Ad Hominemism. In response to some arguments, I referenced Chomsky as an authority on US foreign policy. In response, particular conservatives referred to him as a "cherrypicker" [of facts] and most ironically a "fascist." Most puzzling about this last label is that it is essentially the diametrically opposite political position from libertarian socialism which is Chomsky's self-described political leaning. In other words, apparently one doesn't need to consider Chomsky seriously because he's a this or a that. That's ad hominemism. Even if he was a fascist, its still possible that his arguments are valid, thus we have to read them first and respond to his arguments. If I pointed this out (which I have), I would be unlikely to experience any recognition of this argumentative fallacy due to the 'Give and Take' problem (possibly synonomous with 'admitting error/imperfect knowledge' on all issues).
Obviously, these characteristics are my subjective opinions, and they are qualitative in nature (not based on any rigorous analysis/indexing/measuring). And I may be guilty of these same problems/errors at one time or another - I would welcome anyone to point out such failings. Also, these problems in argumentation are almost certainly not specific to conservative bloggers or conservatives in general. A lack of argumentative rigour is incredibly widespread. A good resource on reason and argument is, of course, 'Reason and Argument' by Richard Feldman.
I think the ultimate diagnosis I can produce out of this critique, is that these blogs (and likely many political blogs) are unsurprisingly designed to 'preach to the converted.' They are not designed with a skeptic in mind, and they are not intended to change anyone's position that has not already been changed. When some bloggers were challenged on a particular issue, I frequently received an impression of indignation, as though a commonsensical understanding had been challenged. WMD is replete with examples of this kind, as a lone Belgian critic frequently takes issue with much of the commentary.
Ultimately, these blogs are written with the intended reader in mind, and are generally off-the-cuff, containing little or not evidentiary support. Its flagrant editorial, pure and simple...and for those who like to read it, at its best.
Recent Comments