In Andre Norton’s classic Witch World series, eons ago there was a terrible war of sorcery in the lands to the east. They were blasted and made desolate, and the few survivors fled to the western coast. Knowing of the dangers remaining to the east, particularly the magical weaponry that still might be found there unwittingly if anyone returned that way, the remaining sorcerers cast a spell upon the entire population.
The east became a blind spot. People just didn’t talk about it. It was axiomatic that there was nothing there, nothing worth discussing, nothing worth considering. If you suggested to someone that they might travel to the east, they’d just stare at you, as if you’d suggested that they might travel to the Forty-Seven. It was a non sequitur.
For nine years or so, now, I’ve been a member of an e-mail discussion group on personal ideology. I first stumbled across it in the heady/depressive days after my return from my Martinez job assignment, when I found that (a) I was so burned out on Oracle DBA work that I’d have rather gouged my eyes out that do the things I needed to do, and (b) the company had Internet access all of a sudden, and I could make as much use of it as I could manage.
E-mail groups are only a step removed from Usenet, and conversations sometimes flowed fast and furious, as discussion of every ideological position and question and issue under the sun could be slapped about over, and over, and over. After a couple of years, I was asked to take on the role of being one of the List Managers, to help with meta-issues, to assist in keeping the peace, and to help backfill for the List Owner when he was out of touch.
It’s been a wild nine years. We had some personal get-togethers, where some of the core members actually travelled to one spot and hung out for a weekend. Some good friendships were developed. Some bitter flame wars were, with difficulty, quenched, sometimes by lighting backfires, sometimes by banning one or more of the participants.
Traffic has slowed down on the list over the last few years. For old-timers (some of whom are older-timey than me), it’s because the Big Issues have already been done to death, and we’re not likely to run across anything new. For newcomers, when they show up (and e-mail lists are so passe these days), they’re usual amazed that the old-timers are not automatically in awe of their fresh, new perspectives on subjects that have been debated by mankind since we had words to express them — after which realization, they usually leave, muttering about cabals.
My own participation has gone way down, too. This blog has been a big reason. I feel a bit guilty, a bit intellectually dishonest about that, because it’s a hell of a lot easier to rant and rave and make all sorts of wild assertions on your own blog, where you might get a comment or two back, than to throw your ideas up into the air, where any number of rigorous minds will seize upon them and rip them apart. That sort of environment makes you really think about what you’re saying, consider opposing views, be ready to defend your words and thoughts and beliefs.
But in the last year, it feels like the rhetoric in this country, both online and on that discussion list, has changed. It’s all become so polarized, and personalized, that it’s nearly impossible to have an intelligent conversation, because the premises are so incompatible.
The deepest underlying premise, as far as I can tell, that simply cannot be argued against because it is considered axiomatic, is this: George W. Bush and his Administration are utterly evil and corrupt.
By extension, any action proposed by Bush & Co. is also, automatically, evil and corrupt. The war on Iraq? No matter the reasons I think it’s justified, the fact that it’s being carried out by the Bushies means it’s utterly evil. If it’s not obviously evil, then that’s only because we don’t know the Secret Plan, the cabals supporting it, the Real reasons behind the war.
It may be that this axiom is itself derived from some related assertions (the GOP is evil, America is evil, Western Culture is evil, Humanity is evil). But it seems to be the main wall these days against which all these discussions run into.
I feel (justly or not) obliged to point out that I think that the Administration’s acitivies and policies on a number of things, from Homeland Security to ANWR drilling, are stupid, misguided, and/or possibly corrupt. I think there is plenty to criticize Dubya and his appointees for.
But I prefer to address individual issues. If the Administration puts forward a policy, then I think it stands or falls on its merits. Assuming it’s a Bad Thing because it came from the Administration, or that, even if we can’t find anything significantly wrong with it, it’s still some sort of some Master Secret Evil Plan, and so should still be opposed, seems counterproductive and intellectually dishonest.
But all conversations seem to founder on that rock. The Iraq War is evil because it’s all about oil, or all about Halliburton contracts, or all about oil, or all about distracting from the economy, or all about people being able to drive big SUVs (with oil), or all about American Domination of the World, or all about oil, or all about Christian Millennialism, or all about oil, or all about personal revenge for (or against) Dubya’s father, or all about oil, or …
If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Or it’s all of them. The assertions are impossible to prove, but they don’t have to be, because George W. Bush and his Administration are utterly evil and corrupt. Anything you can think of that would point to the venality and diabolical nature of him and his cronies is fair game — it’s probably true, or, if not true, the truth is even worse — because the axiom is right there.
And if there’s information that the Administration claims it has that convinces it that this war is justified — well, at best that’s simply delusion, at worst it’s a deliberate, evil deception, and proof of their perfidy.
(I will note, for fairness sake, that much the same was true, in the other direction, for Bill Clinton. If Clinton had gone to India to personally praise Mother Teresa and hand her a check for a billion dollars, his critics would have claimed he was trying to get into her sari. If he had embraced Newt Gingrich, his critics would have claimed he was courting the gay vote. If he had admitted every charge against him, his critics would have claimed he’s doing that to distract from even worse things he’s probably done.)
Part of this is understandable. Governments, and governmental officials have lied to us before. And certainly, as I noted, Bush’s Administration has pursued policies that are dubious at best.
And part of this is politics, of course. Vilifying your opponent is a long and — well, not honorable, but certainly traditional way of political life. But it really seems that it’s gotten worse over the last year or two. It colors everything that is said, everything that is argued. And it’s egged on by the media, both on the Left and on the Right, either for their own ideological warfare, or to sell more papers/commercials/bandwidth.
It may well be that there are a lot of folks who are in the middle of a lot of these things. But you don’t hear much from them, because either they get accused of being on the Side of Evil if they don’t embrace fully the Side of Good, or else they’re so turned off by the rhetoric from one or both sides.
If Michael Moore sudddenly gave the Sermon on the Mount, people would still say he was an “asshat” — and he probably would be, since he’d almost certainly slip in there, “And blessed are those who actually got a majority of the vote, UNLIKE YOU, GOVERNOR BUSH!”
I’ve tried discussing Bush, and the War, with folks on the discussion list I’ve mentioned. There’s not much else to discuss these days, frankly. And 9 out of 10 of them, subscribing to that axiom I mentioned, simply cannot be talked with. Not only that, but they’re willing to get uncharacteristically nasty about it.
And so I’m not talking with them all that much these days.
I’m honest enough to admit that I probably have blind spots, too. I probably have some axioms that I’m unaware of that cause me to stare blankly when people mention something that challenges them.
I do try to maintain a bit of intellectual honesty, to be sure. While the majority of the folks on my blogroll are pro-war (which is probably a misnomer for a number of them, since being pro-war is like being pro-abortion — most folks I know see it as the least bad of the options available to us with Iraq — but I digress), there are quite a number in the middle, and even a few who make my teeth grind to the gums when I read them, but I at least try to read them nonetheless because I think they are sincere and thoughtful and even if I can’t bring myself to comment on much of what they say, I can at least say that I’ve heard it (the reverse is, I suspect, true as well).
But it’s not the same. And sifting through comments (on this blog, or on others) is not the same as e-mail threads on ideological discussions. The give or take is not there. Nor is the intellectual rigor. Blog comments tend more toward sound bites than discourse, thought there are exceptions.
I don’t know where we’re going with all this, or where I’m going. I’m not happy about it, though, and I just thought I’d vent.
Now back to our regularly scheduled warmongering and apologetics for the utterly evil and corrupt Dubya Administration …
Great post, Dave. I agree that things have become poisonously polarized, and that’s not good for anyone anywhere on the political spectrum. What I’m personally going to try to do in the coming months is focus on things that we should all be able to agree on – voting and human rights, to mention two.
Talking about the war reminds me of talking about religion. It often brings out anger and division rather than an understanding that we’re all more alike than we realize, or are willing to admit.
Agreed. I think (or at least like to think) that the majority of folks in this country on either side of the war question are working from mostly the same premises, even if a couple of them are different.
Hey, a Witch World analogy! I love it! Anyway — I think that for a lot of people politics — or what they think of as their political beliefs — have become their religion. I’m not sure why that is, or what to do about it. Reading in the biography of John Adams about all the hysterical criticism he came in for (and he was only president number two!) is some comfort, but not much. I don’t believe that I have drooled on my blog about what a wonderful president George Bush is, but I’ve still got the comments and the emails accusing me of being one of Dubya’s dittoheads.
I’d love to add something pithy, but I was immobilized about half-way through reading the post by sheer envy of the personal time you must have had to write it 🙂
I, too, have noticed the demise of gentle debate. I admit I have not taken the time to thoroughly think through my position on every single issue. I am not opposed to exploring them with someone who might have additional insight to add.
However, I am not in the mood to be humiliated or abused if it proves my position is not well-grounded. Wouldn’t the reward of helping a fellow being expand their world view be enough? Evidently not. Gloating is the ultimate reward for far too many people.
Certainly there is no point in debating with those for whom the debate is closed before it can even open. As a rule I am only willing to admit that I might be wrong to those who are willing to admit the same and accept my admission gracefully.
Well, as a “decent-sounding chap,” that’s certainly the sort of discussions I prefer to have. Though I’ll confess to sometimes being too easily excitable when people baldly assert things I find outrageous.
And, by the way, I enjoyed reading your 18 March entry (no way to link that I can see, aside to the site).
Foot-in-mouth warning (by and for yours truly). If I understand where you’re coming from, I can sympathize.
It seems like the perception of polarization has affected you pretty deeply. Your posts criticizing anti-war protests (like Michael Moore’s Oscar speech) seem intolerant and one-sided at times.
The other sticking point is “We must support the war, regardless of the administration.”
I find myself–not because of you, but because I live in CS with all the military and their families–starting to take a more and more anti-war position that I don’t really hold, because I listen to people stick to their point, mock, deride, belittle, and degrade the people that hold anti-war sentiment (rather than the opinions themselves). I’m against Bush. Personally, I think Gore wouldn’t have handled the situation any better (albeit differently), but I’m against Bush. I agree with the reasons for the war, but I think a better politician than Bush would have started this war, if he or she started it at all, in a better position internally and internationally: a middle position. But if I have to listen to all these people mocking the anti-war position, I’m going to start drifting that way. This isn’t a clear-cut war. The more people pretend that each side doesn’t have its points, the more people like me are going to take positions they don’t really hold, or walk away from caring entirely.
So: I’m sorry you have to deal with the reactions of people who hold as self-evident the truth that Bush is evil. Let’s not just go wtih a side because it averages out to be what we agree with.
Well, Dust — I am not sure what you mean by saying you are “against Bush.” You don’t go into any specifics. I don’t think anyone here is a Bush sycophant; there are policies of his I certainly disagree with. But when you say that you think another politician could have found a better solution, you don’t go into any specifics either. Dissatisfaction with the outcome is not enough — what do you think should have been done? In my inexpert opinion I think twelve years was more than enough time for Saddam to abide by the terms of the cease-fire agreement, and I think that Bush gave the UN change after change this past year to solve this problem without us having to go into Iraq, and I think that the people who are closest to the situation — the administration — are probably the only ones with the expertise to know what the best solution is, but that’s just my opinion based on the information I have been able to absorb.
Also, saying you are being driven to the antiwar position merely because you have encountered some unpleasant “prowar” people only says to me that manners and appearance are more important to you than anything. I could be wrong; maybe that is not what you meant to say. I can only say for myself that it is not the unpleasantness of many antiwar protesters that has caused me to be on the president’s side in this particular conflict. I think many of the peace-people are very nice; but their niceness will not draw me to their position either. Manners has nothing to do with it.
Argh. I meant to say Bush gave Saddam “chance after chance.”
I meant to say Bush gave the UN “chance after chance.” Aargh!
When you have a bunch of people all of the same opinion around you, a couple of things happen:
1. People start being sloppy in their thinking. Not being challenged, or having the strength of numbers (or even a mob mentality), they tend to dismiss dissenting opinions out of hand.
2. Folks who hold dissenting opinions either find them changing (to conform) or find them becoming more extreme (out of reaction to being dismissed).
Which is part of the danger of folks just listening to people who agree with them.
I don’t know that I’ve heard folks say that we must support the war, regardless of the administration. I’ve heard folks say that we must support the troops, regardless of the war, which I largely (but not completely) hold with. I’ve heard folks say that they do support the war, regardless of the administration, but that’s a bit different.
If I’ve seemed “intolerant and one-sided” on some matters, I do welcome reasoned criticism and pointing out of my rhetorical, logical, or factual errors. I do know I, too, get a bit sloppy speaking from my own soap box, without people to keep me honest. It’s not intentional, and I do try to correct it when it’s pointed out.
That said, I do think Michael Moore is a jerk. I don’t think everyone against the war, though, is.
Newt Gingrich spearheaded the demonization of Democrats and liberals. The Republican Party has followed that line ever since. Not to blame them for everything, but by making it the policy of one of the major, centrist (in theory) parties it has eroded the hell out of the center and lowered the standards of political debate to the level of…. well, Jerry Springer is visible off on the horizon. He’s standing just behind Rush Limbaugh.
Andrea: I’m against Bush because of policies that have created an Axis of Evil. I don’t like his national security policies (at least the ones I know of). I don’t like the way he responded to 9-11. It seems like he keeps trying to reduce a complex situation to black-and-white, us-and-them, right-and-wrong, and I disagree with that.
The person I’d ideally like to see in the presidential seat right now is Colin Powell. I feel he has the diplomacy to be able to put the US in a better position in the UN and the ability to see the complexities of the situation–to see the ramifications without being tied down by the fear of them.
As I said before, I agree with the stated reasons that we’re going to war. I don’t make freudian analysis of Bush I and II when I can help it. I find the reasons we’re going to war clear. What I find puzzling is that we have a strong position to go to war, and yet a good many people are set against it. I don’t get to talk to many of them personally, because I live in a military town, but there have been protests here. From what I can tell, they say they don’t agree with the reasons we’re going to war, but they also say they don’t agree with anything Bush does. (This mostly via the local independent paper.) I don’t agree with most of the things Bush and co. do, but I agree with the reasons we’re going to war. Why? Some of these people are ones I thought I had reason to believe were intelligent–how have they become so alienated?
I think it’s Bush’s behavior, polarizing the situation into right-and-wrong, and the people who think that because of this behavior, they and people they care about have been pushed into the “wrong” category.
What makes me drift in opinion is that the people who feel they’ve been pushing into the “right” category sometimes act in a manner I feel is wrong: smug, intolerant, petty, mean, mocking. I find myself thinking I have to stick up for what I think is right: what I think is right is more important to me than this war. People’s manners are important to me, because I think how people act on a directly personal level affects how they act and make decisions on a larger level. I feel like I’m surrounded by a bunch of smug idiots–remember, this is a feeling–who have nothing better to do than make fun of a bunch of people who feel like they’re being treated like terrorists in their own country, without cause, because someone they don’t feel should be in office just gets to arbitrarily say so. I see people making fun of–and causing hurt to–people who hurt, and I want to defend them. I don’t agree with them, bu there you go.
Dave: As far as I can tell, you don’t make rhetorical or factual errors in your posts, at least not the kind that someone like me could hope to catch in a year of pondering over texts. It just seems like you just drift the other direction, and I’ve been thinking about my own behavior in comparison. Now, if Harlan Ellison got up and said the same thing, I’d be able to agree with your opinion that he can be a jerk, but I’d be able to add that he, too, usually isn’t so big on the rhetorical or factual error department. As for Michael Moore, I couldn’t say: because I don’t know much about the guy, all I could see was someone who was clearly upset about the situation, and people who shot him down and made fun of him. Maybe he deserved it.
Dust, I admit that I’ve shuddered over the whole “Axis of Evil” and “We Good, Terrorists Bad” thing a few times.
On the other hand, if you were to identify three ongoing regimes that are not only a major pain for their own people, but who are pleased to export that pain, certainly Iraq and North Korea qualify; Iran is one of the biggest sponsors of international terrorism out there, though it’s internally trending the best of any of the three.
And, sometimes, drawing a line in the sand and saying, “This is our side — where do you stand?” isn’t necessarily just being stupid, or simplistic, or all-or-nothing. It can be useful to help clarify things, even if you still end up with swaths of grey between your black and white.
To that end, I don’t know if Bush does that sort of thing because he’s a naive, befuddled idiot, or because he’s a direct, no-nonsense leader. (The two are not necessarily exclusive.)
One of the problems, as you note, with drawing a line in the sand is that sometimes people react as much to the drawing as to where the line lies. “Screw you — if you’re going to force me to make a choice, I’ll stand over here.” That’s not rational, but it’s understandable.
It also can lead to people becoming smug in their decision. The decision’s made, after all, therefore it must be right (the consequences of having to face that one’s made a mistake on something so big are too daunting), and therefore everyone on our side is an angel, everyone on the other side a devil. I see that on both the pro- and anti-war sides.
Harlan Ellison can, indeed, sometimes be a jerk — and for much the same reason as Moore (huge ego, profound inability to not speak out, passionate belief in his position). Ellison usually fact-checks better, and I think he’s a bit more intellectually honest about when he finds an error in his own reasoning, but perhaps I’m more forgiving of him because I can recall my own days of relatively flaming liberalism.
If you’re coming to the Moore controversy without much other context, I can see how the reaction might have taken you aback. A few previous posts I have, with some citations, might fill in some of the details:
Moore’s open letter to Bush
Oops. Let’s try actually finishing the post before we hit “Post”:
I say some relatively nice things about Moore
Lileks on Moore
Spinsanity fact-checks Bowling for Columbine
Spinsanity fact-checks Bowling for Columbine some more
More fact-checking on Bowling for Columbine
Moore’s open letter to Bush
It might be worth noting that I used to enjoy Moore’s short-lived TV Nation show quite a bit. But it seems to me that as his fame has grown, he’s tended to screech louder and louder, and with less regard for the truth, to justify his role as National Gadfly.
Okay, it’s really annoying that the links on those pages have bit rot. Let me see if I can track things down.
I’ve fixed the bit rot in the references to both the Lileks piece and the earlier Moore piece.
Here’s my bottom line on Moore: he has, through loose-to-the-point-of-idling-flapping-in-the-copious-breeze use of facts and misleading statistics and out-and-out fabrication lost any credibility in my eyes. If he says the sky is blue, I’m going to look for myself, first, and then confirm it with someone else, it’s that bad. I don’t feel like I can trust anything he says, because he’s either saying it just to get attention and money, or because he has an agenda that ethically compels him to be both rude and inaccurate if that’s what it takes to get the message across.