According to a new Fox News poll, Sarah Palin has gone from being a big boost to the GOP ticket to being a significant drag on it. See full results in PDF here. Well, we all knew that picking Palin was a big gamble for McCain. He'd either win big or lose big. She couldn't overcome those disastrous network interviews, looks like -- not even with her boffo debate performance.
Someone, can't remember who, pointed out last week that an interview is a better gauge of the suppleness of a candidate's mind than a debate, because it is a two-way form of communication, on that forces the candidate to interact with someone else, rather than talk at others. That came to mind today when I read Peter Suderman's blog entry on why Republicans are so bad at communicating. Excerpt:
One of the major problems with the contemporary right, broadly speaking, is that when it comes to communication, it's good at manipulation, but it's not very good at conversation. That makes it fairly effective when it comes to TV ads and speeches, which are one-way broadcast mediums. That's great for telling people what to do, and the GOP, especially in the Rove era, has become masterful at figuring at ways -- usually involving fear, of change, of the other, of political enemies -- to tell people what to do in ways that will actually get them to follow instructions.But it's borderline catastrophic when it comes to new media, which emphasizes networked interactivity -- which is where the left, online or off, seems to shine. Part of this is the way the right appeals to authority while the left appeals to community. The left's infrastructure has always (and unremarkably) emphasized communal action -- whether in 60s and 70s anti-war protests or in Alinsky-style community organizing . It also has a lot to do with modern conservatism's trouble with doubt: For decades, the right has had trouble with ambiguity (Postmodern Conservatism doesn't seem strange for no reason), and systems without authority and hierarchy -- systems like the web -- are inherently ambiguous.
Something doesn't seem quite right about this conclusion. Maybe it's just me, but I don't have much experience with liberals who are willing to admit to ambiguity, doubt and nuance, or to allow for it. Some of the most intolerant, closed-minded and unreflective people I know are liberals. I mean, really, DailyKos?
Or perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thing.
I've seen liberals on Kos -- which I don't frequent -- arguing with each other, whereas the more popular right-wing sites seem to be more about laying down the party line, and enforcing movement discipline. This doesn't exactly foment an atmosphere of creative thinking. Then again, that does speak to Peter's point about authority.
Consider what happened to Kathleen Parker when she called on McCain to dump Palin. You can say that Parker, a conservative, was wrong; in fact, I think her call was wrong. But that's not what thousands of people on the right did. They called her a liberal, a traitor, and much worse. One correspondent even said she ought to have been aborted, and her fetal body tossed in a Dumpster. One blog reader over at RedState said that if she didn't have a vagina, somebody would do her in.
I mean, really, who wants to listen to people like that? Who wants to be people like that?
I know the left has those people too, and anyway, it's not fair to judge a movement by its most troglodytic loudmouths. Still, the difficulty of holding an actual discussion on the Right that's not a bunch of me-tooing is indicative of something deadly to a movement that seeks to win people's minds over. You've all heard of the term "RINO" -- meaning "Republican In Name Only," applied to Republicans who dissent from the party line, whatever that might be. Do Democrats ever call each other DINOs? Do they even have that term of opprobrium and marginalization within their ranks?
If not, then that tells you something about the intellectual ossification on the Right. It's the kind of internal discipline that's made the Right so politically potent for so long, but now has made it unable to think self-critically or creatively. Well, that bad habit's about to get broken bigtime.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod, with respect to Suderman's points -- and I believe he's very on target! -- here's what I think you're missing: the right and left appear to have different cognitive styles. Some people tolerate ambiguity better than others, and more of those who tolerate ambiguity seem to be found in the middle, and/or the left. As you point out, either extreme on the spectrum has a hard time listening to anyone who doesn't share their own views and validate their worldview.
Here's an example that might be helpful on the notion of 'cognitive styles': I've taught at several levels, kids and adults. In every class that I've ever taught, there are people who need, require, and cling to external structure: they want to know EVERY deadline, EVERY quiz date, EVERY course grade criteria. They don't tend to be all that creative for the most part, but man do they ever meet deadlines!
Then, I'll have students who have to be reminded (at least twice) that a paper is due in two days, and a brief reminder of the criteria. Those students will turn in papers that are creative, even ingenious. But those **tend** to come from students who could probably make up half their own deadlines if I said, "Hey, you have to turn in 6 papers this quarter, and as long as no two are on the same week, pick your own date." These students could figure it out on their own. They create their own internal structures and guidelines.
I view these two kinds of students as having different cognitive styles.
They're all wonderful in their own ways, but some of them just go absolutely bananas without a lot of external structure. They can't stand it if you say, "Aw turn it in sometime this week." They have to know an **exact date**, and even whether to turn it in at the beginning of class, or at the end. Then, and in my case, I don't care all that much because it's not a big deal to me as long as the papers arrive by, say 4 pm -- suppose that I say "Papers are due at the beginning of class." Well, if those students who LIKE and NEED a detailed syllabus, detailed grading criteria see that I've accepted a paper after class period, they just go bananas. They think that they've been treated unfairly, whereas from my perspective, an hour here or there shouldn't be such a big deal.
Different cognitive styles.
(And yeah, for the sake of being 'fair' to everyone -- especially the people who obsess on turning papers in at the beginning of class, I learned to either take off points, or not accept ANY late papers.)
So what Suderman is alluding to is what educational researchers would call 'cognitive styles'. Just as some students can tolerate loose guidelines and lots of latitude for personal initiative, other students flip out if things aren't very precisely stated and expectations aren't precise, detailed, and clear. Some people just need a lot more structure from the outside. I associate that with conservative politics as a general rule, because that's been my observation.
---------------------------------------------
JohnT: You're not the only one who views government as a huge parasite. And I'm a 'liberal', but I come here for different views to broaden my own. As a 'liberal', I strongly believe that there is a role for government. But I also have come to view current government structures, like most bureaucracies, as outdated and unable to attract the proportion of 'the best and the brightest' that is a key factor in 'reinventing government' so that it works better.
The structure of the legislature as a 'feedback mechanism' for government broke down, beginning in the early 1980s and accelerating through to today -- the 'feedback' came from K-Street lobbyists, and their campaign donations were far more 'informative' than our votes. If that lobbying money could 'buy' what courts ruled was 'free speech', then basically the whole information structure of government became perverted by campaign money funneled through PACs, money-laundered vehicles (a la Abramoff-Rove) and bogus 527s (like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). I view this as fundamentally delusional; the information going into government was primarily shaped to serve corporate interests -- and some extreme religious views.
That kind of 'information' is vulnerable to manipulation, which is where Suderman comes in. If the information structure is damaged, and if the feedback mechanisms are perverted by private agendas hiding behind bogus PACs and other money vehicles, the whole system begins to go haywire -- slowly at first, but more erratically over time. I think we're now seeing the death throes of a badly damaged system.
As for personal lives, my father was one of 12 children born to his parents.
Of those 12 children, most had families of their own, but they each had 2 - 5 children.
My father grew up in what was essentially 'a community' that was based on kinship ties; my own children growing up in a suburb have had to count on neighbors, school friends, and that's about it.
Demographics have shifted so dramatically that it's not possible to rely on family, yet other structures don't have the 'fail safe' quality that are needed to really feel secure. This is causing a lot of emotional strife, IMHO.
However, if you compare average lifespan of today against 100 years ago, you begin to see that divorce was unusual because people didn't live long enough to get divorced. Many women died of childbirth (including at least one of my great-grandmothers), and many widowers remarried -- bringing children into the second (and third) marriages.
What's new is longer life span, plus far more emotional, social, and economic strains on marriage.
All of which means that there are many 'political' issues that really are cultural.
And that some people have a more difficult time grappling with these changes -- because of their temperament, or their own particular circumstances - than others experience.
What's badly needed, IMHO, are more places where people see the good in one another, even if they happen to disagree on specific political issues.
This post overstates the tolerance of the political left. See how Joe Lieberman is treated just 2 years after he was nominated as the Democrat candidate for VP. But I agree with the overall sentiment.
I disagree with Ron Paul on foreign policy & wish he wasn't so cozy with Alex Jones, but I'm tired of the tinfoil hat photoshops.
I disagree with Rudy Giuliani's stance on abortion, but wish that fellow Republicans would stop digging into his love life.
Your boy Huckabee isn't above the fray either, Mr. Dreher. Remember when Ed Rollins said he wanted to knock Mitt Romney's teeth out?
It's like we've forgotten Reagan's 11th Commandment. That didn't mean we couldn't disagree with each other. Heck, Reagan made his name by opposing President Ford. It's the personal attacks that are a problem. We still have a duty to attack our opponents' ideas.
This is not a call to moderation. I am not a moderate. People forget that the 11th Commandment was born as a reaction to the moderate Republican attacks on Goldwater.
Last I heard, Lieberman, of his own accord, left the Democratic party, ran against the Democratic party candidate.
He attended the Republican Convention, and was at least vetted as a potential Republican VP candidate.
I don't think it is much of a matter of how the Democratic party treats Lieberman.
Last I checked, nobody called him a terrorist, or said he 'pals around with them', puts out ads that ask 'who is he REALLY?'.
They just say he isn't a Democrat.. which, well, officially, he isn't, by his own choice.
Rod,
it is really hard to look at one's one political movement honestly and critically. Well done. I am totally a dem these days, but I look forward to a time when I can interact and argue with some of my conservative friends on issues and it won't feel completely intellectually absurd as it does right now. There are plenty of "untouchable" issues on the left as well. Thanks for this post.
Speaking of RINOs:
Several months ago at a GOP gathering I made the mistake of mentioning that I thought gun manufactures should voluntarily refrain from making cheap, small caliber handguns i.e. 'Saturday Night Specials.' My argument was that I believe that since they have no legitimate purpose (police, military, hunting, target shooting, etc.) there is no reason to make them.
Well!
You would thought that I had proposed that UN troops should invade America, proceed door to door looking for any and all firearms, and execute all gun owners on sight.
So much for internal debate and discussion in the GOP. I have been a Republican since 1984, but because of the above situation I'm officially a socialist, New World Order supporting 'gun-grabber' according to my fellow Republicans.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.