Conor links to an Amanda Marcotte post, with a wry remark that being determined to see your opponents' actions as driven by the worst imaginable motives is a barrier to understanding the world as it is. True enough. But have a look at the Marcotte post yourself. Marcotte, you might know, is kind of a deal on the left-liberal side of the blogosphere. And she is completely unhinged by rage. She's like Mark Levin, only with a filthy mouth, and not as intelligent. I read that thing through twice, and the first time I thought, sarcastically, "Boy, she must brighten up any garden party she attends." But then I thought that this kind of thing is a big reason why I've lost interest in politics. Conor and I got into it with Mark Levin a few weeks back, and while he is a veritable Disraeli compared to Marcotte, the shtick is the same: the politics of rage. Find the Enemy, excoriate them, and encourage others to see the (political) world through the same distorting lens of rage. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Among other things, it's ... dull. Really dull. You can imagine I don't have occasion to run across the Marcottes of the world in my daily peregrinations, but I do encounter the occasional right-wing version of same. They want to talk about Obama, and they talk about him as if he were two tics away from the Antichrist. The lack of proportion is what's so striking. I get that they don't like him or his policies, and are dedicated to opposing him. Fine, good luck to you. But what I can't put my finger on is why they take him for such a monster (and I do not exaggerate). I'm afraid I don't have anything useful to say to someone who believes the president to be a socialist Snidely Whiplash and/or a Muslim Manchurian candidate. During the later Bush years, I'd run into lefties who felt that way about Dubya, and while I certainly -- and publicly, in my writing -- had more than had it with him as a politician, the deranged conviction that he was some sort of monster made it impossible to have a normal, analytical conversation with some people. So you just sort of nod your head, and extricate yourself from the situation as soon as you can. I do that these days with some conservatives who make it clear that they are so filled with fear and loathing toward Obama that they really have nothing interesting to say about him.
Look, we can talk about the moral risks involved by giving oneself over to a politics of rage, and maybe we should. But again, the thing that impresses itself on me is the aesthetic aspect: how boring it is. I cannot imagine listening to Mark Levin or (most) conservative talk radio. I cannot imagine watching Keith Olbermann, or reading Amanda Marcotte. Why would you? I enjoy reading sharp, smart analysis from the left and the right, and I don't want or expect either side to wear white gloves when they go at each other. But come on. You fill your head with that kind of "analysis," and you not only cease to see your opponents as human, but you cease to see your own side as human too, and capable of error and hubris like everybody else. Which, I guess, was Conor's point.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Quote:
Not wanting to start a fight, but you sound like these people, PNCC. It sounds like you think outrage = authenticity. Why would you want to be like that? Doesn't the thing from C.S. Lewis that somebody quoted above, about the way constant anger can screw up the way we see the world, say anything to you? It should. Do you believe people will be persuaded to come to your way of seeing the world through maximum foot-stomping and yelling?
=================
I find it odd that you would assume that I think we should all get on the air or whatever, and rant...??? Whatever for?
Have you ever read Levin's books or articles about how our government and leftists have totally corrupted the political system? THe use of tax dollars in the hundreds of millions or more likely, tens of billions, annually, to promote THEIR causes, all hand in hand with very radical people.
Levin uses facts, names, real organizations and real connections and shows what legislation and what appropriations fund all these things. And, if you ever read it, you would be so angry... I am. But why would you think that I, or you, or anyone else should be ranting mad all the time? Does that seem reasonable or responsible?
Levin's radio show isn't on the air here, and I've only heard him as a guest or geust host on someone else's. But what I do know, is that the sum of what Levin knows is enough to BE angry about all the time. Whether Levin properly expresses it, properly directs it, everyone is free to judge.
But what he knows, and has brought to light, is enough that we should all be angry, the kind that causes us to stop indulging ourselves in our daily life and determine to cause things to change course. And to get not just ourselves, but our friends, neighbors, aquaintances...
To act wisely, prudently, to restore sanity, prudence, the proper size, and role of our government.
If in your mind, that makes me a Levin, then I can't help that.
I read your article and then l read the Marcotte piece and my first thought was "God, what a snob".
The focus on the language and the so called "rage" totally bypassed what was being said, that Senators who had come to see their positions as ones of entitlement now feel threatened.
There have been 106 of the 110 Supreme Court Justices in the US who have been straight old white males, and now that too is being challenged and those there at the moment, and the ones who were confident of following in their footsteps along a well worn comfortable route, are now worried to see what they view is theirs by right of entitlement will actually have to be worked for. And they don't like it.
The only thing l disagree with was the description of Lindsey Graham's intelligence. The man is a JAG lawyer, and from everything l have read, a very good one. Thats not something you walk into. I do think he has been dishonest in some of his political grandstanding in the past and l would judge him on that.
Ah, but placing politeness and tone above actual content is even easier. Why bother taking the time to judge what's actually being said? Why bother expending effort on coherent analysis when you can just cluck derisively at people who disagree with you in an insufficiently polite manner?
Not bloody likely. Do any of those "crazy leftists" get any more airplay now than they did then? Are any of the bloodthirsty fools who were disastrously wrong about pretty much everything--and seriously deranged our national discourse by constantly casting any who disagreed as treasonous or insufficiently patriotic--rightfully exiled from reasonable society?
Of course not. It appears that we've learned very little, and that Rod has learned nothing at all.
You're just stating that your position is obvious and that anyone who disagrees is a fool. But there is debate on these things, and you can find plenty of people who patiently and politely argue for socialized health care (Ezra Klein), progressive taxation (Paul Krugman) or a foreign policy which is not centered around being the biggest bunch of murderously insane psychopaths on the planet (Chris Hedges, though he's not a fan of Obama, to say the least).
Claiming that your positions are self-evidently correct isn't a productive measure, and it says more about you than it does about your views.
Ah, here. I'll quote Anonymous Liberal:
Uh-oh. Looking over the post, it seems that Anonymous Liberal uses at least one naughty word, which means that he can be safely ignored. Ah, well. I tried.
Ugh. Pardon me; that should have been Batocchio, not Anonymous Liberal. I must have had my thinking cap on backwards, there.
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.