This is prompted by a blog entry I almost wrote.
I’m bothered by some of the statements and comments I’ve seen on various blogs since Reagan died — primarily blanket statements about “leftists” and so forth, particularly here (though he has since clarified his stance), here, and here. Granted, Mike did go somewhat over the top in his initial reaction to Reagan’s death (although he has since clarified his views as well).
Two points.
1) A problem with political discourse on both sides is that too many people refer to “the right” or “the left” or “conservatives” or “liberals” or “leftists” or “they” or “them” or whatever. But such polarizing generalizations blur the truth that we’re really just a bunch of human beings with disparate viewpoints, not members of monolithic lock-step groups. Just because I consider myself a liberal, doesn’t mean I worship Michael Moore or Susan Sontag.
2) I hate the word “hate” as it’s applied to politics. It’s way too overused. Phrases such as “Reagan-haters,” “liberals hate America,” and even “hate crimes” annoy me because they don’t tell you anything. Hate is a combination of various amounts of anger and ignorance and fear; it’s a compound, not an element. Furthermore, I believe that hate, like love, can come only from knowledge. Words such as “hate” only inflame political discourse.
These things annoy me. We’ll never be able to reconcile our differences unless we can look at each other, and each other’s viewpoints, clearly.
I don’t know if I’m being too anal-retentive here. Bloggers blog primarily for themselves, not for the greater public. But the Internet, of course, makes everything public, and conversely, broad changes often begin at the grass roots.
I’m very wary of putting people into groups, even though it seems to be a natural human instinct to do so. The thing is, although it’s easy to notice when someone from “the other side” does it, it’s not always easy to notice when you’re doing it yourself. So perhaps we’re just doomed to fling inaccurate accusations at each other until the end of time. It’s not like this problem is confined to early 21st-century America, after all.
What prompted this blog entry was the following. I was having a conversation last night with Matt and another member of our chorus. We were groaning about the Republican National Convention coming to town this summer, and then I joked, “You can bet the gay bars’ll be filled with closeted Republican boys.” After all, Madison Square Garden is what, 10 blocks north of Chelsea?
I was going to repeat that on my blog this morning, and then I thought, Well, here I’ve been criticizing the snide political discourse that’s been going on lately, wishing that we could all act more politely toward each other, and yet here I am, making a snide comment myself and thereby contributing to the acrimony with my own generalization.
But now I’m realizing that no, I’ve gotten confused.
Because it’s not mean if it’s true.
More accurately, I’m not vilifying an entire class of people here, or misrepresenting any viewpoints. I’m talking about something that will most certainly occur.
Sometimes I’m just way too much of a perfectionist for myself. I think too much.
So you know what? Screw it.
When the Republican National Convention coming to town this summer, you can bet the gay bars’ll be filled with closeted Republican boys.
After all, Madison Square Garden is what, 10 blocks north of Chelsea?
Whaddya mean, “blanket” statements about leftists? My post was directed at two specific individuals, Noam Chomsky and Mike Benedetto, both of whom, IMNSHO, went far outside the bounds of civil debate. I did not attack left/liberals generally; in fact, I went out of my way to clarify that most liberals are not like that (though at least one commenter disagreed).
And I clarified, in response to your comment, that I was really talking about the fringe left, and not all leftists.
Xrlq: Point noted, and I’ve adjusted the link accordingly.
Patterico: Yes, you did in fact clarify your comment (I’ve edited the post to note this as well). I was going with my initial reaction, though. It’s a practice I’ve seen on the Web (and elsewhere) all too frequently, and these are the only ones whose URLs I could remember, since they’re the most recent.
Americans, especially this ascendant generation, seem particularly incapable (emotionally) of political discourse. I don’t know why.
Political discourse is supposed to be heated, is supposed to be emotional, and is supposed to be disturbing. It’s supposed to challenge the stability of our views. Our nation was built upon this messy type of “not getting along” in public speheres. America was founded upon heated arguments.
Bloggers who merely blog for themselves, and then get their panties in a knot when others respond (differently), have lost the understand of society.
Society progresses out of the exchange of ideas. And, that’s always messy, always heated, and always emotional.
Be emotional, but be rational.
And argue, and argue the positions.
Failing to do so fails our democracy.
Political arguments are like fertilisers to our democracy.
.rob adams
Agreed. What Reagan and Reagan’s family endured was terrible.
And agreed. Hate is a potent word that should be used with discretion.
However… the Republican Party has been and remains the party of intolerance. (Sorry Boi.)
The politicians can at times talk smooth and sweet on TV but the policies speak for themselves.
The activists can cover themselves in whatever drag they wish:
But often the naked truth is: Patriot-bigot, Churchgoer-bigot, Federalist-bigot, etc.
For gays, women, the poor, the disadvantaged it matters who is in the White House – and it really matters who is sitting on the Supreme Court.
I attempt to reserve my hate for the Republicans’policies.
But, as regards the two major parties let’s never ever forget
there is a difference!
I think Rob’s got it right. The Quakers have a belief that “Everybody holds a piece of the truth.” If we can’t hear others’ perspectives on issues, and perhaps still completely disagree, we’re in for some real trouble. Just because I find others’ opinions offensive, doesn’t make them any less true for those people.
The same can be said about blanket statements about “gays” as presented in yesterday’s LA Times.
And you can bet your shorts I’ll be in Chelsea, and Hell’s Kitchen during the RNC!
BoiFromTroy is referring to this, if anyone was wondering.
I agree with you there, BoiFromTroy — simplistic headlines (or sub-headlines) like that one in the L.A. Times can be annoying. The body of the article does flesh it out a bit, but… yeah.
Ray Charles is dead.
I’d much prefer a state funeral for him than for Reagan.
in fact I’d much prefer if Reagan’s corpse were tossed to a pack of ravenous jackels.
In a pit.
On Oprah.
This must be the compassionate liberalism I’ve heard so much about. The respect and tolerance given even to those you disagree with. Because after all, it’s the religious right that wishes Hell and evil and bad things on others. And the long-awaited proof that unlike the jackels on the right wing, ordinary Americans such as yourself would never stoop to low levels even in anger.
Oh wait.
This must be the compassionate liberalism I’ve heard so much about. The respect and tolerance given even to those you disagree with.
“Respect” is one thing, but your spin on the word “tolerance” is curious.
To me, intolerance refers to actions against people who are despised simply for who they are.
I think his point is that Reagan sent the clear message that it was OK to watch us die. Ehrenstein surely could have said it differently, but what is there to tolerate here?
Self-preservation is allowed even to fags.
Pingback: BoiFromTroy