Criticism

By Matt for the TIB Network:

Our liberal friend PK takes us, Mahatma, and Kevin B. to task for our debating and blogging skills. I find this rather amusing because it seems to me that all of our discussions have been rather positive and informative. Here's a thorough fisking of what PK had to say:

Reflections on a Minute Portion of the Conservative Blogosphere

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!

Pleasant opening isn't it? No real problems so far...

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?

Okay, a shot at our blog's title. It is a bit "punny" so I'll take that in stride...it's not like we write a blog about media, technology and society or anything...

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').

Mahatma is NOT a conservative; he is a moderate centrist. Kevin B. is a social conservative to be sure. And we are economically conservative (although Mark is socially conservative as well). PK is painting with a pretty wide brush here. I was a LOT like Mahatma prior to 9/11, so if that makes me a neo-conservative, so be it, but I don't really see it that way.

A point about toryism (UK) vs. conservativism (US): politics being what it is, I think it is more likely that the Tories are against the war because Tony Blair is for it, but your mileage may vary.

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.

Yet, he doesn't hesitate to do just that...label people and their work. I consider PK to be a fairly reasonable liberal, at least you can have a conversation with the guy without feeling like you're talking to a brick wall (like most liberals). Liberals are great people with their hearts in the right place most of the time. I just don't want them in power because they will get us killed in the current climate. (More on that when we get to WWIV and Islamofascism.)

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.

If you say so, then why don't you say so...just saying...

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.

So bringing democracy to the Middle East is a bad thing? How? If you can't be excited about the transformative power of democracy, you can't be for social-democratism. And if you are content to have left Saddam in power at all, you can't be humanistic. Honestly, it doesn't matter what reason was used, Saddam needed to go...surely it is best for the Iraqi people and that is really what being socially democratic and humanistic is all about, ain't it?

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.

Be assured, I am an "everyday" kind of guy. I work a day job through the week to make a living. I work on Saturdays teaching trumpet lessons for extra money. For the most part, what you are experiencing, PK, is Midwestern values manifesting themselves in our writing. We believe in self reliance, a small government that doesn't interfere in our daily lives, and that America's best days lie ahead not behind. These are Midwestern values so yeah, they seem pretty commonsensical to us because we're from the Midwest. Does that mean there aren't people in the Midwest who are in to relying on the government that is intrusively regulating our lives while thinking that American power is or should be declining? Yeah, there are a few people like that here in the Midwest...we call them Democrats.

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).

Perhaps, PK, you failed to convince us that you were right. I've got an open mind. I consider real evidence placed before me. But if you cite me globalwarmingnutball.com as a source, you aren't giving me objective material from which to work. Personally, I believe global warming, if it exists at all, is a cyclical problem of nature. There isn't anything we can do about it anyway so why run ourselves into financial ruin so we can cool the planet 1 degree Centigrade in 20 years...nature has the stunning ability to heal itself the damage that it causes itself (pollution from cars, etc. are a mere fraction of what gets belched out of a volcano - how many of those do we get a year around the globe?)

No one has proven that the Iraq war is about oil. NOBODY. Not you. Not John Kerry. Not PvP the Belgian. Not Harry Reid. Not Nancy Pelosi. Not Howard Dean. Not Michael Moore. Not Noam Chomsky. NOBODY. Show me EVIDENCE and I'll consider it. Give me the same line of crap, and I'm going to be dismissive. The Iraq war was fought to protect the world from whatever threat Saddam Hussein may have posed. Intelligence gathered at the time indicated that Saddam was a much bigger threat than he actually was...the result is that there is now a free, democratic Iraq. And that has to be a good thing if you are a socially democratic humanist.

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.

I always thought we had great conversations and vigerous debate. Sometimes a bit heated, but you get that when passionate people with differing views challenge each other. I have no problem with that.

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.

Like so many other defenders of Old Media, [it appears that] PK is making the analogy that blogs aren't worth reading because we aren't journalists or "experts" in whatever fields we write about. [The last sentence was updated with new language to reflect information gathered from PK in the discussion section.] Look, I read up on every subject I write about. Does that make me an expert? No, but it does make me informed. Part of why I write this blog is to inform others what I have learned. Don't like it? Watch Dan Rather and his "news" on SeeBS.

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.

I find your hypothesis lacking...you might as well believe in fate or pre-destination. We have free will, PK. We choose to be persuaded by evidence that is presented or not. When I was in the age range you cited, I was voting for Bill Clinton for crying out loud...

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).

There is a difference between actual nuance and doing the politically expedient thing. John Kerry did whatever he thought would get him a win. There aren't any principles in that other than winning at any and all costs. Kerry didn't prove to the American people that his shifts in position were for cause. That is why he lost.

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.

Joe Lieberman has plenty of credibility. Zell Miller had plenty of credibility. Just because they are Democrats doesn't mean they lack credibility...it's their positions that they take that shapes that conclusion.

Somalia, at least the Blak Hawk Down incident, was a result of US ineptitude on behalf of the President of the United States. That would be President Bill Clinton. And we paid for that ineptitude on many significant days of terrorism after that, most notably, on 9/11. Prove your case, PK...what did the US do wrong, other than being there under UN rules of engagement that weren't about peacekeeping but rather politics of the day?

Let me reassure you, PK, when I refer to Islamofascism or Islamofascists, I am referring to those vile disgusting creatures who think it is okie dokie to hack the head off people who don't belong to their little religious clique. I am a bit ticked off at the moderate believers of Islam who allow these miscreants to get away with it. You singled us out here, PK, so I'm clarifying for you what everyone else seemd to grasp. We are at war...we have been for quite some time...only one side was fighting...it wasn't us. The stakes are high: civilization itself hangs in the balance. If you can't or won't see that, feel free to go ahead and stick your head back in the sand...that should make it easier for our enemies to hack it off should they win. (Forgive me for being so blunt there, PK.) These bastards must pay for what they have done. And we must win before they do...because what they have planned is a bloodbath the likes of which the world has never seen. And that's saying a lot.

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.

So our criticizing the Bush plan for immigration reform, for example, is what? A figment of my imagination? We criticize what we aren't in favor of here, PK, regardless of who spouts it.

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.

For the most part, this is projection. There are some instances where it is vital to the "big picture" that folks understand the history of the situation being discussed. Hence, you can't have a discussion of the effects on America that 9/11 had without talking about Bill Clinton, GHW Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter. You can't talk about the mess we're in with North Korea without talking about the disasterous actions of Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Jimmy Carter.

Underneath this is the accussation that President Bush "lied" about the reasons for going to war. I will explain it to you one more time, PK: the President was given intelligence briefings that made Saddam into a much larger threat than he actually was. That isn't the President, or Colin Powell lying...that's faulty intelligence. And the Americans weren't the only ones guilty of that particualr "crime." The President was given wrong information, therefore his statements were inaccurate.

Bill Clinton, for the record, lied under oath. He committed perjury. It deosn't matter what it was about...frankly, I thought the whole thing was a waste of time and said so on plenty of occassions.

Lying requires an intent to deceive. This line of attack is bogus and outrageous.

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).

I called Chomsky a cherry picker of facts... For the record, I have not read any Chomsky in my time because I've read what others who have read Chomsky have to say...he selectively takes facts that supports his case while ignoring other facts which do not. Sounds like cherry picking to me. Can I prove that? No, because I haven't read him. Do I care to do so? Not really...I sit corrected on this point, even though I still believe I'm right. Proves your point? Sure, why not, I'm feeling generous...

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.

Of course, such dissertation might have lessened the "tick off" effect had you mentioned this earlier...but I'll take you at your word here.

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.

I don't consciously write for any particular audience here. I write what my analysis of the situation is...if you like it, great; if you don't, that's great too.

From the "lone Belgian critic" I get the feeling that he doesn't quite understand who and what we are...that at times there is a bit of indignation from him, as though a commonsensical understanding had been challenged. But I think that's why he comes back...and it is certainly why I value his input...and yours too, PK. I hope to be able to convince you that I'm right. I'm sure Mark feels the same way. I'm not going to change the way I present my information and viewpoint based on whether or not you feel challenged. That's not why I write...

Islamofascism (aka The Terrorists for those who are confused) Delenda Est!