(I really don't think they're hugging . . .)
I just wound up a typically-frustrating "conversation" on Twitter with a self-describe "Unaffiliated conservative, opponent of big Government in general, Democrats in particular". (I put "conversation" in quotes because, on Twitter, it's a weird way to have one, don't you think?)
It was frustrating not because of how it went--it went almost exactly how every other online conversation I've had with folks on the right have gone--but because it showed me, yet again, how hard it is to have a real discussion of issues between folks on the right and on the left.
The gist was this: Chris Hayes this morning on his show had a bunch of folks on his show that "proved" to this Twitterer (Tweeter?)--let's call him Luca, as he uses the handle "Luca Brasi"--that, while the Republicans have indeed moved to the right, the Democrats have moved just as far to the left.
Now, I personally think this is exactly the kind of bogus false equivalence that is damaging to our political discourse, and to getting anything effective done in government. That the Republicans have moved right is pretty obvious--they've moved hard right on guns, equal treatment for gays, tax policy, foreign policy, abortion, and lots of other issues. Which Luca didn't dispute. But my question to Luca was, how have the Democrats moved left?
The health-care policy that the Obama administration got passed is the one Repblicans proposed to counter Clinton's health care plan in the 90s--that's a move to the right. The tax policy the Obama administration is currently pushing--to keep tax cuts in place--is (again) a previously Republican-held position. Again, that's a move by Democrats to the right. Obama expanded our involvement in Afghanistan, rather than reducing it--another move to the right. Obama has kept in place (in many cases with the approval of Congressional Democrats) many of the policies of the Bush Administration (via the PATRIOT act) that abrogate civil liberties--yet another move to the right. Where are the examples of the Democrats moving to the left, I asked Luca over and over again.
Luca provided no examples. Rather, he listed several politicians who left the Democratic party (or retired) because of the supposed leftward shift of the party. (He listed Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Sam Nunn.) But when I pressed him to list policies that demonstrated this supposedly-obvious leftward movement, he refused. He's not my "errand boy"; I should "do the research" myself; he didn't want to bother. Despite my repeated requests to provide evidence, he only dodged the question, was insulting, made fun of me to his fellows, and then . . . left.
(Which is my typical experience when debating folks on the right this way. They dodge, duck, insult, make fun of, and then leave. All I do--all I ever do--is ask for evidence. "What is your evidence for that assertion?" I ask, over and over again. "Look it up yourself!" I am frequently told. Um, maybe folks on the right don't know, but the way it works is, you make the assertion, and then you provide the evidence. Galileo climbed up the tower in Pisa; he didn't demand that his detractors do it because he "had better things to do." Make the assertion; provide evidence. I know you don't like it, folks on the right, but that's the way it works.)
My point is not that Luca is yet another close-minded right-winger--he may very well be, but I won't draw a conclusion based on this single conversation. My point is, it's sad. Not because I was insulted and made fun of, but because it shows me, yet again, that there is a large group of people (he has over 1000 followers) that really can't be reasoned with, that we can't come to a middle-ground with, that we can't debate with. Because they are utterly convinced of their "facts", feel they don't need to prove anything, and are only saying things to either a) get the approval of their fellow travelers, or b) bludgeon their detractors until said detractors give in.
And that's sad. As Shelby Foote pointed out in Ken Burns' "Civil War" series, Americans' great skill is in compromising. And now political discourse is in a place where compromise is impossible with a huge group of people. So now what? What do you do when the people on "the other side" don't want to prove anything, don't want to discuss the details, have no interest in engaging with evidence, but only want to convince you of the rightousness of their positions, and otherwise will only ridicule and ignore you?
I don't know, but it depresses the heck out of me.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
O'Really?
aliquot
Dave Cullen
Thomas Rogers
john blumenthal
Kathy Riordan
Salon.com
Comments
On the other hand, many of the accepted practices I find obnoxious. My least favorite is when people retweet something that a person on "the other side" of an issue said, as if to say, "See what these crazy people on [the left/the right] are saying? What a bunch of idiots! Ha ha ha!" And there are others. But still, I find it useful.
Sort of a long comment, I apologize, but it boils down to this. People invest in their political beliefs in the same way as their religious beliefs. My way is right and everyone else is wrong, and don't confuse me with the facts. I doubt if there was ever a conversion from one political (or religious) belief to another because of what a sign said or what a bumper sticker said. An internet conversation or one IRL is an extension of a sign or bumper sticker...it's an infinitesimal number I'm sure of those who have an epiphany based their professed civil religion and recognize that the scales have dropped from their eyes.
I guess I'm sort of sounding like we shouldn't engage in passionate polemic discourse, but for someone who isn't on the fence, for someone who doesn't really acknowledge that the rightward march of the Republicans basically means more and more of an abandonment of the poor and middle class except as a means of accumulating more power and money...you won't convince that person otherwise.
Passionate discourse is still valuable for the community and for the individual professing...but for those who will not hear, maybe a certain amount of personal time triage is in order.
Nice to see you posting again Douglas, best wishes to you always and in the new year.
As to being told "do your own research". I got told that endlessly when I first came to the "mankind causes global warming" question and asked for proof of the claims made by the AGW crowd. When I was not impressed by such claims merely being repeated instead of proof being offered, I suddenly became a "tool of the oil companies". Wish I had been, I might have gotten paid......
.