A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote

Friday, June 03, 2005

Slippery Slopes

We read and hear about slippery slopes a lot these days. Outlawing late-term abortions is the "slippery slope" to the return of the dreaded back alley coat hanger nightmare of the 1960s. Allowing gay marriage is the "slippery slope" to the complete collapse of marriage and society as we've known it for the last 3,000 years ('cause you know it hasn't changed at ALL in that time). There are plenty of other examples, and 99% of them are crap, in my opinion. The argument can be used on virtually anything.

But one thing I have noticed of late, and which was brought into focus by a comment Troy made in regards to Orson Scott Card's last column, is that bloggers and other political pundits seem to be rapidly sliding down the slope from relatively objective observor to completely partisan screeder. This is what Troy wrote, "The rant-o-meter is pegged with this guy and that makes most of his points (and he does have a few) get lost very quickly." Unfortunately, I tend to agree. Which is sad, because as little as a year ago, this was not the case. It's particularly sad, to me, because one of the things that has always come through in Card's novels is his ability to see both sides of issues and to avoid the easy generalizations.

Andrew Sullivan is rapidly sliding down that same slope, though on the other side of the hill. Sullivan used to be a considered and relatively even-handed observer of politics and society, willing to credit Bush for his vision while still criticizing him for the actual methods and efficacy of achieving that vision. He increasingly seems to be screeding on about his personal pet peeves, gay marriage and the religious right in America. I agree with him that gay marriage should be legal and I agree that the religious right has too much influence over the current administration and many republicans in congress-- but his tone has become very off-putting for me, and he seems increasingly unable, or unwilling, to give those he disagrees with any credit whatsoever.

In and of itself, I don't mind partisan ranting/screeds. When I read DailyKos, I know what to expect. When I read Powerline, I know to expect the exact opposite. What I find discouraging is that people like Card and Sullivan that used to be, in my own flawed and biased view, fairly objective and sharp minds capable of providing solid critical appraisals, now appear to be degenerating into "the other side is stupid, evil, and the root of all that is wrong in our country and world." I find that sad.

Here's a quote to chew on a bit (and try to guess who said before you look below):
And isn’t this an outgrowth of the, of the hatred that seems to have been injected into what has in the past has been simply normal competition and normal rivalry and certainly election year emotionalism and all. But if something is to be done about this kind of tragedy for anyone, isn’t it necessary that all of us review our own attitudes and say yes, it is possible for men and women of good will to differ, to have opposing viewpoints, to discuss and debate them, and perhaps never to come to agreement on them, but as God is in his heaven do we have to hate each other to the point that people with less balance are stimulated to deeds of this kind? [The shooting of Alabama Governor George Wallace in 1972]
Hate is a destructive, option ending emotion. It stifles debate, it leaves room for no compormise, and it has been the precursor to many, if not most, of the truly dreadful events in world history.

The origination of the quote? Ronald Reagan, speaking extemporaneously at a campaign event in 1972 after receiving word about the shooting of Wallace.

Labels:

Comments:
Speaking of wild and whacky dudes, your old favorite Ward Churchhill is back in the news:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3827452,00.html

This faux indian doesn't miss a trick.
 
We read and hear about slippery slopes a lot these days. Outlawing late-term abortions is the "slippery slope" to the return of the dreaded back alley coat hanger nightmare of the 1960s. Allowing gay marriage is the "slippery slope" to the complete collapse of marriage and society as we've known it for the last 3,000 years ('cause you know it hasn't changed at ALL in that time). There are plenty of other examples, and 99% of them are crap, in my opinion. The argument can be used on virtually anything.

You’re committing an act of moral relevance here, Nick; comparing two bogeymen and calling them equal. Your whole arguments rests (and fails) on this fallacy.

But one thing I have noticed of late, and which was brought into focus by a comment Troy made in regards to Orson Scott Card's last column, is that bloggers and other political pundits seem to be rapidly sliding down the slope from relatively objective observor to completely partisan screeder.

Now you’re drawing large, vague conclusions, probably based on no evidence. “You’ve noticed” this sliding down the slippery slope? Sorry, I need more than that.

In and of itself, I don't mind partisan ranting/screeds. When I read DailyKos, I know what to expect. When I read Powerline, I know to expect the exact opposite. What I find discouraging is that people like Card and Sullivan that used to be, in my own flawed and biased view, fairly objective and sharp minds capable of providing solid critical appraisals, now appear to be degenerating into "the other side is stupid, evil, and the root of all that is wrong in our country and world." I find that sad.

You may have your opinion, of course. There’s no end to bloggers out there, so find someone new to read.

The republic has existed and thrived for over 200 years in spite of (and perhaps partially thanks to) hard, even hateful political discourse. You can go back and find hateful things said about Thomas Jefferson, in his day. And that has carried forth to this very day.

So relax. These hard attacks and hate filled rants (How Weird Dean: “Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives,") just separate the men from the boys.
 
John,

Umm.... no. I never said the two examples were equivalent. Moral equivalency is saying things like, "George Bush is as evil as Stalin." I merely put out two examples of slippery slopes, the two are never weighed and/or compared to one another, merely meant to represent slippery slope arguments from both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, I mention that most such arguments are crap, and that the slippery slope argument can be used on virtually anything.

On the second point, yeah I probably did overgeneralize, because Sullivan and Card are only two voices amongst a great multitude. So, I exaggerated to make my point, mea culpa.

I think the point is still valid, however, and just because Tom Jefferson was targeted (btw, his political opponents were targeted much more systematically and viciously than old Tommy) does not make it acceptable or valid for people to do so today. Two wrongs do not make a right.

As for relaxing... well, I did go golfing yesterday. Does that count? It is always discouraging to me when people of intelligence, who have previously shown themselves capable of great analysis and critical thinking, degenerate into blindered, uncritical partisans.
 
Umm.... no. I never said the two examples were equivalent…

A rereading of the passage indicates that you are correct. Perhaps there is a hint of moral relevancy, but it is clear you didn’t mean to compare the two social ills, you were merely using them as examples.

I think the point is still valid, however, and just because Tom Jefferson was targeted (btw, his political opponents were targeted much more systematically and viciously than old Tommy) does not make it acceptable or valid for people to do so today. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Why do people always say that? Isn’t our entire criminal justice system based on repaying a wrong with a second wrong on the offender? Do you not punish your children in some non-extreme way when they’ve done something wrong? Ok, I’m mostly teasing you here. :->

But the point remains: rigorous political discourse separates the wheat from the chafe, it lets good ideas prevail over bad ones. It demonstrates what sort of people the candidates are. For example, with Howard Dean saying stupid thing after stupid thing, we now know that the liberal democrats who put him in as DNC chairman are idiots. Which I’m thankful for; the republicans may not have much momentum for the 2006 elections, but the democrats are fading. Thanks to Dean.

It’ll be fun to hear moveon.org and their ilk explain another skunking at the polls. (Still didn’t get your message out?) What’ll democrats use for obstructionist tactics when republicans have 60 sitting senators and the filibuster is dead? They’ll need another Jim Jeffords, McCain looks good for that! But I digress…

As for relaxing... well, I did go golfing yesterday. Does that count? It is always discouraging to me when people of intelligence, who have previously shown themselves capable of great analysis and critical thinking, degenerate into blindered, uncritical partisans.

Perhaps you’re too hasty in your judgment. Well, maybe not on Andrew Sullivan, he’s gone from being a must-read to an icky thing you stepped on while crossing a bog. I can just see him parading around at Disney gay days with three silver rings through each nipple and skin-tight purple lederhosen on his puckered butt cheeks. Ok, I digress again.

Sometimes people go extreme, but they usually moderate a little. When they don’t moderate, they become predictable and pigeonholed. And that can kill you, unless you’re really good.
 
Nick is right. Rigorous political discourse is not hate. We can have the first one without the second one. And after having watched the country become very divided in the last election (and not just the votes), I would prefer more rigorous political discourse and less hate.
 
C'mon John, I quoted Ronald Reagan for heaven's sake. You have to agree with me. I think it's in your Vast Right Wing Conspiracy contract-- didn't you read the fine print?
 
This is why I like to stop by from time to time Nick.

I've got to agree with you about the need for the ability to discuss and disagree with others, especially others of differing political stripes, without it nearly instantly degrading into ad hominem attacks and then smashing itself upon Godwin's Law.

The two party system is very nearly dependent upon it. And, as we can see from the current state, when it disappears, very little can get done (note here that I've not placed blame for current conditions; not this discussion)

Although I'm not sure this tendency toward increasing vituperativeness is so much a 'slippery slope' as it is an example of one-upmanship, or increasing retaliation. One's opponent increases the strength of his response, so on then increases the intensity by a larger factor, until opponents are both so entrenched as to admit relinguish not an inch of theri position. an excellent recipe for enmity.

It is most easily observed in the schoolyard, or maybe on Crossfire.

You should go golfing more often Nick.
 
Just had another thought about the whole 'deterioration of partisan bloggers' thing.

It seems to me that part of the issue here is the attention one can get by bloviating and saying the most extreme things. One thinks of Ann Coulter and yes, Ward Churchill. In the world of blogs, page hits are bragging rights; the more extreme the diatribe, the more people, both in favor and opposed, link to it.

It's kind of a positive reinforcement loop.

I would point to a prallel in the non-political realm. Initially, John Dvorak was a Mac enthusiast; with the advent of the Internets, he discovered that whenever he wrote anything negative about the Mac, he received an increase in page hits due to the thousands of Mac faithful coming by to register their disagreements.

Over a bit of time, this tendency has evolved into an repetitive cry of Apple is Dying every few months, based upon specious reasoning using some recent move or product announcement. which is usually proven wrong just in time for him to write another Apple is Dying column.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?