There is a very quiet revolution going on in this country right now with the news media. The number of adults who read daily newspapers is dropping steadily. More and more people are getting their news either from television broadcasts or on-line. Blogs are having a marked impact on the mainstream media, and that's only going to increase.
I happen to read mostly left wing liberal and progressive blogs. I do read some right wing blogs, such as instapundit, just for perspective. I go to the Free Republic when I want to laugh at all the young white guys frothing at the mouth. There really is a difference in the tone of the respective sides which almost exactly mirrors what, in reality, is a real difference between the conservative and liberal movements.
The liberal blogs are generally very well written, factually based, and for the most part, very civil. The right wing blogs tend to embrace the "send the troop hating liberals to Iraq as human shields" sort of philosophy. But.. it's the right wing that holds most of the influence.
Ted Rall is a rather controversial left wing columnist. He wrote a piece on blogs that I thought was a very interesting read. You can read it here:
Excerpts for the lazy or short on time...
It all sounds great--until you read them. Once you spend some time surfing this ocean of likeminded righties, however, you realize the awful truth: the "populist" blogosphere is cowing the mainstream media even further into submission to the powers that be.Rall nails it. When I first started this blog some guy, going by the moniker Oxen, used to troll my comments. That's exactly who Rall is speaking of. In fact, go have a look at his blog here.
[...]
Bloggers are ordinary people, many of them uneducated and with nothing interesting to say. They're sitting in their rec rooms, regurgitating and spinning what real journalists have dug up through hard work. They don't have sources, they don't report, and no one holds them accountable when they make mistakes or flat out lie. Yeah, there's a new sheriff in town. Unfortunately he's drunk, he's mean, and he works for the bad guys.
It's not surprising that his most recent blog entry details his recent concealed gun carry class. Oxen is disappointed that they didn't teach him when it is permissible to kill somebody in self defense. He even goes so far as to post the relevant Florida statutes concerning self defense laws. Would anybody be surprised if somebody actually ends up dead at his hands before long?
As an aside, I still wonder why a 27 year old with his point of view has not joined the military. Isn't that the epitome of hypocrisy? I believe the term is "chicken hawk".
But, that's what I believe Rall is saying. Oxen (why not use a real name?) just isn't very bright. He has an inability to independently and rationally form a point of view, beyond regurgitation of other right wing writers. However, when you get a whole lot of Oxen's together, they can be rather powerful. Just ask Eason Jordan, formerly head of CNN. It really was the right wing blogosphere who cost Jordan his job.
As we are using Oxen as the prototypical conservative, lets examine a small bit he wrote in the comments:
I have to say on the outset that you are a better writer than I, but I'm not the one that is wrong here.Essentially that translates to "you are smarter than I am, but I'm right anyway". He implicitly believes his viewpoint is based on "logic". That is classic right wing methodology. They have a complete inability to be self critical. Somehow he has eliminated all self doubt, because he has to. They are the ultimate self delusionists. They have to be. If doubt crept in, the belief system crumbles, and the identity is shattered.
If you haven't been able to conclude yet I have find it quite fun prodding liberals with my logic and viewpoint.
Left wingers have a wonderful luxury of being able to be wrong. I can consider a topic and my impressions on it, but I can change my view point when presented with a more rational case. I can do that without my belief system crashing on me, because being open minded and open to criticism -is- my belief system. Conservatives would accuse me of "flip-flopping". I consider it common sense.
Oxen writes:
Watched 24 last night. What a kick ass show, I haven't missed an hour yet this season. But they better not turn it around so some American company is the bad guys. They were doing great w/ the Muslim plot line.Interesting. His main concern is that the show producers do not paint American interests in a bad light, and uses the phrase "better not". Quite a lot of what the right wing articulates (if it can be called that) contains an undercurrent of threatening language. He wishes to continue the current stereotype of the Muslim as the bad guys. In the conservative world, everything is black and white. Oxen's world consists of good guys (us) and bad guys (browns). Generally, conservatives are intellectually incapable of deriving concepts between those two. Again, Oxen has been bombarded with media descriptions of good and evil, right and wrong, bad guys and good guys. His intellect is incapable of nuance.
There is a different class of conservative - their thinkers. Some are very smart cookies indeed. I believe they are driven more by pragmatism then anything else. They envision a certain world, and dangers to that world view. They've evaluated various routes to attain that goal and found the current conservative agenda to be the most expeditious. For them, it's not the method or the tool. It's the outcome. To achieve popular buy in on that program, something akin to the National Socialist movement is the tool.
Does anybody actually think the Iraq war was started over WMD's, terrorism, or democracy for Iraq? It was merely a move in the chess game toward the neo-con world view. America had to be told something. America was told a basket full of lies. Does that matter? Probably not - again being purely pragmatic about it.
If you've ever wondered how Hitler came to power, and how he was enabled by the German people - think of that point of view. Notice the blind subservience and such a strong desire to fit the aggressor male role. Oxen isn't an alpha male, but he certainly is a member of the pride. Oxen's blog is also a wonderful example of the complete right wing belief system. It contains all the elements; paranoia, fear, hate, and violence, etc...
I'm just trying to understand the mind set of a right winger. I think a lot of it is biological, and quite a lot is media conditioning. Oxen watches 24 and wishes he was the government agent, but he was not high enough caliber to become one. He watches war movies and wishes the glory and nobility of the proud combat soldier, but he is too afraid to be one. He has a very black and white sense of justice, and believes those who transgress be lashed out at with the anger of his failed aspirations.
That has to be a big part of it, doesn't it? It says on his blog that he's a draftsman. While that's a fine profession, I can't imagine for the life of me that it's what he aspired to. I expect some measure of his anger is externalized over his own failed ambitions.
Isn't that what we've all seen so many times? Those people that I know that were so fortunate to have achieved their professional goals seem so much more relaxed and open minded. Most of them are not really interested in politics anyway. Those that failed to live up to their own expectations seem to have a grudge against the rest of the world. Therefore, Oxen's blog is all about that anger, wrapped around some beta-male subservience to the alpha, and the symbol - the flag.
Now, I'm not intending to be mean to Oxen with my post, but merely try and understand the personality of a right winger. Certainly there are outliers in the movement. I think of Colin Powell at one end, and Paul Wolfowitz at the other. Oxen is the inlier, the mirror image of countless others at the Free Republic, and I found his blog fascinating.
Anyway, if you have the time and inclination, go read the Rall piece. It's interesting.
1 comment:
I wasn't lambasting you. That would require you to have an identity beyond a political point of view. You know, something like having your name and other identifying information on your blog. I just found your viewpoints and writing to be so stereotypical of the personality I was trying understand and describe. If I lambaste anything, it is the political persuasion of people such as yourself.
To answer your questions; No, I do not own or carry a hand gun (I'm sure you're not surprised), even though I live in Texas. I was brought up in a household with rifles, but no hand guns. I did complete an NRA safety course when I was 11, and did some target shooting in the scouts. I was actually pretty good at it. My father is a WWII vet and thought I should understand how to handle a weapon, and understand gun safety.
I have no problem with the second amendment. You should read here for some info on the amendment.
Specifically: "At the time when it was ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment was intended to have at least two security purposes other than a well-regulated militia: (1) a practical purpose, to protect people from thieves, bandits, Native Americans, and slave uprisings (the Jeffersonian position); and (2) a political purpose, to remind the rest of the world that the United States is well-armed (Hamilton and Madison's position in Federalist Paper #46). Cottrol and Diamond (1991) have recently suggested the idea that it was 'White Man's Law', intended to prevent slave insurrections."
American society has evolved since then. Now, handguns are the tools of criminals and paranoids (and law enforcement naturally). This might surprise you, but I do agree the gun isn't the problem. The Canadian's have more guns per capita then we do, but far less gun violence. I think we have something on the order of 10,000 related gun deaths a year, and Canada fewer than 100 a year. I'm going from memory there, and could be off slightly.
That suggests a cultural problem and not a gun problem. I, personally, don't need a gun. Statistics show that you are far more likely to be involved in a serious confrontation if you have one. In other words, far more people are killed for having a gun then people save themselves by having one. The issue is compounded by the "if it bleeds, it leads" attitude of the media. That scares people into believing they are one step away from a similar situation. Statistically, that's hogwash.
Still, the current Constitution does provide the right, so by all means, please do what you are legally permitted to do. My point was the fixation on violence that seems typical of the conservatives. Seeing that at the top of your blog made me smile.
As for Byrd's remarks, again typical conservative reaction. When confronted with some sort of accusation, conservatives will point to somebody on the other side and say, "see, he's worse". I'm no Robert Byrd fan. I think he's just an ignorant red neck from the south, and his time is almost over.
That said, Byrd does have a point. The Senate Republican's are seeking to do away with a filibuster rule that has been in place for over 200 years. It does remind me of Hitler's grip on the Reichstag, and subsequent dissolution. The Republican's seek to eliminate any tool of the "checks and balances" concept of our government in order to effectively establish GW as emperor.
It's funny how you post Byrd's comment as if it should be obvious to all what your point is. You failed to address it and point out the issue. That's intellectual cowardice.
Post a Comment