The Anger Express
There is a lot of anger in our country, and like any market with so many consumers the anger market is booming. A booming market attracts people who want to profit from it and there is not shortage of those either. Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, anger knows no political boundaries. Dende pointed out an excellent article in Time on the subject:
What do these political voices have in common? They're not political—not in the "vote for my side and we'll do X, Y and Z for you" sense anyway. They don't emphasize the substantive matters that define one as liberal or conservative—tax policy or affirmative action or abortion. If you are reading or tuning in, your convictions are a given. What you want, apparently, is to be told—at Wagnerian volume and in Proustian detail—what a bunch of S.O.B.s the other guys are.
And though we may disagree on details the trends are clear. It all reminded me of Monty Python's Argument Clinic this snippet of dialogue is particularly apt,
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
That's it folks we are getting too many contradictions masquerading as arguments and not enough thoughtful discussion supported by reason and evidence and that's a shame. We're all on board the Anger Express and need to get off.
Comments
This is a very good set of things to point out because I've met many people who justify their political beliefs by claims about the character, attitudes, and honesty of those who disagree with these views. E.g.: "I like the way Bush and the conservatives want to fight terrorism--you can't go with the liberals on that issue, they hate America anyway." Or one I get: "How could you side with those pro-life people on abortion? They don't care about the plight of poor women, and they don't even want to provide for children's health and education once they're born." Or Bill O'Reilly: "You must never agree with Al Franken, because he is in the grip of ideology. I, on the other hand, am independent minded and have never registered as a Republican except by accident".
I have no problem with people maligning each other as liars, cheats, elitists, or evildoers in the process of a democratic campaign, but it should be obvious that the vices of one's political opponents do not justify one's own views, even though they may help you win an election. These two things have been increasingly confused.
Tocqueville, once observed that public opinion is so strong in America that disagreeng with the majority is often seen as a sin in itself. We see this played out as pundits argue about how much the other's views are out of the mainstream. Once again, this can help you in an election but it is not a good argument against any political position.