Bowing to the Hive Mentality
There’s one person among the wretched, wriggling masses of the political blogosphere whom I clearly do not read often enough, and that’s Matt Taibbi. (Hat tip to Rick at Right Wing Nuthouse.) The linked article is actually a long, scathing set of sharp elbows thrown in the direction of Sarah Palin and done so with lethal accuracy, but that’s not the part which caught my attention. (But if you share my lack of enthusiasm for the Wasilla Wildcat as viable presidential material, you should probably read it. I’m sure you’ll have a good time.)
No, what Matt talks about near the beginning of the article is something which has once again been on my mind of late… specifically the way that the hyperpartisan, biased nature of political discussion today can really grind you down to the point where you begin to lose interest.
At the end of this decade what we call “politics” has devolved into a kind of ongoing, brainless soap opera about dueling cultural resentments and the really cool thing about it, if you’re a TV news producer or a talk radio host, is that you can build the next day’s news cycle meme around pretty much anything at all, no matter how irrelevant — like who’s wearing a flag lapel pin and who isn’t, who spent $150K worth of campaign funds on clothes and who didn’t, who wore a t-shirt calling someone a cunt and who didn’t, and who put a picture of a former Vice Presidential candidate in jogging shorts on his magazine cover (and who didn’t).
It doesn’t matter what the argument is about. What’s important is that once the argument starts, the two sides will automatically coalesce around the various instant-cocoa talking points and scream at each other until they’re blue in the face, or until the next argument starts.
It sure can feel that way sometimes, can’t it? And every once in a while it gets to be too much. When this has happened in the past I sometimes went into a funk and simply didn’t write anything for days, or even weeks at a time. These days I tend to run a bit more disciplined schedule and choose instead to simply slow down to one piece a day. I’ll also change up topics from the usual beltway catnip of the day and focus on other things such as Supreme Court cases, cultural oddities or sports. It may not draw as much interest from the hard core water cooler crowd, but it eases the throbbing in my brain for a while.
I suppose what bothers me the most is dealing with the consistent hive mentality which permeates so many political web sites on both sides of the divide. It feels like you spend all of your time talking to drones, one after another, who are all marching in lockstep to the tune of some higher power of opinion generation. The problem is, you never really get to debate with the Queen.
And, as I said, it doesn’t matter which side you’re talking to. Right here at home on TMV I can be in an on line discussion with someone who was, moments earlier, happily agreeing with me when I said that Obama had handled the situation in Honduras pretty well. The next moment, when I criticize certain aspects of the proposed health care bill currently before the Senate, I am informed that I am a hopeless conservative hack who is clearly in the pocket of the health insurance industry and who cares nothing for the needs of the working poor.
(This is rather ironic, because when I recently asked my lovely wife about the possibility of going to Atlantic City with a couple of my friends to play some poker, I was informed in no uncertain terms that I actually am part of the working poor and the idea was out of the question.)
But things don’t get any better on the starboard side of the ship. I moderate a chat most weekdays which is inhabited pretty much entirely by people who consider themselves hard-core movement conservatives. Again, some of these people will be nodding their heads in agreement with me and singing my praises as I criticize the health bill. But then, mere moments later, when I mention that I don’t care for Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate or that Obama should be given credit for taking his time on the Afghanistan decision, I am informed that I probably voted for him.
(This may not sound like much of an insult in other social circles, but there it is delivered with the same wild eyed vigor as saying that I probably burn American flags in my back yard while dining on the flesh of aborted babies with a nice Chianti.)
At any rate, I was happy to read Matt’s article and see that I’m not alone in feeling that way some days. Arguing about politics on the internet anymore is pretty much like…. well, I don’t have a good analogy. The two sides not only have nothing in common… they have devolved into warring camps where simply being perceived as belonging to the other side relegates you to sub-human status far too often.
So… who’s up for some football predictions?
20 Responses to “Bowing to the Hive Mentality”
[...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Cheap Web Hosting- Share and [...]
I thought it was great when CNN started but what it has morphed into is at least partially responsible for the partisan divide in this country. The cable news networks, all of them, need to create division because that's what brings in the viewers. Democrats and Republicans – Conservatives and Liberals agreeing won't bring in viewers. The result is politicians who only think in terms of short term political victories.
The current health care debate is a case in point. The health care reform bills on the table don't actually reform anything. A victory now will be bad for the party in a few months when it becomes obvious that health care premiums continue to rise and more and more people are priced out of the system. The republicans on the other hand are just looking to defeat anything the Democrats do. The smart thing for them to do would be to let the Democrats pass this very bad do nothing bill and then beat them up with it when it becomes obvious that it didn't fix anything.
I'd mostly agree with you except on one point. The bill in question really doesn't do much of anything in terms of changing things until after the 2012 elections. The costs which will rise will do so sooner, but not all that soon. (They're not idiots.) It will be mostly in 2011 when they start kicking in the way it's currently written. If they manage to pass this thing, it not only won't burn them too much in 2010, but might actually help the D's by giving the illusion that they're doing something. But most of that, on both sides, will fade by the 2012 elections. At that point,if unemployment is finally going down reliably and a sustainable recovery seems to be staggering to its feet, they may hold on to a majority in both houses (albeit slimmer) and Obama *should* cruise to a second term,even if Dem policies had little or nothing to do with the improvements. (Assuming the R's put up a real hard right winger against him.) But if the economy is still fumbling and unemployment remains over 8 or 8.5, Obama is a one-termer and the D majority in congress will be a distant memory. I'm afraid,in the end, it's all about people's comfort levels and the heated debates on wonkish policy don't really sink down very far into the minds of the vast majority of voters. If they are fat dumb and happy they'll keep what they have, at least until they get really bored. (See 2000) If they are worried about the rice levels in their bowls, it will be time to “throw the bums out” and the majority of bums currently have D's after their names.
Jazz what it doesn't do even in 2012 is address the problem of cost. That problem can only be addressed when a near majority are without health insurance because anything that cuts cost will be labeled as rationing but the reality is the cost is going up because drugs, tests and procedures are being given that do little if any good and often are actually harmful but there is lots of money to be made With health insurance premiums going up over 15% a year it won't be long before many more are simply priced out and most of the people getting health care are on Medicare.
What are you a barbarian? Don't you know that you're suppose to drink a nice Bordeaux with babies flesh, preferably a Chateau Margaux.
I go through those times as well, actually I have been going through one over the last couple of months or so. I have gotten a good deal more selective in my reading which seems to be the only control over the amount I comment but after a while no new ideas or opinions are being shared so it gets depressing and boring. It is always nice to hear others views on it good article.
To be honest I back the current health care bill only because I feel strongly that if it fails nothing will be done. I also believe though that if it is passed it will be tinkered with for thirty or more years but I consider that a feature not a bug of the design. As always their is much sh*t sandwich and some morsels of pure brilliance, Wyden's win for example which I think will greatly increase competition and service. I just think it has the skeleton of good legislation without anything else on the horizon and therefore I support it since I think it will do more good than harm. I also see a good deal of harm though I will admit.
Matt Taibbi, as cited in the opening post, lamenting the fact that the national debate suffers from a too high noise to signal ratio:
“It doesn’t matter what the argument is about. What’s important is that once the argument starts, the two sides will automatically coalesce around the various instant-cocoa talking points and scream at each other until they’re blue in the face, or until the next argument starts.”
And here's the very same Matt Taibbi, deriding Fareed Zakaria for being a … wait for it … “milquetoast” guilty of “taking controversial and explosive topics and trying to help rattled readers somehow navigate their way through them to yawns, lower heart rates and states of benign unconcern.”:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/22506
Mr. Taibbi, heal thyself first.
The best way to combat hyper partisanship is to vote for those candidates whose own party is most critical of them, the Liebermanns, Snowes, Collins, Stupaks, McCains, Grahams, Nelsons, etc. These are the best hope for our future.
Yes, I routinely get completely fed up with political “discussion”. I can't begin to stand most debate and avoid most political web sites.
A few months ago, I debated creating a “government not politics” blog and spoke to a couple commenters here who were routinely adding substantive, informed content. The idea is that I do care about governmental policies, but really could care less which party looks good or who won the race to power. However, they didn't bite and I dropped it as well. I knew a couple rules for the site. “No post can use the terms Left and Right unless they refer to directions.” Similar for liberal and conservative. So much discussion just falls into which side is the most corrupt, incompetent, and probably evil.
A little over the top, but I enjoyed the ranting about Palin in the a__.
Is there a policy website, where common people can propose, counter-propose, and debate their own legislation? I remember that much of the infrastructure of the internet was designed by groups of students and professionals from across the nation.
Hi ProfElwood, I have not found it yet, but I'd be eager to participate. If you find a place, please let me / TMV know. If not, we could try creating one in all our spare time.
Absolutely awesome article, Jazz.
You seem to have you finger on the pulse of things. I've felt that way many many times.
In my opinion, many times the partisan hacks out there try to belittle others for being partisan hacks. I've realized that it's simply a tactic. Don't let it affect you, bro. IMHO, you are the most enlightened and straight-forward writer on TMV. So rise above it, and keep doing what you do best – keeping both sides of partisan hacks honest.
Don't forget Ron Paul and Russ Feingold.
If only RP didn't always sound so whiny, some of his ideas would resonate better.
Hyperpartisanship with little ideological cohesion on either side… Sounds like the late 19th century.
After the Grant Administration ruined what was left of the GOP's moral credentials regarding civil rights- and the Democratic Party's “New Departure” shifted it away from the vitriolic racism of the Reconstruction years – the two party system in America was defined by largely irrelevant personality squabbles. Yes, there were important issues to be debated, including the currency question, a pair of Depressions (1873 and 1893), tariff and trade policy, immigration policy and, after 1898, imperialist policy. But by and large the political system of the late 19th century and early 20th century US devolved into a hyper-partisan and un-ideological morass of personal conflict and press-driven exaggeration-as-entertainment.
What changed this? The Progressive Era finally stepped in to clean up some of the mess (and created some new messes). World War One and the chaos of 1919 briefly channeled the nation's attention on to things that mattered. And some of the issues dithering around among the Third Parties – labor issues, prohibition, feminism, etc. – started to wend themselves into mainstream public policy. But it really would not be until the Great Depression that the political system in America would start to refract on ideologically coherent lines again.
Elrod, how do you think things sit now? Partisanship and such, easy to make a call on. I was more interested in whether the fault lines are ideological today or not. On the one hand, we often talk about the extremes of each party pushing out the unpure along ideological lines. On the other hand, I still am not convinced that some of the issues viewed as conservative or liberal truly are. Climate science is one of them. Sure, solutions to climate change could revolve around political ideology, but the existence of it: no clear reason to me that Republicans must think it's bogus science while liberals must think it's great. There are other issues as well that serve as faultlines today, but are not obviously ideological.
All of these issues are ideological in a sense. Denying the existence of global warming – or man's role in it – is part of the ideological fear of governmental interference with the economy.
But the real pressure on the economy comes from the fringes on both sides – the Naderites on the Left and the Teabaggers on the Right. Each fringe is only partially embraced by the nominal two parties, but the core messages of each party are not – and will not likely be any time soon – reflective of the activist fringe. Alas, the blosophere is the site of fringe frustration but is more like the various “Leagues” that sprung up around 1900 to confront everything from liquor to prostitution to capitalism to imperialism.
Gee, you keep trying to be reasonable. With all the commitments we have all made to our positions, it is refreshing. Keep trying.
JeffersonDavis, “In my opinion, many times the partisan hacks out there try to belittle others for being partisan hacks.”
Couldn't agree with you more. I often wonder what happened to the value of a good argument structured on the merits of the case.