I guess someone has to say the obvious, but since most lefty blogs are preaching to the choir, and the mainstream media shows only limited interest in applying the only kind of “balance” that really matters — that between the maximum amount of truth and the minimum amount of misinformation — it seems somewhat like a waste of energy to me.” (unfutz)
Readers will notice that I had no commentary on the State of the Union. My reasoning is much the same as Ed’s. He and I share the dubious distinction, it seems, of being quite opinionated authors of weblogs with very small audiences and no broader notice (sorry, Ed!), a situation accentuating the concern about preaching to the choir. The polarization of the weblogging world, moreover, is just mirroring the process in society as a whole. Timothy Leary once said something like, “You are only as young as the last time you changed your mind.” However, call it arrogant or closeminded if you like, but I believe in my opinions, and I am confident that those who share my viewpoint have a monopoly on balance, as Ed defines it — maximal truth and minimal misinformation. Although I am sure the right wingnuts feel the same, I have no insecure need to entertain their madness politely. As someone once said, my mind isn’t so open that any ol’ thing can fly in.
Just as I become viscerally ill if I have to listen to Dubya for more than a soundbite’s worth of tortured incoherency, illogic and deception, I am relieved that I am barely exposed, except in the odd comment here and there, to rightwing dissent against my views (although, in another sense, I miss it, since, to coin a saying, the contempt of the contemptible is a compliment). I would love to hear if readers have any counterexamples of recent meaningful exchange across the ideological gulf, in the weblogging sphere or elsewhere — where they are listening to each other or perhaps (shudder) even influencing each other’s viewpoints…
Addendum: Dennis Fox responds, in part:
On the other hand, it’s also dangerous to let awareness of complexity prevent political conclusions and action, a topic I’ve blogged about before. The traditional academic objective style and the perennial recommendation that “more research needs to be done” strengthen the status quo. So does the related tendency of people who identify with the political middle to reject all nonmainstream input. Our goal should not be to oversimplify — which happens too often on the left as well as on the right — but to reach commitment and action despite awareness of complexity.
Forums for people who fundamentally disagree can be interesting, but I suspect not many underlying assumptions change. I’ve tried in the past to spur discussion across ideological lines, especially in the Israel/Palestine context, but I’m not sure how often that turns out to be useful. Dialogue groups that focus on this kind of exchange can increase understanding, empathy, and friendship — positive outcomes — but as far as I know they don’t routinely lead to effective action toward social change. When we think we are on the side of justice and equality, calls for dialogue and understanding can lead to expectations of compromise that mask rather than resolve justified grievances….”
