The journey from there to here
Published on December 9, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

It's getting frustrating.

As a Libertarian, I am always on the lookout for good talking points from the left and right. Both sides have plenty of room for criticism, and there are a lot of good talking points to be had.

But see, as so many have lamented, GOOD liberal talking points are in short supply around the internet. Most of the more intelligent liberals are more moderate than liberal, or focus their blogs on other topics. The few truly intelligent, truly dedicated liberals that remain spend far too little time blogging here, in my opinion. And there ARE some points to be made by liberals.

What we are left with all too often is ad hominem attacks and/or completely unsubstantiated rhetoric. Unfortunately, too many of the leftists we DO find on the sight are so narrow in focus that they simply don't contribute enough to a broad range of topics to be consistently interesting.

A look out over the blogosphere seems to offer little hope as well. All but the most hardened liberal would not want to be represented by the views of the Democratic Underground.

To the good liberal writers on JU (you know who you are): please, give us some more material. To the "one trick ponies": Please, broaden your choice of topics. And to the silent majority of libs: Please, don't be afraid to speak. We may disagree, but I, for one, would like to hear your voices more often.

There's a potential for this to be a truly great blog community, but as long as one view is predominantly expressed over the others, the content is lacking. I know there are some great liberal writers with content to contribute, I'd just like to see more of them.


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Dec 09, 2005
BakerStreet: Have you been feeling ok lately?
on Dec 09, 2005
Huh?

xtine accused me of calling Liberals stupid, then when challenged brushed the whole thing off and "allowed" me to be right, then went off and wrote a specific whine blog about it, and now is telling me that I can't talk about it on the forums...

...and you're claiming the problem is me? Have YOU been feeling well lately?
on Dec 09, 2005
BakerStreet: No, no, I'm not talking about this dispute specifically. You just seem to be more easily worked up and aggressive lately, and I'm wondering if everything is ok with you.
on Dec 09, 2005
If so, it is because of the topic of this blog, Tex. I can point out several discussions in the last month or two where I have been treated like this. Hell, xtine is now going through and deleting the posts in question...

Nothing makes me madder than someone mischaracterizing what I say and dismissing me based upon someting I didn't say or mean. When I take the time to reiterate my opinon for them over and over and all they want to do is turn it into something easy for them to brush off, yeah.

(P.S. I'm not starting anything with you, but yes, that is exactly what I felt that you and dharma were doing to me in our recent unpleasantness. So, if you see similarities in my behavior here and there, it isn't anything that is going on with me, it is how i react when people do this kind of thing.)
on Dec 09, 2005

Bakerstreet's writing has been particularly good lately.  I wish I had his skill.

I am frustrated with the left lately myself. I don't think it's a good thing for one ideology to dominate -- look at how quickly congress is getting corrupt thanks to one-party rule?

In the old days, the right had the Christian right who were incredibly obnoxious with their holier-than-thou attitude.  But now we have the far left whose philosophy can be summarized as follows:

"My ideology is based on enlightenment.  The ideology of those who disagree with me is based on ignorance and hate."  Everything else tends to flow from there.  Virtually every left-of-center person I know of argues with a sort of smug superiority that often leaves no room for disagreement.  You either agree with them and join the enlightenment club or you disagree and expose yourself as a hateful or ignorant or guilty of some other base motivation. 

Disagreeing with a liberal doesn't just make you wrong and unenlightened, it makes you a bad person.  And hence debates almost always have that feeling of someone who is convinced of their intellectual superiority arguing with someone who's jus a little slow, a little unsophisticated, or a little uncompassionate.

on Dec 09, 2005
I'm not starting anything with you, but yes, that is exactly what I felt that you and dharma were doing to me in our recent unpleasantness.


I didn't think that you and I HAD any unpleasantness to speak of, although I do know that you and dharma had a scuffle. You just seem more...emotional... of late, taking things personally whereas you wouldn't have not so long ago. It's just an observation, and if you feel I'm way off, that's cool. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you. I was just trying to express care, not call you out or anything.
on Dec 10, 2005
I don't want to call you out either, but it was something to me. It's not every day a soldier feels the need to publicly remind me that he and other soldiers aren't cannon fodder. I had a hard time dealing with the fact that someone could read what I write and think I felt that way.

It was hideously embarassing not because I was ashamed of what I said, but because someone had taken my words and translated them into something that ugly and ignorant. Exactly what xtine did above. Maybe I am touchy, but honestly I think these two circumstances would have provoked the same no matter what mood I was in or what was going on. Maybe you are right though, the unexamined life is not worth living. I'll examine.
on Dec 10, 2005
Good article. If you do not mind, I want to add one or two more sentences. I agree that in JU there are few good liberal writers. But I think some articles in JU are hostile (not this one) and that scared some good liberal writers and some begineer writers that are willing to learn.

I consider myself liberal on certain issues. And I feel that several articles tend to blame liberals just because they are liberals. The writer might not intend to express his/her opinion that way and maybe there is no a single word that explicitly said that. But the entire mood of the article seem to convey a hostile message. I find it unfruitful to engage a discussion with hostile individuals because it wouldn't be an open discussion.

Just a suggestion, maybe if the rhethoric and name-calling could be toned down, more good writers (both liberal/conservative) would be interested.
on Dec 10, 2005
J: Not saying you'd be that way, at all, but from my point of view Conservatives have a lot easier time dealing with people who oppose them. Some Liberals seem to think that it isn't respectful to ask them to back their perspective up at all.

This isn't a circumstance where someone could be physically intimidated into shutting up. Your words are there to stand on their own. I don't seem how the tone of anyone who opposes you could effect the quality of your argument.

I think that a lot of people of Liberal bent deem ANY opposition to be violent and belligerent. All you need to really do is disagree with them to spoil and "open discussion", like the folks over at DU who won't even allow a Republican perspective.

on Dec 10, 2005
In the old days, the right had the Christian right who were incredibly obnoxious with their holier-than-thou attitude.
I hadn't noticed their exodus. It is fair to equate extreme left with the obnoxious extreme right; however, you leave us with the impression that there many more of the arrogant and "enlightened" academicians among the left than the holier than thou, benevolent captains of industry of the right.
on Dec 10, 2005
Baker, it's not about quality of argument. The quality could still be good.

Let me put it this way. Let's assume that you have a wife. You just got home from work and she accused you of cheating. You never cheated on her, but she thought you did. Does it matter how many times you explained that you didn't cheat? No matter how good your evidence and argument, somehow I still don't think she would believe you. Would you agree that she didn't listen because she was upset? No reasoning could get through to her at that moment.

That's what I found here, several writers are very defensive (yet offensive at the same time). On some issues, I feel it would be impossible to get their attention to consider different perspectives. They are not wrong for writing like that. After all, you should express what you feel in your articles. But at the same time, some prospective writers would consider not to join the conversation because they feel their perspective would be just easily dismissed no matter how well-written is the response.

I can't say the same for everyone, but I personally feel there is little that could be learnt from engaging a hostile discussion.
on Dec 10, 2005
Conservatives have a lot easier time dealing with people who oppose them.
You didn't read Texaii'a comments very carefully.
It's just an observation, and if you feel I'm way off, that's cool. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you. I was just trying to express care, not call you out or anything.
Baker, You do get uptight, you know.
on Dec 10, 2005
Most of the more intelligent liberals are more moderate than liberal, or focus their blogs on other topics. The few truly intelligent, truly dedicated liberals that remain spend far too little time blogging here, in my opinion. And there ARE some points to be made by liberals. It could be that liberals if not in essence unwanted on JU, they might at least feel they aren't taken seriously.
I suppose, I'm suicidal.
on Dec 10, 2005
J: By that rationale, though, why have political debates? Is there a chance that Kerry was going to be really persuasive and Bush was going to slap his head and say "Why didn't I think of that..."

Nah. Persuasion is nice, but in the end I'd be surprised if a millionth of the debates throughout history ended up swaying one or the other side. It does make good material for people who watch and haven't made their minds up, though.

I think when many talk about Liberal Americans not doing a good job getting the word out, that is a symptom. Sure, they may know they are right and wash their hands of you without bothering to fight it out, but they don't realize the smallest fraction of those witnessing the debate are actually in it, at least around here.

Steve: I know. Tex knows too. The situation I am refering to was unfortunate and born more of misunderstanding than difference, I think. Still, it was kind of the same situation here, and I think it reflects more of how I deal with people who mischaracterize me than it does a trend in my relations around here.

I take you seriously. I take Kingbee and Bahu seriously. No one takes cartoons seriously, and when people lack any depth or dimension, toss a catchphrase and walk they don't come off as anything BUT a catchphrase. I have faith that when we start freefalling toward the election we'll gain quite a few new Libs.
on Dec 10, 2005
That's why I wasn't interested in that kind of political debate. Both-sided are too hard-headed to admit any mistake and little substance was discussed. Each side was basically saying: this is my stance and that's your stance. No matter what, my opinion is better so everybody should goddamn vote for me!

What I value most is a discussion not a debate. I'd like to discuss about an issue to evaluate my stance and take inputs from others. Yes, you can say that I haven't made my mind up. But I hope not to be arrogant enough to consider that I know everything. Different situation may require different approach. And that's what I like most about a good discussion, the opportunity to learn.

But if you think about it, if Bush and Kerry were very persuasive, we would probably have seen some live love-fest on TV That'd be gross yet interesting! :evil:

Cheers.
4 Pages1 2 3 4