Fighting Dragons
Recently I was reading an article on Daily Kos, and decided to check out the about page. At the end of it was an interesting turn of phrase:
We desperately need to catch the Right in the Blogger Wars.
This was after bragging about being the highest trafficked weblog on the planet, which is true. Daily Kos is the most popular political blog on the planet. In fact, if you check the top 100 list of technorati you find that there are two liberal politics blogs in the top 10 (Daily Kos and Huffington Post), compared to one conservative blog (Michelle Malkin).
There seems to be a disconnect here.
Of course, this disconnect isn’t reserved for liberal blogs. About 80% of Americans are Christians, and yet you often hear about how Christianity is under attack. With liberals waging a “War on Christmas”, for example. Rush Limbaugh talks about standing up to the media, all the while bragging about his popularity. Democrats complain about not being heard, while controlling congress at the same time.
Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!
It is true that there is real oppression in the world. But few of us in western society risk jail or worse for speaking our mind, or for our cherished beliefs. So why do we often cast ourselves in the role of a lonely knight, fighting the great and terrible dragon? Why do we often present our struggles as a battle against an enemy, rather than a rally for a cause?
Why draw a line in the sand?
May 21st, 2007 15:09
Because Americans love an underdog, hate unfairness, and love (distant) justice.
So, if you can cast yourself / your belief as an underdog being unfairly trampled by unjust baddies seeking to feather their own nests at your expense, you’ll immediately have people on your side.
And I say distant justice because most people will pursue whatever course of action is best for them regardless of the impact on others (ie. selfishness). However, in a situation they’re unconnected to, they like justice.
Dan
May 22nd, 2007 17:07
You point up an interesting phenomenon with this post.
Dan Sweet is right. In a time of deep and sharp political division, it’s inevitable for people to try to adopt the status of underdog.
After all, being the underdog has worked well. African Americans are generally much better off now than 40 or 50 years ago. Thank the civil rights movement for much of the improvement. That movement pointed up dramatically how for so long African Americans really were underdogs in our society.
This is also a conscious attempt by people like Limbaugh to get others behind them, in an “it’s us against them” frame of mind. Fear can be a powerful motivator. There is commercial gain and political power to be had from welding people together behind you by raising specters and capitalizing on insecurities.
Ronald Reagan posed it as “it’s us against the big, bad government.” Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity have whole long repertoires of bogeymen.
Part of the problem with this getting to be such a big part of societal disagreements and what passes for political discourse is that those who indulge heavily in it can score gains without having to present any positive, useful proposals for dealing with problems.
May 23rd, 2007 10:18
Both sides of the political spectrum engage in it to keep voters preoccupied while they do whatever they please.
Like those cited above, Hillary Clinton has her “vast right wing conspiracy”. Many on the left have “religious extremism” as their bogeyman. And the entire Democratic party has George Bush painted as the devil who is both a complete moron and so smart that he can fool everyone into doing whatever he wants.
Most politicians aren’t interested in positive, useful proposals for dealing with problems. Or, at least, what we, the people, would consider “the problems”.
Most politicians are interested in wielding power. It is one of the few motivations that can survive the painful, ugly, distorted political labyrinth one must go through to obtain any office.
The big question, of course, is where can we find a group of people unwilling to pander to fears / the least common denominator that will run the country?
Dan
May 23rd, 2007 19:04
Dan Sweet wrote:
Most politicians aren’t interested in positive, useful proposals for dealing with problems. Or, at least, what we, the people, would consider “the problems”.
While I admittedly don’t personally know most politicians, I don’t buy that kind of cynical, blanket condemnation. I’ve seen too much evidence to the contrary.
As for politicians’ interest in wielding power, it’s how they get things done. Political power is a tool that can be used for good or ill.
For one spectacular example of the good, I recall a politician who wielded every last pound-foot of horsepower he’d built up over a brilliant 25-year career to make real, after a century of dissembling and denial, the promise held out by a predecessor who had declared our country, “. . . a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 didn’t drop down out of the sky. They are real, tangible results of a powerful politician wielding power to a just and badly needed end.
It’s a mistake to disdain politicians for seeking power. What matters is what they use their power for.
May 25th, 2007 15:20
I’d be interested in some of the too much evidence.
I don’t see much legislation coming out of any seat of legislature that doesn’t:
Pander to a powerful interest group
Enrich the politician or a supporter
Make good headlines
Pay off people in the representative’s district
Buy money / favor for a future political race
Pay off a threat to march / commit violence.
In fact, I’d be interested in hearing about the last piece of (enacted) legislation anyone can think of that was just the right thing to do.
Even the Civil Rights Act was only enacted after a long period of riots; not before. And with much resistance from still-sitting members of Congress.
Dan