Centerfield

I am most challenged and stimulated when I post in a left wing blog. The reward is that sometimes the postings after me reflect that I had some effect at pulling the opinions towards the center.
It is too easy to only associate with those who agree with us. The real test of the quality and open-mindedness of our thinking is whether we are persuasive and persuaded.
Do a good deed - Take an opponent to lunch!

Posted by: Paul at January 22, 2006 08:42 PM

I find it harder and harder to fight the good fight on blogs. I find myself drifting toward lurker status. It's just hard to keep up the kind of energy level required for a partisan pissing match.

While at the same time, I'm more and more content to let time and history punish the wicked. I keep coming back to “Collapse” by Jared Diamond. In the end bad management and the sins of a self centered population always come home to roost. As long as you don't mind thinking in terms of centuries.

Posted by: Bob J Young at January 22, 2006 09:45 PM

The problem is that blogs can be a part of the problem. A short comment section is no place for extended discussion on complex issues.

I have tried in vain to get a cross blog discussion going which would mitigate the problem of trying to discuss these complex issues in a short comment format, but that is hard for a lot of reasons.

Also, moderates aren’t as passionate as ideologues. I mean moderates are … well moderate. They don’t care about ideology as much as they care about making policy that works. (What do we want? Soil erosion legislation! When do we what it? As soon as possible!)

The other dynamic is that on the internet people are much more likely to argue about who is right on a question. The problem is that there is often more then one “right” answer, and the definition of good policy is one that makes both sides equally happy or equally miserable. Remember that when the founders finally hammered out the constitution, not one of them to a man thought that the agreement was any good because they we forced to compromise in, more or less, good faith. It was one of the few times in our nations history where perfect was truly the enemy of the good. In other words an agreement had to be reached or the nation would crumble and everyone knew it.

Or to put it in the immortal words of Jeff Specolie, “…so Jefferson said, look, we left this England place because it was bogus. Now if we don’t get ourselves some cool rules, and pronto, we’ll just be bogus too”.

Now a days what passes for compromise is horse trading pork rather then true compromise on pure policy. The only way for consensus policy to emerge is if all actors are * willing * to compromise. The huge problem of course is that for many people, compromise is weakness, failure, and contemptible. Only the complete destruction of the enemy is acceptable, anything else is unacceptable and they will work tirelessly until the enemy is vanquished and any real compromise is simply seen as an intermediate step.

Until a majority of the people are in a mood to compromise then the current brand of scorched earth politics will continue unabated.

Now there are some people who say that certain issues prohibit compromise, and it does seem that way, but I would argue that there is almost no issue that does not offer an opportunity for compromise, only the underlying ideology is unavailable for compromise and frankly I don’t care about the ideology as much, I just want policy that works.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at January 23, 2006 09:10 AM

Mark me down as being in substantial agreement with Rick D.

Posted by: Tully at January 23, 2006 09:14 AM

These are cynical times and it is up to each of up to reframe every conversation in terms of possibilities.

In my adult life I have evolved from Liberal Democrat, to Republican, to Libertarian and now a Centrist. Things change: circumstances, philosophy, party leadership. I have become more of pragmatist and less of an ideologue. I am looking for what works without regard for the label or the source. For instance Vouchers can play a role in some chroncially underperforming schools but may not be a reasonable solution to the overwhelming majority of school districts. This is the way many of us in the middle think about these issues. Not as black or white, but in shades of grey. And we favor candidates that can do likewise.

Posted by: Paul at January 23, 2006 10:55 AM

I went to TPMCafe for a while, but, like Rick, I found it increasingly unpleasant. It's one thing to argue with people in good faith; it's another thing to argue with people that think you are scum. Many on the left simply don't think there is a valid argument to their right or they are so intense that they can't be civil. (And the same applies to the right--I stopped going to a lot of conservative blogs because I couldn't deal with the vitriol.) I agree with the idea of "taking an opponent to lunch" but a lot of these people wouldn't be caught dead with anyone to their right. I don't really feel like being called names. It would be interesting to know the age distribution on the various blogs; just as a guess, I would think that the more partisan blogs tend to be younger as well.

Posted by: Marc at January 23, 2006 11:59 AM

I don't think that the dynamic of more zeaulousness in comments sections is exclusive to democratic blogs at all.

The way I look at it is that comments sections are an invitation to join the conversation, made by someone who has thought about an issue for awhile, wants to share his or her insight, and is open-minded because of not being certain about having all the answers. Ideally, it's an act with at least a tiny bit of humbleness.

I appreciate Rick's notion of trying some sort of cross-blog concerted effort to have some sort of large and lengthy problem-solving conversation on each and every issue rthat seems important. But I am skeptical that this works, because at base each of these conversations is some sort of relationship between people. Every time you add another person to the relationship, it gets more complicated and harder to sustain. Which leads me to believe that for it to work, the relationship has to pretty flexible and open.

If centerfield or any of the other blogs is going to achieve some good politically, I suspect it will be via a slow evolutionary process. I thiunk that our regular visitors have found tehemsleves able to explore each others views, and to sometimes agree testily, but keep coming back becuase of the positive evolutionary affect such conversations have on one's own understanding both of the issues and of the people who view them in different ways. Very slowly, over time, I think we come to at least acknowledge and value the insights of others who think differently on political issues. How much do each of us change our own views? I think we do. I feel I have. I at least try to integrate others views into my evolving understanding, although my success may be quite limited.

I sense that the nature of the comments and commenters here is at least a little bit different than at more partisan sites.The "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop" question with blogs is "how many wingnuts does it take to start a flame war?" I'd like to think that we're at least a little bit more prone to giving people the benefit of the doubt when they come in a flaming, even if that's simply limited to asking someone why they think as they do or to provide a citation to support their claims, as opposed to just blasting them.

If I advocate anything for centerfield, it's that we consider continuing to grow critical mass one semi-open-minded and intelligent person who cares for America at a time.

Posted by: bk at January 23, 2006 12:08 PM

What I will say for TPMCafe commenters is that even the extremists avoid obscenity. Perhaps comments get deleted otherwise.

Posted by: rickheller at January 23, 2006 01:22 PM

Well, I've gone from indifferent, dispassionate moderate republican (in the 90s) to cynic (2000) to Strong Liberal (Bush era around the Iraq invasion to the election) and since have shifted back toward moderation where I was to begin with.

While I lean Left in a broad sense, it quickly fizzles under the examination of policy solutions. I find that this is the case with people whether they realize it or not.

Posted by: John at January 23, 2006 02:27 PM

"Cynical moderate realist." Apply whatever other labels you wish. They'll be periodically wrong.

While it may not seem like it all the time, I truly value the views of those who disagree with me. They force me to continually re-evaluate my own views. And that can't be bad, because the world refuses to stand still.

Posted by: Tully at January 23, 2006 10:41 PM

Bob:

I'm about 100 pages into "Collapse" right now. I can't wait to see how it "ends".

I saw a guy driving the new Dodge Challenger yesterday. Great looking car. Based on the 1970 Challenger, which was my first car.

But as much as I love cars, I can't bring myself to buy a gas guzzler. I would not only feel guilty, but also a little dirty.

Posted by: tim at January 24, 2006 10:34 AM

It is too easy to only associate with those who agree with us. The real test of the quality and open-mindedness of our thinking is whether we are persuasive and persuaded. Do a good deed - Take an opponent to lunch!

It takes two to tango, and it's practically impossible to have a civilized conversation with some of these people. I sometimes enjoy reading Pandagon, but I really have to bit my tongue before posting comments there, because you have to ask yourself: can anything good come out of correcting ignorance here? Is it worth the fight? Just saying "[t]he real test of the quality and open-mindedness of our thinking is whether we are persuasive and persuaded" is true so far as it goes, but you can't pursuade a brick wall.

By contrast, at the blog "ConfirmThem," I am in a very small minority of the regular commenters, insofar as I oppose the nuclear option in its most commonly-mooted form. I've made my case, and it's always been treated (by the regulars, sometimes you get a lone whacko) with respect and polite disagreement - something entirely alien to a lot of liberals who cannot seem to tolerate internal dissention. "It is too easy to only associate with those who agree with us," but more and more, left blogs are hostile territory; you could argue that the world isn't flat and get a chorus of disapproval if you prefaced it by saying you're a Republican.

I was listening to an NPR bit on the Alito vote yesterday; first they played John Kyl saying something, and then they hada "rebuttal" by Dick Durbin. And Durbin's remarks were just such asinine rot that I had to turn it off. You can only put up with this stuff for so long. So it is with trying to have a discussion with people who think you're evil, a racist, and out to kill women, suppress minorities and bomb the hell out of brown people.You can't have a serious conversation with someone with that mindset.

Posted by: Simon at January 25, 2006 08:58 AM