PhotoDude.com

Interesting.

Almost every reason involves more government spending or more government oversight (which costs money).

Except for the line “He will reduce the deficit and work toward balancing the budget, thus reducing inflation and wasting less of your taxes”

That just made me giggle.

I think that’s the one thing that makes me discount sites like Kos, and Kevin Drum’s – and that’s the attitude that if you don’t believe as WE do, you’re not only wrong but you’re damn near incompetent at even existing and should have a correctly-thinking guardian appointed to keep you from making the wrong choices.

I don’t mind arguing with reason – reasonable people, to my way of thinking, can argue honestly and directly and can agree to disagree – but like you, when the argument starts off with an elistist attitude like that it’s rather difficult to take the poster seriously and even more difficult to respect the argument they present.

I may not agree with some of the things you post, Reid – but I won’t be condescending to you if I’m going to argue about them. That’s just common courtesy. (Sadly, that seems to be in short supply these days.)

J.

Kevin Drum, to my mind, doesn’t exhibit this attitude at all. Some of the people on his comment boards do, however, and Drum is often one of their targets.

There is an unfortunate Calvinist strain in American (and British) politics, wherein adherents basically imagine people to be divided into immutable categories of sheep and goats, and consider it their goal not to sway opinion, but to figure out exactly who the goats are and shun and vilify them. This tendency exists on the left and the right; but on the left there’s more of the unfortunate schismatic tendency to seek out goats close to your ideological home.

Now, as it happens, the American far left was generally dead right about how things would go in Iraq, and they want some credit for this. They should get it; we should try to figure out exactly how and why they got it right. Lots of people died because they weren’t listened to, and I’ve been willing to let them make the case—it’s good for the debate and for the country.

The problem in the more intemperate comment-board threads comes when the Calvinist strain comes out: when being right isn’t enough—you have to have always been right, or you’re not a real ally. When they greet genuine contrition from liberal ex-hawks with contempt, accusations of hidden evil motives, and wishes for elaborate punishments… which would presumably extend to John Kerry, who wasn’t exactly a steadfast adherent to the antiwar cause. This way lies the usual “not a dime’s worth of difference” garbage.

However, I do think these people are pretty marginal as the national political scene goes. Ideological blog discussions have a way of bringing out the most extreme elements of any faction.

What I find most interesting about the reasons given is that they all answer the question “WHAT?” That’s only half of the answer.

When I ask the question “WHY should I vote for person A or B?” I expect to get answers that explain HOW that person will accomplish the WHAT. Simply telling me WHAT a person will do, without explaining HOW will never get me to WHY.

As I read the reasons, I found myself laughing with ever-increasing volume. The closest she came to providing a “HOW” was when she wrote “He will do everything in his power.”

Perhaps someone should tell her that the President is not the Philosopher King for whom she and her cronies pine. His powers are (thankfully still) limited, and thus he can only do that which Congress will allow him to do.

Stating with authority that anyone (even Bush) “WILL” do x or y not only demonstrates a naivete more extreme than the one she accuses “Average Americans” of, it comes dangerously close to lying.

I’ve never read the Daily Kos, so I can’t comment on that, but a while back I asked myself the “WHY” question, and after I began thinking about it, I decided to make a list of my reasons. I posted half the list here. I never got around to posting the other half (I did actually write down another 25, I just never took the time to post it online), but personally, #7 alone in the first list is reason enough for me.

The list idea is one that’s been running through my head as well. Whether it’s a list of pro’s and con’s, or an issue by issue comparison, simply writing it out can help clarify things. And it can be a good way to try and make points to others.

And Reecie, I don’t mean to single you out, as your personal site is a quite different environment than DailyKos (beyond their lack of lovely sunflowers). But ... I have to say, referring to Bush as “Shrub” is as helpful to serious debate as it would be to constantly call Kerry “Lurch” or “Frenchie.”

Oh, it happens, on both sides. No doubt, it is your Consitutional right to refer to Bush or Kerry in any non-threatening way you desire. But it’s my opinion that we need to move past preaching to the choir. All indications are that it will be a close election. It will be determined not by hard core Dems and Repubs, but by [1] non-aligned voters and [2] voters pulled from their usual party to vote for the opposing candidate.

Illiterate, disengaged, Shrub, Lurch … these are terms bust the sale before you even get to finish your pitch. Imagine going to the Ford dealer, and their pitch is “you gotta buy this Ford because I think it’s great, and Chevy’s are pieces of shit unworthy of the road. In fact, we call ‘em Shovey’s.”

Then the customer says, “Um, my Dad owns two Chevy dealerships, and I’ve driven Chevy’s all my life. I was thinking about that new hybrid Ford Escape, though. But I was hoping to be convinced, not insulted.”

Obviously, I’m just one tiny wart on this Partisan Planet, currently a very heated place. There’s a lot of angry people out there. I am often one of them. And if your intent is just to vent, then that’s what web sites are for. I don’t mean to diminish that.

But if your intent is to persuade, ask yourself who your target audience is. Who will get a kick out of Shrub/Lurch? The people who are solid Dems/Repubs and don’t need convincing. But if your target audience is Independents, or those teetering on the edge of the other party, that kind of appeal falls flat on its face.

That’s all I was trying to say here. People sometimes get so caught up in their partisan viewpoint that when they try to appeal to the “middle” or “the other side,” they also end up irritating them via the invective.

Oh, when it comes to our current administration, I’m nowhere near the middle, and I’d never even pretend to be.

But honestly, what I write in my weblog is no more than venting, sorting out what’s in my own head, and “conversing” with a tiny handful of people. It’s doubtful anything I write there will persuade anyone to do much of anything—for the very reason you mention; it’s all preaching to the choir.

I often make lists of pros and cons, though (or in the case mentioned, just pros)—it helps me to get my thoughts in order. And it really did help as regards John Kerry and “WHY?” As much as I hate our president, I would much rather vote FOR his opposition than just AGAINST him.