« The Nuclear Option | Main | How Embarassing »

April 17, 2006

Tu Quoque!

It all started with a Washington Post reporter who didn't know much about the blogosphere, but who was familiar with the term 'The Angry Left.' So the reporter, one David Finkel, wrote an article about The Left, Online and Outraged. The basic thrust of the argument is that the lefty blogosphere is a haven for incredibly angry, bordering on deranged, people who use the internet to scream epithets into the air. I read it when it was published and considered commenting, but decided against because, let's face it, trying to prove that one side of the traditional left/right political divide is meaner/nastier/less polite/worse dressed/etc. than the other is an exercise in futility. People who tend towards that side of the political spectrum will agree, while those on the other side will point to examples of the other side's excesses and note that however bad they are, the other side is worse (tu quoque). Granted, we cannot fall prey to the fallacy of the mean and assume that both sides are necessarily equally culpable, but trying to prove to someone on the right that the right is angrier than the left is a waste of time. Regardless of the evidence marshalled in defense of that proposition, it will not convince the conservative that his side is worse. He'll only dredge up his own evidence of horrible things said by people on the left and, voila, the other side is shown to be worse.

I don't even have the faintest idea how you would go about 'proving' that one side is worse than the other. Do we restrict our search to actual politicians from the respective parties? Or does anyone who supports that side have the opportunity to contribute to the hatefest? How do you measure various comments? Does Senator Jesse Helms' comment that President Clinton 'better have a bodyguard' before visiting military bases rank higher or lower than Randi Rhodes suggesting the assassination of President Bush? Helms, after all, was a sitting Senator, while Rhodes is just the host of a radio program. On the other hand, Helms' words were more suggestive that military personnel in North Carolina might view President Clinton dimly, while Rhodes' comment was much less equivocal. And I'll bet that most of my readers have already disagreed with the way I've framed this debate, depending on where they fall on the political spectrum. Now try to rate an entire blogosphere and radiosphere's worth of commentary to see which is worse.

My favorite blog is QandO, and they're currently providing a beautiful example of this phenomon. McQ noted the article when it came out and intimated that, while Finkel's piece was over the top, he had a point and the left blogosphere does tend to be characterized by vitriol rather than logic. That was more than enough to open the floodgates to 68 comments (and counting) that all add up to: your side is worse than my side. In fairness, a few voices of reason have attempted to calm the waters, but I suspect the conviction that the other side is worse will continue to dominate the threat until it drops out of sight.

Nor should this come as a surprise to anyone. The number of people willing to accept that the other side may have a point is vanishingly small. To most of the left, the right is made up of racist, sexist, homophobic plutocrats who are interested in nothing but advancing their selfish, hateful agenda. Not to be outdone, the right considers the left to be anti-American communists who want to ruin the United States to further their agenda of transnational progressivism. Who in their right mind would want to converse an opposite number dedicated to such horrible things? You don't talk with enemies like that, you defeat them by any means necessary, right? At least, that seems to be the consensus opinion.