This post from Glenn is very honest, but also kind of made me chuckle. What – he’s just catching onto this now??
On a side note: It just seems so crazy that people would write Glenn angry emails about not agreeing with Hugh Hewitt. What is the matter with these people? Glenn is an individual, he is not obligated to agree with some constituency … People seem truly hysterical and dismayed at disagreement. Like Donald Sensing writes in his eloquent post that Glenn links to – people cast others “into the outer darkness” for disagreement, or non-lockstep thinking.
But the very thought that this kind of behavior originated on “the left” is ludicrous to me. Huh? If you have never ever doubted the righteousness of your own opinion, if you have never ever waffled on an issue, or changed your mind about something – then you are lucky. But for those like myself? Woah, nelly. Get ready for the righteous shrill outrage. From BOTH sides.
So no, this kind of demonization for not getting into lockstep with the party-line doesn’t only happen on ‘the left’ – and the “right” isn’t “imitating” the “left”. I could tell you my own personal experience with the “right”, the condescending emails I get (I’ve made the observation before: The conservatives send me condescending emails, and the liberals send me outraged emails. I prefer the outrage, to be honest). I can only speak from my own personal experience – so take it or leave it. I am under no obligation to look at all sides of an issue, or to consider your point of view, or to try to be balanced. I also am under no obligation to be consistent. I might change my mind about things. I might try to work out how I feel about things, or think about things, in writing – on this blog. Some of you whose opinions are already set find this DEEPLY unsettling and do your best to sway me this way or that. And whatever, that’s fine – as long as you’re civil about it. But Glenn is also just a GUY, who has a spectacularly popular website, where he links to stuff that he finds interesting. That is Glenn Reynolds. He is not an elected official.
Michele Catalano is one of those bloggers out there who has been really open about her struggles in this regard. Check out the emails people have just sent her. I’m sorry, folks – anyone who would send an email like that has LOST THE PLOT.
Glenn writes:
“We’ve seen what the you’re-the-enemy-if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-on-everything approach has done for the left. It’s disappointing to see people on the right imitating it.”
This almost makes me want to laugh. I like Instapundit, I read the guy every day, but my response to this is: DUH. (I know, I’m so eloquent.)
DUH.
The “right” isn’t imitating the “left”. The “right” has been that way all along from my albeit limited perspective. Especially if you decide that you want to, horrors, make up your own mind about something.
This is why I hate politics, I hate fundamentalist visions of life, I hate black-and-white versions of reality, and have run into a lot of trouble, from the left AND right because of this.
Screw ‘em. I might end up deleting this post. But I had to get this off my chest.
What…you haven’t considering de-linking everyone who disagrees with you on this pivotal issue?
HAHAHA
Well, Bill, thank God you agreed with Emily and I that Talented Mr. Ripley sucked. Otherwise I would have definitely de-linked you in the most public manner.
Excuse me, you rather grammatically challenged woman of no conviction, but you are obviously so unintelligent that it didn’t even occur to you that the proper structure of that sentence should read “…Emily and me….” I’m amazed you can handle a spoon without instruction. Talk about outrage. You call yourself a writer?
Being “right” on some issues and “left” on others, I felt it important that this comment reflect BOTH my condescention and outrage. Did it work?
Emily – you are totally gonna laugh, but I did waffle (again!!) over the grammar there – and re-wrote it a couple of times. HAHA I am bad at that particular grammar rule.
I even considered this abomination:
“Emily and myself”
Ouch.
I accept your condescension in grammatical correction. My dad emails me on occasion too:
“Dearest, You should have written ‘Brendan and I’. Love, dad.”
So you’re in good company!
I have to let you in on a secret. Emily and I are planning a grand “de-linking of Sheila” ceremony for 2007, coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the release of Titanic.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
McCabe! You’ve spoiled *everything*! Oh well, now that the cat is out of the bag…anyone else up for joining us?
Continuing the condescending lectures, the best way I was taught “the rule” of this particular grammatical issue is to imagine how the sentence would be written in the singular: “thank God you agreed with I that Talented Mr. Ripley sucked.”
Emily … sounds just fine to me. What’s the problem with that?
no just kidding …
skulking away into my grammatically-challenged corner …
Uh oh. I liked The Talented Mr Ripley. A lot. So I guess I’m out.
But what do you want from me? Jude Law at his most dreamy AND my personal obscure little favorite, Jack Davenport. And loads and loads of homoerotic text and subtext. How could I resist?
Anne, haha! you’re right. That movie was made for you! Homoerotic subtext, unrequited closeted longings … beautiful sunlit boys.
Sadly, I cannot bend on this principle. Even though I love your new blog and just linked it, I must de-link you now. I cannot deal with the disconnect of differing opinions. Especially when it comes to something so damn important.
It was nice knowing you.
Anne, you could always de-link me for loving the book Mating.
Your post touched on why I hate politics, and why I refuse to discuss politics with almost everyone.
I’m in a university setting. You want people who are fossilized into a particular political viewpoint, without ever considering why? Compare the folks in a b-school and the folks in the arts-and-sciences school. Likely, they’ll be on opposite ends of the spectrum, and likely they’re both froth equally much when you ask them why they believe what they believe. And I’ve seen cases of “gee, I thought he was a really nice guy, but he voted XYZ” or “I just don’t GET her – she’s got a good head on her shoulders, but she supports candidate N.” I mean, literally, situations where people STOP TALKING TO someone solely because they found out that person is a little more left or a little more right than they are.
It just amazes me. I mean, as snobbish as I can be about certain things, to me, rejecting someone because they vote differently is kind of like saying “you don’t like chocolate cake, so I can’t be friends with you.” Life is hard enough and human relationships are fraught with enough pitfalls without rejecting someone on the basis of their politics.
Which is why I follow the Code of the Schoolyard (H. Simpson, 1989) on political matters.
Frankly, a lot of the time, I’m not all that sure where I stand politically, and I’m a weird mix of what would be considered classically conservative, classically liberal, and classically libertarian ideas….so I could be hated on from all sides, if I were more vocal.
ricki:
I’m with you, girl. I’m a mix of many different elements, and in a lot of ways I haven’t made up my mind yet. This, to people who are more rigid, is the most unforgivable thing of all. I think that’s where the condescension comes from. Like I’m a little know-nothing, and if I had the “proper facts” at my disposal, I would CLEARLY join THIS side of whatever argument it is…
Blech.
And now I MUST ask: what is the Code of the Schoolyard? Sounds very interesting.
from the Simpsons…
“The code of the schoolyard, Marge! The rules that teach a boy how to be a man! Let’s see; don’t tattle, always make fun of those different
from you, never say anything unless you’re sure everyone feels exactly the same way you do.”
(Italicized bit was what I was referring to in my earlier comment)…Well, ok, except for the making fun of those different from you part…I had forgotten that.
(Damn, you can Google ANYTHING – I just typed in Simpsons code of schoolyard quotation and up it came)