I Hope I’m Not Missing the Point
By Montag | Related entries in BloggingThis is my full disclosure inspired by some of the criticism written about this blog so far.
I often consider myself as liberal. (Just ask me.) On the political compass — a thought-provoking excercise, even if imperfect — I come out in the lower left quadrant in the vicinity of Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama — the “Libertarian Left” — which I think is a pretty good description of my views, although I don’t fully know what that means. I just know what I think. That said, I keep an open mind when evaluating political candidates, but mostly end up voting Democrat. I vote on the merits of the individual candidates but I am not in love with the Party or party politics in general.
I am humbled by the company I keep here, everyone is very articulate and all seem very well educated. I do not have the benefit of an extensive higher education (I attended a two year technical college.) I am armed only with my intuition, curiosity, and eagerness to learn. I am a fantastic flip-flopper and I suffer wild oscillations in my ideas which over time eventually smooth out into a pretty consistent position or belief. Those who are interested may have to suffer sometimes flawed logic on my part. (I have the feeling Callimachus won’t have a problem calling me on such flaws of reasoning.)
I never intended to become a “centrist” blogger. I’m not even sure how to frame a centrist position on an issue. (I‘m not even sure it’s possible in most cases.) Rather than strive toward a “centrist” position, I’d hoped to “find the common ground” from which to discuss the issues of politics in a civil way; where the goal of argument is not victory, but better understanding. To participate in a conversation where both sides are more interested in the truth than in rhetorical victory for their own view; and the goal is for each to better understand and respect the others’ view.
The biggest problem with political discussion in America of late is that it has been dumbed down for the viewing audience. I chalk it up to the focus on PR & advertisement more so than apathy or cynicism in the public. (This may be a concerted effort by power seekers to keep people disinterested in what they are really up to.) Anyway, what we’ve ended up with is a lot of emotionally charged and meaningless rhetoric. Both sides resort to half-truths and ommissions for the sake of concision if not obfuscation. Debate has become hollow. It’s something we who are willing to, should be working on improving.
“Common ground” could be a recognition that a difference of opinion doesn’t necessarily mean that the other side is wrong, but that we may be dealing with an indeterminate or borderline case; and matters of nuance influence the flux of right and wrong. It may sometimes amount to the sentiments of Justin’s refrain: “let’s agree to disagree.” Or it could be that each side finds the other’s stance totally aberrant/just plain wrong/or outright immoral. Our focus in these cases should be on not letting them become barriers to communication in other areas.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 19th, 2005 and is filed under Blogging. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
You’re not missing the point. In fact, you “get it” quite well.
The reason for a centrist blog is not to agree on every issue. In fact, I think you and Callimachus are much less centrist than Michael, myself and Cicero. And J. Thomas Duffy, well, he’s just going to make fun of anybody he can.
But I think you’re right when you say a centrist is somebody who looks beyond the talking points and marketing. Seperating the wheat from the chaff.
However, I also think how people define “centrist” varies quite a bit. So let’s see what shakes out on this blog and go from there.
July 19th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Maybe we’re not so far apart. My “Political Compass” score was Economic: Left/Right: -0.75, Social: Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77, and my nearest neighbors on the chart seem to be the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Mozart, and Gandhi. Or else the test is still a bit crude and dumps disparate political types into that same southwest quadrant.
One of the challenges of “Centrist” is that it can embody two conflicting concepts, as Montag shows here:
But the goal of understanding the other position isn’t always conducive to an understanding of the truth of the matter. And the quest for truth often requires you to ride roughshod over your opponent’s easy assumptions — and your own.
July 19th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Good point Callimachus.
We need to make sure this doesn’t turn into an echo chamber, and so far I feel the debate is healthy and balanced, unlike places like Daily Kos and LGF.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Yes. Truth is paramount.
Truth truth, not “political truth.” I have no use for that. I will not build a case based on a Liberal “political truth” any more than I will accept a Conservative “political truth” as refutation (or is it refutal?) of same case.
Objective truth isn’t debatable. But rather the conclusions we draw from it.