My father-in-law sends along his magazines after he's done with them. I toss most: I get my sports info online; Newsweek and Time are insipid when they aren't irritating; Progressive and American Prospect are appalling; Discover is the classic 'where's the beef?" science mag. Sometimes there's a Smithsonian or an archaeology magazine worth holding onto.
One article in American Prospect did look interesting, so I turned to it. I won't bore you with the shallow reasoning, unquestioned assumptions, and biases. They were very typical. What jumped out at me was the writer's impression of conservatives/Republicans/Tea Partiers as this monolithic force attempting to crush the beleaguered forces of good. There was little reference to any ideas or opinions they might have, how their motives might vary. From moderate right to far-right, we were all essentially the same, varying only in intensity and willingness to cheat or deceive. No branching, no competing streams of thought, no history or individuality.
To her, we were a completely depersonalised enemy, like a single virus or unvarying clay.
4 comments:
What jumped out at me was the writer's impression of... this monolithic force[to the right] attempting to crush the beleaguered forces of good. ..To her, we were a completely depersonalised enemy, like a single virus or unvarying clay.
This came as a big surprise to you, I'm sure. Yeah, right.
Not shocked. But somehow I still expect people who write seriously to make at least polite nods...no - I expect them to read what they have written and have some awareness how it sounds. I expect such things from people who wish only to be partisan, like an attorney who presents one side knowing that there is another; I expect stupid people, on both sides, to be satisfied with pronouncements that "The Serbs are just evil, always will be."
Perhaps that's why I write about liberal tribalism so much - because it still amazes me.
It amazes me too. I meet many conservatives who caricature leftists but who are nonetheless intensely interested in why leftists think the way they do. I also meet leftists who caricature conservatives but seem uninterested in understanding them, typically accepting tone-deaf leftist boilerplate about bigotry and dislike for the poor as self-evidently valid. There are exceptions to these generalizations but I think the generalizations hold. Conservatives tend to be more interested in analysis and leftists tend to be more interested in affirming their status as moral people and as members of the class of moral people.
.To her, we were a completely depersonalised enemy
It occurs to me that depersonalization is a necessary precursor to wholesale destruction.
(I don't see anyone building ovens for conservatives. But this sort of thing concerns me precisely because I doubt people like this writer have considered what forces they're playing games with.)
Post a Comment