Group-Think Destroys Political Blogosphere
Musings on why Memeorandum will not feature this post or anything else I write, for that matter.
Skimble, a political blog, is closing up shop out of annoyance with the endless triviality of the election debate in 2008. Over at TalkLeft, Democrat partisans have diagnosed the problem predictably as being one of insufficient extremism — being moderate or centrist is, to them, the worst sort of boring. (The fact that right-wing blogs just completely ignore these posts merely reinforces my point.)
Skimble gets the symptoms right and TalkLeft gets the diagnosis precisely wrong, though. This election has become too annoying to write about. But the problem is not the lack of partisan zealotry, the problem is the relentless and predictable scripts of partisan zealotry.
Take a step back and review any political blog you like and you will immediately be struck by the sameness of the posts. They take the story of the day — invariably some substance-free “gaffe”, photo op, or partisan charge of corruption — and attach a laundry list of catastrophic impacts foretelling the end of the world if that candidate would be elected. Any reference to actual policy issues will be brief, insubstantial, and driven entirely by stereotypes. Comments threads will be infested by cut-and-paste repetitions of well-worn slogans and talking points, bereft of any engagement with the issues of the real world or any recognition that disagreement could indicate anything other than demonic possession. The scripts rule the day without any tolerance for deviation or criticism of any kind:
Mandatory Script #1: Obama is a “socialist” who is simultaneously too intellectually lightweight to be President yet a Machiavellian genius enough to be bamboozling everyone
Mandatory Script #2a: McCain is “McSame” seeking a third BushHilter term so that he can sell Social Security to Halliburton and bomb every country where brown people live in order to establish an American Empire that will revoke the Bill of Rights in order to establish a theocracy.
Mandatory Script #2b: McCain is “Juan McCain” who will allow an invasion of brown-skinned immigrants that will destroy American culture by ruthlessly picking vegetables and mopping floors.
Mandatory Script #3: Ron Paul (pronounced RONPAUL!!!) is the “only honest man in Congress”, a tragically misunderstood savior (like Lyndon LaRouche before him) put down by a vast conspiracy of party elites and the media who is nonetheless the only man who can save The Constitution from the other conspiracies of the Council on Foreign Relations, Da Jooooz, Ze Bilderbergs, The Illuminati, socialists, neocons, fiendish flouridators, Federal Reserve, communists, gray aliens, United Nations, and the vast right wing conspiracy.
It is the comic book election, where the only roles anyone is allowed to play are “Captain America” and “the Legion of Doom”. What bunk.
Who to blame for this trend? Ourselves. A recent study found that blog readers are overwhelmingly prone to only read blogs that simply reiterate scripts that they already agree with. There is little market for creativity or honesty in analysis. Blogs that attempt it are quickly marginalized in the market by readers from both left and right who object vociferously to their heresies and vote with their feet.
The result is a blogosphere dominated by “group-think”, a psychological phenomenon whereby ideologically homogeneous groups become steadily more extremist and unrealistic as members compete within the group to one-up each other in their purity and passion and reinforce the group against incursions from demonized outsiders who might question precious presumptions.
What a waste of time. But the study findings are devastating in their implications. The extremist political culture blogosphere simply lacks the tools to even consider change, let alone reward those who attempt it. Thus, even blogs that attempt to break the hardened ideological mode (either by including multiple perspectives, like this one, or by a self-conscious commitment to equality of criticism), find themselves shunted out of the networks of link sharing in favor of more ideologically reliable sources. Many blogs that began with strong commitments to independence have long since surrendered themselves to de facto ideological purity tests on key points. In comments threads, either cut-and-paste spammers rule or else the posts go ignored. The sad end result is the same.
What to do? I have no idea. Few in the blogosphere seem interested in any change that would require them to give up their intellectually dishonest and ideologically-driven cherry-picking of available information. I predict that few will even read, let alone respond to this post. I am a heretic, long since condemned to the dustbin of the blogosphere for my obstreperousness and complete inability to shut up in the face of blind regurgitation of ideological scripts. I like Barack Obama and I like John McCain and I think Ron Paul is a ridiculous figure disengaged from the real world. That means I dissent from all of the Mandatory Scripts and have no significant audience to appeal to in the blogosphere.
Most of what I can find the time to write any more focuses on more analysis of foreign affairs where a lack of public knowledge about anything beyond a very narrow range of issues (e.g. Iraq) has inhibited the writing of hardened partisan scripts that can be enforced by the blogosphere’s ideological stormtroopers of far left and far right. That means I can indulge in my inexplicable compulsion to share my opinions, but I’m not likely to encounter many readers who care about what I am writing about.
I care deeply about this election, but I find that writing about it publicly is pointless. Welcome to the brave new world of politics, where morons rule by rote.
BINGO!!! Group-think and orthodoxy are problems that weaken democracy. You’ve explained it very nicely. The problem, as you note, is that too many people want to have their opinions validated, not be asked to think about their opinions and consider whether they are correct or not. This ties in well with the post a couple down the list about social self-segregation. What we used to call classic liberal thinking, and Western liberal democracy, are threatened every bit as much by this sort of self-segregation, which, again, seeks to validate our viewpoints, rather than ask us to evaluate them with any degree of self-criticism.
Personally, the variety of viewpoints and the generally polite ability to ‘agree to disagree agreeably’ are features, not bugs in my opinion. Which is why I enjoy coming to Poligazette and the Volokh Conspiracy; and why I don’t visit the Moderate Voice as much as I once did. I try to occasionally see what’s on at dedicated left and right blogs, but for the most part, they have too much noise and too little signal. While there are thoughtful comments at LGF or Daily Kos every now and then, both really are verbal food fights with nothing much to recommend them.
Personally, I think part of the problem is a result of along-standing effort, largely by the left, though sometimes copied by the right, to enforce an orthodoxy of expression to avoid offending key constituencies. Thus, campus speech codes at universities were created to help women, ethnic minorities, and homosexuals feel welcomed and accepted. While this is not a bad idea, it misses an important distinction in political thought - the distinction between acceptance and tolerance. Forcing people on the social / political right to at least give lip service to accepting the values of groups they find offensive is no less problematic than when the political right does it. Persons whose views are at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy are simply dismissed as bigots or imbeciles whose views don’t count, because they are not of the correct social-political stripe. Tolerance, however allows the civic exchange to continue with recognition that there are different values and political theories. What tolerance does is recognize that people have a right to live safely without undue harassment, violence to their person, or damage to their property, however, they do not have a right not to be offended by people with differing values and views; but that people do not have a right to inflict their social view and values on others who do not share them.
This is why I find the concept of ‘hate crimes’ so problematic. It effectively creates a caste society, rather than treating everyone equally before the law. If it is wrong to throw a rock through someone’s window, or assault someone, then it should be wrong, regardless of who the victim is and who the perpetrator is. It should not be a hate crime when someone throws a rock through a Planned Parenthood window, but acceptable social protest when the rock thrower is a member of Earth Liberation Front protesting the use of animals for drug testing. In both cases, it should be a crime, treated with the same degree of severity regardless of whether or not the victim is someone that we personally like or agree with.
Where tolerance, rather than enforced acceptance is the political standard, I believe people of differing ideologies, religions, and social views are encouraged to work together, rather than to self-segregate. I believe that when enforced acceptance is the standard, people self-segregate to avoid being forced to participate in something they find objectionable.
I’m not sure I agree that people like you are so rare, Jason. It seems to me that there’s a reasonable number of people who do want to engage in meaningful, nonpartisan discussions, but it’s a bit like people who say they want entertainment that is of higher quality with less gratuitous sex and violence. Perhaps people pretend that’s what they want but actually choose to engage in the titillating stuff, but to a great extent I think it’s just so much easier to put out the low quality product and that becomes the standard offering, and people accept that they have little other choice. Basically it’s the path of least resistance.
I agree certainly with the basic premise (it’s a major reason that I’m reading and commenting much less frequently these days- this election season has taken a mild annoyance and ramped it up to the point that I rarely enjoy blog reading anymore.) I also agree that the linking has created a lot of the segregation (I often note that on Memeorandum, certain blogs comment on certain stories while others focus on ones that are favorable to their ’side’ or unfavorable to the ‘opposition’.) In addition, all of the linking to news aggregators makes for a lot of redundancy on blogs which gets old really quickly. I’d much rather read blogs that have some original content or cover a story, issue, or angle that no one else is talking about.
This is exactly my main complaint against modern democracy; in the past, this was countered by ‘rules’ for those allowed to participate. These days, those rules are gone (except for minimum age basically).
The more democracy does not mean the merrier.
As for the general complaint about the blogosphere; you are right, and it’s one of the main reasons why this blog has less readers and links than it could have. It also is the reason for the partisanization of certain blogs, that tried to do what we do today (presenting opinions from several perspectives).
The biggest problem comes when partisanship becomes blacklist. Christine is dead on right about what you can see on Memeorandum. If it is an anti-Obama story, nearly all the blogs listed underneath it will be reliably right-wing blogs all linking to each other and saying the exact same things. If it is an anti-McCain story, nearly all the blogs listed underneath it will be reliably left-wing blogs all linking to each other and saying the exact same things. But the most revealing thing is that those few blogs that tend to go back and forth across the predictable partisan lines aren’t found on Memeorandum at all.
Whenever n a blog emerges that actually does attempt to provide balanced and/or mixed perspectives, they get shunned. To say that such blogs get "blacklisted" is not an exaggeration. They disappear from Memeorandum, are systematically denied links by the partisan blogs as punishment for their heresies, and are sometimes even subjected to campaigns designed to encourage other blogs to blacklist them. (For example, one blog owner I know of often disseminates orders to his co-bloggers instructing them not to link to other bloggers he doesn’t like or agree with and extends requests to the same effect to his other friends in the blogosphere, yet he claims publicly to welcome equally views from "left, right, and center".) There are more than a few commenters who do the exact same thing — trying to harass and defame any blog or writer who commits an act of heresy against their particular Mandatory Script.
To me, the political blogosphere increasingly resembles a system of high school cliques, both in its overall level of intellectual attainment and its tendency to embrace trivial excuses to actually persecute anyone who deviates from what is "cool". Those few who actually enjoy civil arguments are either drowned out or actively driven away. The political blogosphere is not only affected by group-think, it is an exemplar of the concept.
As should be obvious, I am personally very demoralized about political blogging. I realized yesterday that while I can think of many enemies I have made by writing on political blogs, I can think of very few friends.
I’m not disagreeing with all this, but I’d like to add that partisan blogs have some advantages too.
I’ve noticed that the more partisan blogs I visit will feature stories you don’t seen in more mainstream/centrist sources; and often stories from more mainstream/centrist sources are more heavily analyzed in these more partisan blogs.
While you surely have to take what they say with a grain of salt and expect that a lot of it will be predictable, I do find the occasional gem of a story…
I should emphasize that I do not object to the existence of partisan blogs, I object to their enforced monopoly.
For example, Newshoggers is an example of a blog that often does what you highlight, finding stories that no one else is talking about at all. But they cancel out much of the value of that positive contribution by their relentless and abusive approach to blogs that they disagree with, usually ignoring contrary perspectives entirely but, when they do acknowledge them, often personally attacking the authors of those dissenting blogs or just lying about what those dissenters said in order to force-fit them into the pre-existing, demonized scripts. Glenn Greenwald is another exemplar of this tendency who has been rewarded massively for his hateful efforts as is FireDogLake. And those examples are in addition to the blog that I know for certain does outright blacklisting behind the scenes while publicly claiming to represent “left, right, and center”.
It is the extremely high frequency and extremely high degree of impact of these examples that is more important than any one example in isolation, though. The problem is that they are typical and dominant rather than unfortunate exceptions.
Us moderates are freaks of nature. I frankly don’t know how to be partisan if I tried. My thirst for knowledge and originality is insatiable, and partisanship bores me to tears.
I would however disagree with Orson. Conservative talk radio began before the internet really got off the ground. Liberals are not mostly to blame for this problem. Part of the problem is the level of isolation that we have come to enjoy in the world today. You can say what you really think without worrying about your reputation or how others would think of you. Infamy may come to some, such as Huffington or Coulter, but never decency or respect. Also most people blogging have never experienced the worlds they envision. Its a lot harder to call for nationalization of oil companies if you’ve never lived in a country with one, or abolishment of the social safety net if you’ve never lived in a country without one.
One of the rather enormous problems we are facing at the moment is a lack of real problems. There are no overarching themes that will define my generation, but rather a series of smaller problems (terrorism, energy, health care, climate change, entitlement reform and nuclear proliferation) that will simply nickel-and-dime us to death. What we need is an exercise program for the American will and spirit to unite us again. Right now it’s all flab and no substance.
Quick! CRUCIFY HIM!!
Spot on, Jason. I think the source of the problem may stem from outside the blogosphere. For example, note the current polarization in Congress, and whatever happens if someone ever dares have a different position to that of the party. You end up like the joe Liebermans, John McCains, and Chuck Hagels of the world.
That is, you are demonized for daring to step out of line, and mocked as a member of the opposite party, even if most of your positions are the same as your party’s.
I’m Spartacus! Sorry, it just seemed to fit. Having been a non-partisan realist blogger for years, I’d say Jason is right on track even if I disagree with some of his particulars. At partisan blogs, cheerleaders are always welcome but serious discussion of divergent views and their merits? Almost never. Facts are crushed under the weight of dogma–and dogma claimed as fact. Opinions rise to gospel. With so few actually able to tell the difference….
Welcome to the globalised and free "marketplace" where everything, including information and opinion-making, is packaged as a "good" for the entertainment of the end-user, i.e., the consumer. One "consumes" ideas that they like, and shuns others that they disagree with.
What are you supposed to do with an opposing idea? You cannot eat it, drink it, be satisfied by it, and it doesn’t reinforce your already existing worldview that is governed by stereotypes… Trying to debunk the non-conforming thought takes a lot of effort, having to change an already existing viewpoint is even harder.
An opposing idea is an oddity that refuses to be consumed by receiver. Something that does not verify pre-exising worldviews has no place in our consciousness except when we are allowed to mock it or use it as a model of inferiority to try to reinforce a false sense of security, or superiority.