Taking Exception

That's what a lot of readers over at Ambivablog are doing with regard to my posts about Al Gore and Normal USA.   I would describe the readers there as open-minded, Andrew-Sullivan Libertarians or maybe postmodern, conservative idealists, for want of any other easy way to describe so diverse a crowd.  They are interested in religious questions and they were generally supportive of the Iraq War.  They are sincerely interested in finding middle ground in the midst of all the oveheated rhetoric that is coming from the ideological extremists who seem to be getting the most airtime. They are also interested in ideas and good writing, or they wouldn't read Amba's elegant, eloquent, far-ranging posts.  They are precisely the kind of people I would like most to enter into a conversation with regarding the issues about which we disagree.

In any event, my posts, from which Amba quoted, touched a nerve in many of her readers, and she has invited me to respond, and I will do so later this week in a guest post on her site that I will cross post here.  I'd be interested in what any of the regulars here think about the responses over there as I prepare what I want to say.  If you have a moment, read her post here and the comments that follow--maybe they were saying there what you were thinking here.

Comments

[Matt Zemek]

Jack,

What immediately stands out to me is how certain words are used and manipulated in utterly predictable ways. The words "socialism" and "regulation" are red meat terms that speak to people who want no government interference or intrusion into their lives (even if that intrusion might not be taking place).

The other thing is that for all the talk about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution as defenders of individual liberty, there's zero mention from the Libertarian posters about communal responsibilities and obligations, things the Founders strongly promoted and valued (but perhaps not as textually or as famously) in addition to individual rights.

I think there's a lot that needs to be said--in your comments but also in the national political arena at large--about how the well-being of communities, not just individuals, is a bedrock element of society, and that religion must be a part of that (instead of being used only to defend primal individualist instincts).

[Mike McG...]

I 'discovered' Amba, if memory serves, when she posted a comment on afterthefuture some months ago. I've been hooked ever since, so it has been fascinating to first read Jack, then read Amba on Jack, and then read Amba's readers on Jack over the past week.

Amba's correspondents have in common not libertarian sensibilities, in my estimation, but ideological homelessness. Here is her clarion call:

"Right or left? Republican or Democrat? Retro or metro? Red state or blue state? Pro-life or pro-choice? Hawk or dove? If these binary choices turn you purple, if they leave you as speechless and spluttering as 'Have you stopped beating your child yet?' or 'Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?', you're my kinda people.

"In a two-sizes-fit-all culture, you're expected to sign up for one of two prefab sets of ideas. Just pop one or the other cassette into your brain, and you're good to go on automatic. Your friends, enemies, media choices, soundtrack, opinions, political candidates, pet pundits, pat peeves, team logos, and votes are all preselected for you. America is turning into a huge Super Bowl with only two teams and fans as rabid as Brit soccer hooligans. If you're neither of the above, if you're equally turned off by knee-jerk liberals and sanctimonious conservatives, you're a misfit, and I want to know you."

I'm delighted Jack is getting in front of this collective of passionate, thoughtful people who see a great number of contemporary issues as close calls rather than slam dunks. It would be a mistake to write off ambivalence as indecision and spinelessness. I regard this sort of open-mindedness as a needed corrective to myside bias, the pervasive tendency to search for and evaluate evidence in a way that favors initial beliefs.

I think the 'nerve' Jack seems to have been touched has more to do with probing alternative explanations than with categorically rejecting his. I fully expect Jack's powerful discourse to receive a fair hearing. Giving too much weight to a small number of cranky correspondents risks mischaracterizing Amba's readership.

[amba]

Mike: Wow!

Matt: There is obviously deep disagreement on what "conservative" means. Social conservatives are communitarian to the point of wanting once again to subsume and subordinate the individual (especially if she's a woman) to the interests of the community, society, and family. I think we need a move back in that direction, but that they go too far, or more precisely that they go BACK, which as Jack has said, we can't do. There's no turning back, but there is turning in a rising spiral.

The other kind of "conservatism" is the libertarian, which is actually quite radical and atomistic in its individualism. It's very interesting to see how this individualism on the "right" dovetails with the narcissism, libertinism, and self-idolatry of the cultural "left."

[forestwalker]

The two dominant commenters sound like trolls (or at least reliably contrarian). I'd check with Amba as to whether they're actually representative of her readership before responding to them.

They do raise one point, though, that may be valid. The "Normal" post didn't carry the tone your writing usually does. It was more mocking.

The biggest disconnect I see is amba vs. your understanding of the New Deal. She describes it as though it were a welfare program. Partly, sure. But more than that it was a protection of the weak from the strong, an expanded set of limits on what we will allow ourselves to do to each other. There's a lot of good stuff on her site and I appreciate her open-endedness, recognition of the power of narrative, and her attempt to find the center but her understanding of "rights" is decidedly Liberal.

[Mike McG...]

Forestwalker is spot on about the two dominant commenters and how they are capable of poisoning the well.

This dynamic regularly stymies dialogue on the web. Amba has *many* thoughtful readers who, I fear, will abstain from commenting once the dye has been cast.

Disappointing, but it is helpful to recall that the number of people who read and are influenced far exceeds the number that comment under any circumstances.