Tête-à-Tête-Tête

As is periodically done at RightWingNews.com, the results of an informal survey of right-of-center bloggers have been posted.

As is often the case, the respondents include my friend, RW, whom I have been needling for probably 3 years now. So, this caveat goes out to you, RW: if I say something particularly crass about a particular response which reflected your own - I apologize, and I certainly won’t mean it. I would say “didn’t mean it”, but I haven’t quite said it yet, so “won’t” is better.

I do find things like this interesting… often even reassuring (”I know wingnuts normally get this wrong - but wow! - 25% of them get it right! There’s hope!”)… Sometimes even more interesting than the questions and answers themselves is looking at what sort of thinking the questions represent. The obvious categories of questions would include ones whose answers reflect:
a) policy preference, political or economic theory
b) partisan strategy
c) strength of partisan affiliation
In fact 6 of the 7 questions are in these categories. But there is one question that only indirectly reflects c) strength of partisan affiliation. I say indirectly, because it only shows that strength of affiliation relative to level of education and understanding of a complex issue. We’ll talk about it when we get there.

The questions, answers, and what I make of that temperature:

1) If Scooter loses his appeal, should GWB pardon him? 86% Yes, 14% No.

No “undecideds” I see… This one doesn’t clearly say much other than that the right-o-sphere generally likes the idea of pardoning Libby. There are plenty of underlying questions, but it’s hard to get at them with this question, particularly phrased, and its answers. Do they want to pardon him because they feel his offense was not grave enough to warrant punishment? Because they think the verdict incorrect? Do they feel this way primarily because of generosity? Lot’s of reasoned argument? Because of the strength of their party affiliation? Hard to say with certainty…

Somewhat more interesting are the 14% who say ‘let him rot’. Perhaps some of them say this because they feel a pardon will decrease future GOP electoral chances - but it’s safe to say that at least some of that 14% trust the justice system, and do not wish to see it undermined and/or do not wish to answer differently about Libby than they did about any of Clinton’s pardons.

My answer? I have a reasonable degree of faith in the justice system to arrive at the right verdict and overturn wrong ones - maybe 90% of the time or better. Probably better in cases where the defendant is extremely well-defended. I have less faith in the justice system to mete out the appropriate punishment for the crime. I don’t think that presidential pardons are the way to correct errors in the justice system. So my answer would have probably been a very, very weak ‘no’.

2) Should GWB ask for Abu Gonzales’ resignation? Yes 19%, No 81%

If the last one was complex, this one is more so. I’ll just say that my answer would be a “hell, yes”, and remark that a surprising 19% of right-wing bloggers agree with me - at least about the “yes” part… for whatever reason. I would guess that a large part of the majority answer can be chalked up to partisanship.

3) There is no number 3. (really)

4) If the only way to stop the Iranians from getting nukes is to bomb them, then should we bomb them? Yes 97%, No 3%

We have to give the respondents a certain amount of the benefit of the doubt here. The question itself is poorly phrased. The conditional “if” assumes something that we are not even close to knowing. An analogous question: “If the only way to stop a runaway train is to throw an innocent bystander in its path, then should you do so to save a bunch of other people.” Fine for a hypothetical exercise, but it’s rare that the only way to stop a runaway train is to throw someone in its path. It’s also rare that throwing them there will actually stop it instead of merely slowing it down somewhat.

This question clearly is of the category that reflects the respondent’s policy preference. And it is clear, despite the poorly designed question, that right-wing bloggers are united in favoring a policy that comforts their nuclear anxiety by aggressive (and to my mind foolhardy) measures.

I think this response may tell us something about our larger culture. If 97% of self-selected right-leaning bloggers feel this way, I think it’s safe to say that at least a majority of Americans think this way. And, it’s the unfortunate case that most of the group who feels this way does not recognize the illegitimacy of the question. That’s a dangerous place for our culture to be in, I think.

My answer might not get reported in the survey results, but it would have been this: I doubt that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would be a desirable component of a strategy for keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons. It might have a degree of effectiveness as part of a larger policy, or at the beginning of a full-fledged war - however I do not think it as desirable as other options - which are, in fact, not well-tried to date. Furthermore, I do harbor a strong anxiety about the spread of nuclear weapons to less “friendly” and less stable states, but I also see it as near-inevitable. I think the only long-term, effective check on nuclear dangers will be the stabilization of international relations and of the various emerging nuclear-capable states. And even that may not work.

Furthermore, there are many people who have just as much anxiety about a nuclear U.S. as we do about a nuclear Iran. There is not a damned thing they can do about it. Yet they manage to live their lives. They believe, probably correctly, that it is their fate to live in a world that includes enemy states that keep nuclear weapons. It may turn out to be our fate, too. I hope not.

5) Who is more responsible for Palestinian/Israeli conflict? Israelis - 1%, Palestinians 99%

This answer is strongly reflective of the ideology of the right. Given the near-unanimity of the result, we can say that this is certainly a matter of unified opinion on the right.

My answer? Given that the question probably means “responsible” in the causative sense - rather than in the reparative sense - I agree weakly with the right-leaning majority. Although the very existence of Israel as a state is the original cause of the strife, it needn’t have caused the long-term conflict that exists today, and the Palestinians - at least in the last 30 years - have done more than the Israelis to keep tensions inflamed.

There is another sense of “responsibility”. That is the reparative sense: who is going to clean this mess up? In that sense, I would say both parties are equally responsible… or at least that each party is responsible in proportion to their ability to contribute to the solution.

6) Do you believe the theory of evolution is correct? Yes 34%, No 66 %

This question was foreshadowed in the intro. It doesn’t ask about policy preference, economic or political theory. The answer has no bearing on electoral strategy or success. And, party affiliation alone will never explain it. Even the most fervent - reactionary - conservative is capable of being educated and of acknowledging that the best way to understand the current diversity of life (including our own existence) is through the modern body of evolutionary theory. In fact, 34% of the right-wing bloggers do. Why those and not the others?

It’s tempting to say that conservatives are just stupid and/or ignorant. But I don’t think that’s correct - though I’m not sure if the real answer is more or less generous to them. I think the real answer is that their partisanship outweighs their education/thinking. This doesn’t sound so ungenerous until you step back and realize that this is a character flaw rather than a defect in intelligence or a deficiency of education. Then the scales start tipping…

OK - let’s be fair and talk about lefties: I suspect that lefty bloggers often operate under a similar partisanship to eductation/rational-thinking ratio.

And now, with that fairness caveat out of the way, I’ll proudly say that there is no issue of fundamental science about which lefties allow themselves to be so misled. RW and others might disagree, citing lefty acceptance of Global Warming science (with the corollary that the scientists themselves are misled by their “near-religious” partisanship). I think that the scientists have done a fine job of justifying their views with data, and that lefties are right to trust them. But, even if RW and friends are correct in thinking that lefties are misled by their partisanship on this issue, climate change is not nearly the cornerstone of physics that evolution is of biology - not by miles and miles and miles.

And now, with the that somewhat self-righteous observation made, let me remark that this type of overriding partisanship is dangerous. Perhaps it has its place in political debates - but it has none in debates about reality. Black remains black, white remains white - no matter what your political party would prefer - no matter what your religious denomination would prefer. Fight partisanship, fight religious dogmatism, where ever it might cause one to mistake a lie for the truth. And, when I say - yes - that includes climate change - I’m looking to my right. But when I say - yes - that includes White Phosphorus… I’m looking at myself, and my cohorts.

7.) Let illegal immigrants gain citizenship? 34% yes, 66 % no.

This is policy preference pure & simple. It puts the right… well… to the right of the average American. But that’s why they call it the right. The left is - for better or worse - to the left of the average American. I’m sure that 66% has their reasons - some of which are good ones. I personally agree with the 34%.

8.) Ban abortion, at least in most cases? 63% yes, 37% no

Again, policy preference and ideology - certainly with a dose of conservative religious ideology in the mix. I’m surprised that so many said “no”, frankly. I’m assuming that these represent eco- or neo- conservatives who have little use for theo-conservatism. Or perhaps they are ideological libertarians. Given the strength of the religiously conservative caucus among conservatives generally, I think it says something about the issue that such a relative few - only 2/3 - of conservative bloggers favor widespread abortion bans. I think it says that the only ideological support for such bans is of a conservative religious nature. In other words, I think it speaks to the weakness of reasoned arguments in support of such bans. It is precisely because of that weakness, and the relative strength of reasoned arguments opposed to such bans that I find myself in the “pro-choice” camp - because I certainly do have a negative emotional response to the notion of elective abortion - something akin to the conservative religious response. But, morality without reason is not morality - and that works about the same for negative emotional reactions as for religious reactions. So I agree with the minority third of conservatives on this issue - as much as I may sympathize with the majority.

That’s it… That’s the fever in the right-o-sphere this month, and that’s the best sense I can make of it. Somebody should do this for the left-o-sphere… only with better questions.

By the way - Happy Birthday to someone who certainly isn’t reading.