Silly Chickens and Rotten Eggs
The foolishness of political debate in America has discouraged me from writing this column, but I have decided to come out of semi-retirement to ask this chicken-and-egg question: Which came first in America, the narcissistic obsession with personal trivia or the blogosphere? In other words, did Internet blogging reduce the mentality of young Americans to the level of mind-numbing chatter about what they had for breakfast or what they think about Obama or did blogging only give an opportunity for the already brain-dead to talk about themselves?
I suppose I know, already, that the second answer is the correct one. I've spent the past 30 years, at parties, conferences, rides on the O'Hare shuttle bus, and coffee hour after church, listening to strangers tell me about the wonders of their RV, their vacations in Disney World, their opinions on pop music, and their political prejudices. Beware of the Republicans, who are plotting to enslave American workers; beware of the Clintons, who are plotting to make themselves dictators. What are most political blogs but cellphone conversations overheard on the runway before the plane takes off. The good thing about blogs--including this one--is that you don't have to read them, but when the bloggers are shouting into their telephone or cornering you at coffee, they are impossible to escape.
These thoughts were triggered once again by reading the write-backs to a recent Tom Piatak column on my friend Taki's website. Piatak had taken John Derbyshire, whom he mostly respects, to task for his rather naive defense of Voltaire. He's in for it now, I thought, and then went on to read one or two or even three polite and thoughtful responses that were virtually buried in the "I like Voltaire because he' s X, Y, or Z." Since Tom had already quoted me on the subject of Voltaire, it would have been questionable manners to write in a rebuttal of his critics. Besides, answering the blog-responders is like arguing with a retarded child who thinks breaking wind is a witty response.
I described the blogger mentality as a form of Narcissism, but even that is a compliment. Narcissus was so handsome that he fell in love with his own reflection. The proper parallel would be the writers and political intellectuals who are so brilliant and clever that they have fallen in love with their own voices, but bloggers are like a hideously ugly person who looks in the mirror and says: "The rat's looking good." [Note, I have to check the quotation from the recent film of Charlotte's Web, which I watched on a flight to Rome.]
There should be a place for casual, informal conversation on such topics as Voltaire's malign influence on the Western mind, Abraham Lincoln's or Woodrow Wilson's political legacy, the enduring results of WW II, the role of Catholics or Southerners in "conservative" politics, but if we took the trouble to start a conversation, the blogospheroids would jump in, agreeing or disagreeing--it hardly matters--with opinions by the truckload. This might not be so bad, if the truck were not a garbage truck.
Even otherwise intelligent conservative scholars, once they enter the Blogosphere, appear to lose all sense of discretion and regard for facts. In the past few months I have come upon the most amazing assertions about Catholic social teachings or the Southern political tradition, sometimes written by people who should know better, people I had once regarded as friends and colleagues. Inevitably, their unsupported generalizations are seconded, thirded, and fourthed by a chorus of ignorant yokels, whose only weapon is a consequentialist argument hard to distinguish from the post hoc fallacy stated as an enthymeme with an undistributed middle. Southerners tended to back entrance into WWI, while Bryan was from Illinois, ergo.... Ergo what? Bryan's family were Southern, while Pitchfork Ben Tillman made an alliance with La Follette. Like the South, hate the South--I could scarcely care less. But whatever your opinion is, you can keep it to yourself, if you have no argument better than a temporary whim or a bad bucket of KFC.
There is a lot of conservative chatter out in the blogosphere. Much of it can be reduced to Rodney King's question: "Why can't we all just get along." Unfortunately, most of these would-be peace-makers, drunk on their own ungrammatical effusions, have made themselves appear as stupid as Rodney King--and just as troublesome and even harder to repress. They spend their time lambasting "Paleos," Catholics, Southerners, and even all Christians, wihtout knowing the first thing about "paleoconservatism," Christianity, or the South. Then they wonder why they cannot build a coalition. I had hoped, by beginning a serious dialogue on the early Church, Protestants and Catholics might begin to find some common ground. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. Can we develop the same common ground on more political topics? Why not? Where do we begin?
Entries(RSS)
G.S. is right. I also expected the swastickards to pile in on the Beowulf discussion. Perhaps we should discuss philosphia perennis, Homer, Dabney, Chrysostom, Psalms, etc., just for camouflage. Anything truly intellectual or dealing with the spiritual is as garlic to a vampire for them.
About to leave for O'Hare, I do want to say that my colleagues have instituted a process that is weeding out the undesirables. I won't give away the details, because knowledge might give power to the brown shirts and crazies. The system is working pretty well and should quickly become better.
48TJF
....On the principle of web moderation, we can easily eliminate particular posts and block others. Let us try that as the first step. To that end, I would like to hear from the very sane regulars which posters should be blocked permanently. You can either do that here or in a private email addressed to me via the webmaster. I have already blocked permanently perhaps half a dozen, though some have gone to the trouble, not just of getting new email addresses but of using different computers with new addresses. What desperation. ....
If you use a forum you can limit discussion to those you approve of instead of having to police the comments after they have been posted. Also, trusted readers can be made moderators, and can thus delete the accounts of trouble makers when they cause problems.
Chronicles readers can start discussions of their own, and rooms on the chat board can be set aside for certain topics.
This could be tried without having to redesign the main site, simply close future articles to comments and have a link to the relevant discussion thread on the message board. The forum software doesn't require a separate domain such as forum.chronicles.org but instead can be put on Chronicles.org/forum. If the expirement doesn't work after a few months the board can be closed and future articles can be open to comments.
Well put James Newland!! Your observation that Americans, in particular, do not see the past as a trove of wisdom, but a long nightmare from which they are trying to awaken rings of truth.
(And I apologize about bastardizing a non-American to describe Americans).
But, Mr. Newland and Mr. Flemming, might we not be guilty of falling into the same logical trap? Prior to the notion of progress, how many people questioned the assumptions of their culture? When did the average person on the street bolster their opinions with references to classical literature?
Whenever I read a statement about something being new, I am sceptical. After Athens, when might we have had a more literate (though perhaps not well read) population? During our Revolutionary War? What would blogging have looked like in 1950s America? I am curious to know when you'd guess the three most enlightened epochs for the populace were.
Please know that, as a non-sophist, I am asking in the kindest spirit of inquiry.
http://www.culturism.us
Some people just don't get it. There is no unpasteurized conservative opinion on TV or in university classrooms or at Barnes and Noble the last time I checked. The internet is, for the moment, a venue where genuine dissent can be expressed. It will grow more restricted over time, and even now I am worried by things like Google's reportedly saving everybody's searches. But if you think the negative trends in society are helped along by a biased and censorious media that doesn't (yet) speak for the majority of Americans, here's your chance to talk back. Just be careful not to offend anyone, cuz Big Server is Watching.
One of the several things that I find contemptible about blogging is this use of pretend names of most posters. It is as if most bloggers don't have the courage to stand up for their words and ideas. If you are somehow ashamed of what you write, then don't write it.
Just for the record, my real name is actually.... Wolfowitz.
Paul Wolfowitz.
No relation.
I did try using my actual name here at first, but found that the inevitable misunderstandings, though amusing, were a bit too disruptive to allow for any worthwhile discourse.
Another insightful post, especially regarding all the "noise" one finds on the internet.
Dr. Fleming: "I had hoped, by beginning a serious dialogue on the early Church, Protestants and Catholics might begin to find some common ground. In fact, that is exactly what has happened. Can we develop the same common ground on more political topics? Why not? Where do we begin?"
Many of the disagreements paleos have (e.g. Protestantism versus Catholicism, etc.) are bridgeable, in my estimation. Those differences, however, that exist with libertarians (e.g. immigration, free-maret worship, etc.) may not be. You may have some knucklehead posters from time to time (if you think these are bad, go read the nonsense over at FreeRepublic or Little Green Footballs, where most commenters call Buchanan a "nazi" because of his recent straight-forward op-ed on demographics, or an "Islamofascist sympathizer" because of his opposition to the war), but it seems to me that your average paleoconservative is smarter than your average conservative, which is both a blessing (better conversations) and a curse (no true movement following).
Dr. Fleming: "The foolishness of political debate in America has discouraged me from writing this column, but I have decided to come out of semi-retirement to ask...."
Are you really retiring? Will you continue to write your column for Chronicles? If not, it will be an unfortunate loss for us readers....
Dr.Flemming, please excuse my poor english. I went through a public school system that really did not excel in working with students with poor marks. It was at a time when confusion reigned (the sixties and seventies). My only good teacher is now my best friend. Ironically he was my English teacher. He continues to this day to try to straighten out my grammar. To his credit I did remember a couple (just a couple) of things he taught me.
Your friend in Christ,
Rev.Mr.Stephen Bourque
55Derek Leaberry
One of the several things that I find contemptible about blogging is this use of pretend names of most posters. It is as if most bloggers don’t have the courage to stand up for their words and ideas. If you are somehow ashamed of what you write, then don’t write it.
I prefer the use of pseudonyms for posters on this blog. Pseudonyms give the people the chance to wander in and post the occasional relevant comment, and they allow us to post anonymously so that only our ideas come up for discussion, not our circumstances or occupations. If someone here wishes to identify themselves the can, but I prefer not to at this moment.
Earlier whimsy aside, I agree with Mr. Duck, and would go even farther.
Practical concerns about the SPLC and other thought-policing agencies aside, there's something existentially creepy to me about my name floating out in cyberspace, accessible to every last twisted freak on the planet.
Of course that's a situation the staff of this website has to live with -- but in that case I guess it goes with the territory.
I returned Saturday night and yesterday was greeted with the dismal news of the Serbian election. I am not sure it is even worth posting a brief comment on my trip to Serbia and Kosovo, because if Tadich succeeds in forming a government, Kosovo is gone for good--whatever he might say--and Serbia is probably doomed to go the way of every other historic nation swallowed up in the cesspool of the EU.
Dr. Fleming, forever is a long time. The European Union might not even last past the demographic collapse of the European welfare states. True, Kosovo looks lost for the Serbs yet there was once a time when California looked forever lost for the Mexicans.
TFJ you wrote: “Where do we begin?”
“Serbia is probably doomed to go the way of every other historic nation swallowed up in the cesspool of the EU.”
Ok, so the EU & UN are corrupt organizations, they are not capable of guiding nations and states to their True End. So you can identify the problems, good, but can you surely identify a solution to clean up this mess? What is to replace the EU & UN? What would chronicles readers like to see replace these corrupt governmental institutions? Introduce another wave of democratic governmental institutions and alliances such as the League of Democracy?
Or will just a change in personnel do it? And leave the UN & EU untouched but change hearts and minds of those who sit in these governmental institutions? Probably not.
One liberal is as good as a conservative in this modern day and age. Is there any real difference between liberalism and conservatism? Both ideologies have recourse to the same institutions. And after all were not most of the men who created these organizations, conservative to some degree in thought, word, and action? So what’s to change these governmental institutions: EU & UN for the better.
Stand behind a President McCain and his League of Democracy?
Again: “Where do we begin?”
Do you think Mansfield Park refers to Lord Mansfield whose house was burnt down during the Gordon riots?