(Pictures by Dave McKean from The Wolves in the Walls by Neil Gaiman)

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

more despair (or, why I don't blog about politics)

When I started this blog, I was inspired by people like Phantom and Dr B and Andrea who eloquently and compellingly write about the big issues and the not-so-big issues. Sadly, I never got past the all-whine-all-the-time style you see before you. This post is no exception so don't expect any actual political commentary.
Clearly, Bush and co are intent on dragging the US to hell in a handbasket, with the idiotic leader of Commonwealthland scampering along behind. After every new revelation I get a brief moment of joyous relief that, finally, this is the last straw; things can't go on as they have been. It's always followed by crashing waves of despair, though, as it becomes clear that they can in fact just blithely continue, pausing only to denounce those who question their behaviour.
It's a pattern that's painfully familiar from arguments with my brother (I told you this post would be more of the same whining). At some point, I think I used to try to defend my rights, but the years of being beaten down by relentless straw men have left me with a pavlovian despair response that sends me quivering under my rock at any arrogant assertion of fiction as fact. My brother would twist his frame of reference into a convoluted pretzel and then denounce me for suggesting it was perhaps not quite perfectly square, when my own was half a degree off. I'd be left clinging to my vision of what was Right, even though I couldn't quite say any longer why I believed in it. After all, maybe the example I quoted wasn't quite verbatim, and I couldn't remember precisely what time of what day it occurred. I somewhere lost the ability to trust my own judgement. For a long time I held out hope that maybe someday I'd figure out the right argument and he would have to accept it, but it became clear that it was never about the argument; no logic could force him to concede a point once he'd designated it a fixed part of his universe.
At least with politics, there's a wealth of intelligent, articulate bloggers out there to remind me that there really are very clear reasons to believe in what's right. Unfortunately, the sinking moment of recognition that being intelligent, articulate and right never seems to win against sufficiently arrogant idiocy hits me every time. I always get an urge to Do Something to help swing the balance, but it's countered by the pathetic knowledge that if I paid more attention to the big issues I'd end up a babbling, weeping mess.
Sometimes it seems like the small-l-liberal politicians all have the same problem I do, which only adds to my despair. Surely there are some people with some power who are able to hold onto logic and facts when challenged, no matter how loudly? Maybe not enough...

On a slightly brighter note, my brother has, since doing the landmark forum, admitted his argumentative strategies and apologised for them. I suspect it hasn't entirely changed his behaviour, but it's something. Although, it has also shifted his politics to the right so it probably wouldn't help Dubya and co.

(Also, sorry about the several billion adjectives. I don't think I ever recovered from year 10 descriptive essays...)

3 Comments:

At 9:15 AM, Blogger sheepish said...

I understand what you mean about losing the will to argue over issues with stubbornly small-minded people.

I think absolutism, a doctrinal clinging to ideology is a trait most often expressed in conservative ideology. Heck, ideology inherently implies a certain inflexibility. I think this is what part of the problem is, is that small-L liberals often get caught up in the grey areas and nuances of issues while their opponents ride roughsod over them with absolutes.

 
At 3:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, thank you; you've put me in some very good company there.

I had the same realization a number of years ago--that argue as you might, some people's minds will never change. Then a few other things occured to me: A) it usually doesn't matter; what matters is what the decision-makers think (this doesn't help when the decision-makers are idiots, I grant you); B) sometimes people won't change their mind during an argument, but then two years later I'd talk to them about the same issue and all of a sudden they agreed with everything I said. I think sometimes people can't stand to "lose" in the context of an argument, but that doesn't mean you haven't changed their minds--it just means that they're going to wait and find a reason of their own to change it.

Anyway. It now irritates me as much as it ever did, when someone insists on something ridiculous no matter the proof ("The earth IS flat! It IS! It is!"), but it doesn't present the same conundrums. I'm just going to keep on doing/thinking what I think is right, and focus my energies on influencing the people or positions that matter.

Although that is absolutely no help at all with Bush & Co. Sorry.

I don't think this was at all helpful, but I was so flattered I had to say something.

 
At 5:49 PM, Blogger Lucy said...

sheepish, I think flexibility, which is usually a good thing, is definitely something that's hurting the left in politics. I just wish someone could pick one right thing to make a stand on and forget about all the nuance until they'd bashed enough people over the head with it's rightness to do something useful. Hopefully spying on innocent citizens is unambiguous enough for that...

Andrea, you're welcome - you belong in good company :) Hopefully some of the people who voted for Bush will come around by 2008, at least... I don't care if they make up their own reason why they never listened before.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home