So There I Was, Like a Good Conservative, Standing Athwart Jonathan Chait yelling “Stop”!
Hot on the heels of yet another study about how we get our news, comes the happy dance of the liberal pundit. Jonathan Chait, one of those pundits, has decided to cover himself in smug today like I’d cover a hot dog in chili and mustard. I don’t think he’s earned that quite yet, but let’s see.
In a paper they wrote about the ideological leanings of blog readers and news-watchers, Henry Farrell, Eric Lawrence and John Sides find that conservatives tend to read only conservatives blogs, while most liberals read only left-leaning blogs. That’s not a huge surprise. They also find this:
Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like.
I’m going to go ahead and interpet it: Liberals are more interested in listening to opposing points of view than are conservatives.
Hold on there, sparky. Let’s not break into the Icky Shuffle quite yet. That’s certainly one way of interpreting it. There are plenty of others I could toss out that are supported by that statement equally as well. Let me see if I can run down a few.
1) Conservatives, having to suffer through the left-wing reporting of the MSM on a regular basis feel they’ve been subjected to plenty of “opposing views” thank you very much and don’t feel the need to spend more time indulging in progressive opinion.
2) Liberals don’t generally go to conservative blogs to “listen”. They go to electronically poop in the comments section or start whatever silly little fight they can. I have a commenter who does this fairly regularly, for reasons I can not begin to fathom.
3) Conservatives, who are busy with lives and jobs and things like getting sunlight and meeting other human beings out in public, don’t have a lot of time at the computer, so they tend to read their favorite writers who are often conservatives. That narrows their selection unlike the reading lists of liberals who have more time to prowl around the blogosphere.
4) Conservatives, whose general worldview has been confirmed by reality to within the tolerances of certainly allowed by Heisenberg’s principle, do not feel the need to wade though the morass of “BUSH LIED!!1!1″, “ZOMG American TALIBAN!” and “Dick Chaney’s going hunting. Hur hur hur.” posts in order to find the few baubles of reasonable thinking. Conservatives have found the good liberal bloggers and they are thin on the ground.
You could say that, based on the bit Chait quoted, that any of these are true. I suspect that none of them are the whole truth, just like Chait’s preferred smug-maker isn’t the hole truth. Where is the truth? I really don’t know and I don’t think that anyone else does either. Folks like to read what they like to read and oftentimes their reading habits don’t have a bit of bearing on how they vote or even how they identify themselves politically.
My father grew up in the coal-mining country of Virginia and West Virginia where, thank to labor unions and the New Deal, Republicans were about as welcome as Communists. He spent most of his life as a registered Democrat even though he was as conservative politically as anyone I had ever met. Most folks around him – his brothers and sisters, for instance – were largely conservative on foreign policy and social issues and even on taxes. They were “progressive” on labor matters because that’s the most pressing issue by far they had when they were growing up. Does that make them liberal of conservative, Republican or Democrat? Would they be considered Democrats in good standing with their broadly conservative views? There’s no good answer to any of those questions because a lot goes into what makes a person’s political affiliation.
I think the left’s recent obsession with message-crafting (thank you, George Lakoff, you gigantic plague on politics) and ideological perfection has served us very poorly. Politics is more than simply counting coup on your opponents and drumming out the infidels. It’s about convincing people that your way of doing things is going to give them the best results. It’s about honing your beliefs so they can stand up to honest criticism and real debate. It’s not about who reads what blog and how someone defines the phrase “open minded”.
Other Posts of Interest:
Category: Blogs and Blogging, Political Pontifications
I'm surprised more liberals don't end up with arms like McCain's the way they pat themselves on the back so much.
Speaking of patting ourselves on the back, let me just say that I'm rather proud of this post title. Of all I've written, this one amuses me the most.
"2) Liberals don’t generally go to conservative blogs to “listen”. They go to electronically poop in the comments section or start whatever silly little fight they can. I have a commenter who does this fairly regularly, for reasons I can not begin to fathom."
I resent that. My points are rarely silly. I'm happy to go mano a mano with you using rational argument backed up by good sources. You usually bluster or clam up at that point, almost never giving back in kind, instead just moving on to the next thing that pops up in your news/blog-feed.
You're the 3rd right-wing blog I have attached myself to, and by far the most intelligent, but you're still mostly wrong. But I respect you as a person, big boy.
"3) Conservatives, who are busy with lives and jobs and things like getting sunlight and meeting other human beings out in public, don’t have a lot of time at the computer"
You post prolifically, dude. I doubt you have a lady friend, or else you wouldn't be All Politics All the Time. Me, I work nights and sleep days, so it's really hard to find anyone to play with during the overnight hours when I tend to read/post (and usually only visit here once or twice a week).
spoots – two points. If this is you arguing rationally and with sources, I'd hate to see your wild ranting. You do occasionally use sources but more often you spout the same old stuff I've already hammered into a fine paste already on the blog. I've granted when you've been right but on the evidence, you lose a whole lot more than you win.
As for my prolific posting, I must say that you need to read more blogs. I post an average of perhaps four or five posts a day. That's well under the curve for most blogs attempting any sort of wide readership. Instapundit throws up at least a dozen a day. Michelle Malkin does six or seven. Hot Air does six. Patterico, GatewayPundit, LGF, Ace of Spades – all of them post more than I do and on the weekends I drop to half my output or worse. Most of the blogs on the left post more than me, too. I'm not even close to prolific.
However you missed my point entirely. I could say that any of my theories are true, though I don't know that any of them are and I suspect that the truth lies somewhere among all of them. My point was that any of my theories hold as much water as Chait's, based on what the original article said. Trying to divine a real finding out of that is impossible. My post was as tongue-in-cheek as his – perhaps even moreso. You should chill out a bit, man.