Even without a heated argument, a calm discussion is difficult to have with many liberals because they limit themselves to so few sources of information. An interesting exchange is foreclosed by their willful ignorance. It can be like talking with a cult member whose involvement forbids contact with anything that isn’t cult-approved.Disheartening, but I'm beginning to agree.
When your interlocutor reads the New York Times and The New Yorker, listens to National Public Radio, and watches The Rachel Maddow Show -- all uncritically and in the mistaken belief that these are objective sources of accurate information, what you’re dealing with is a person with an extremely restricted understanding of the country and the world. These parochial news sources reinforce one another. And even worse, the liberal will usually refuse to expose him-or-herself to a wider variety of sources. I, myself, had the experience of emailing a liberal acquaintance a link to an insightful op-ed piece that appeared in a newspaper that is, apparently, on the liberal "do not read" list. In reply, he wrote, "The Wall Street Journal? Please take me off your distribution list, Belladonna." Wouldn’t even read it. He saw the source, knew it wasn’t approved, and that was that.
What not to do: Don’t think you can convert a liberal to your views. Political affiliation has become a matter of tribal and personal identification with a group. Although it may appear to be rational, it isn’t, entirely. It’s emotional. The desire to remain a liberal, even in the face of all the evidence of its failures, is born of humanity’s -- and all living creatures’ -- deepest instincts to affiliate with others and to retain that affiliation regardless of logic or facts.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
The Political "Other"
Assistant Village Idiot long has observed that progressivism is tribal and relatively resistant to evidence. So does Pajamas Media's Belladonna Rogers: