Yet another post in the “we right-wingers are smarter because we say we are” genre, this time from “Alex Singleton”:http://www.adamsmithblog.org/archives/000160.php at the Adam Smith Institute. Singleton puts forward the self-evidently preposterous argument that the blogosphere is dominated by the right wing because the blogosphere favours reasoned argument, leaving leftwingers (who are good at chanting slogans and spouting jargon, but lousy at reasoned thought) in the lurch. Weak stuff, which is barely worth jousting against. Indeed, the post effectively furnishes its own refutation; it advances a thesis which is based on
* One unproven (and “probably false”:http://volokh.com/2003_12_14_volokh_archive.html#107145978917150777) generalization – that the blogosphere is dominated by the right
* One preposterous claim – that the most successful bloggers are those who are most adept at reasoned argument. The exceptions to this rule are too many and various to require explicit mention.
* One tendentious and silly piece of polemic – that leftwingers, unlike rightwingers, have no real arguments.
If this is the sort of reasoned debate that the Adam Smith Institute thinks will help the right to prevail on the battlefield of ideas, then more power to them. But of course, it isn’t an argument as such. Rather, it’s a sort of intellectualized gut-rumbling, a tarted up set of prejudices without any factual basis. Just the sort of nonsense that you might expect from a jargon-spouting, sloganeering leftist in other words.
{ 27 comments }
Mikhel 12.22.03 at 2:39 pm
You may find my situation rather amusing. In a political sense, I would probably be considered slightly right-of-center on some key issues. Specifically, the second amendment and taxation. I visit CrookedTimber nearly every day, but have not visited the Adam Smith Institute in over a month. The reason for that lack of visitation, is exemplified by the link you’ve just put up. It seems to me to be the reactionary response of a dying website, childish proselytizing that can’t possibly hope to convince a soul.
Tim Lambert 12.22.03 at 3:10 pm
For what it’s worth, about two-thirds of the bloggers who entered their scores on the political compass were on the left side.
Rv. Agnos 12.22.03 at 3:22 pm
I think there’s a word for that, but I’m not sure. Maybe there isn’t.
A statement that is a counterexample to itself.
If a Right Wing blog says, “Right Wing blogs are better at reasoned analysis. I know this because we’re Right Wing and a little voice in my head says so.”
Or, if a Republican President says, “All Republican Presidents speak good grammatical.”
Anyway, if there’s a word for that, then the Adam Smith Institute is a good example of that word.
Unfortunately, there might not be a word. But if there isn’t, there should be.
John Isbell 12.22.03 at 3:47 pm
A moment of lamentation for the famous, such as Adam Smith, having hate-filled idiots and propagandists hijack their names down along posterity. Fame can have a price.
Barry 12.22.03 at 3:50 pm
“If this is the sort of reasoned debate that the Adam Smith Institute thinks will help the right to prevail on the battlefield of ideas, then more power to them.”
I’m not sure that reasoned debate is what prevails on the battlefield of ideas. If I was, I’d be more hopeful.
David Sucher 12.22.03 at 4:19 pm
Another perspective at Thrasymachus Online on Why Libertarianism Rules the Net
Julian Sanchez 12.22.03 at 4:39 pm
Tim-
Surely there’s some selection bias there, though. If I’d posted the same form on my own site, or Hit and Run, doubtless there would be a huge preponderance of libertarians, but that’d reveal more about our respective readerships than the blogosphere per se.
Bob 12.22.03 at 4:40 pm
What makes the claim of the Adam Smith Institute especially egregious is that “right-wing” and “left-wing” have long since ceased to have any precise political connotations.
As Jeffrey Frankel at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, observed of America:
“the parties have switched places, with Democrats becoming the party of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets, and minimal government, while the Republicans have become the party of trade restriction, big government, and interventionist economics.” – from with link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker30.html
As for Britain, going back we have this entry for 16 March 1936 in George Orwell’s diary while he was researching for the book that was to become The Road to Wigan Pier (1937):
“Last night to hear Mosley speak at the Public Hall, which is in structure a theatre. It was quite full – about 700 people I should say. About 100 Blackshirts on duty, with two or three exceptions weedy looking specimens, and girls selling Action etc. Mosley spoke for an hour and a half and to my dismay seemed to have the meeting mainly with him. He was booed at the start but loudly clapped at the end. Several men who tried to interject with questions were thrown out . . . one with quite unnecessary violence. . . . M. is a very good speaker. His speech was the usual clap-trap – Empire free trade, down with the Jew and the foreigner, higher wages and shorter hours all round etc. After the preliminary booing the (mainly) working class audience was easily bamboozled by M speaking as it were from a Socialist angle, condemning the treachery of successive governments towards the workers. The blame for everything was put upon mysterious international gangs of Jews who were said to be financing, among other things the British Labour Party and the Soviet. . . . M. kept extolling Italy and Germany but when questioned about concentration camps etc always replied “We have no foreign models; what happens in Germany need not happen here.” [George Orwell: The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, Vol. 1 An Age Like This 1920-1940; Penguin Books, p. 230]
Notice the passage: “After the preliminary booing the (mainly) working class audience was easily bamboozled by M speaking as it were from a SOCIALIST angle, condemning the treachery of successive governments towards the workers.”
Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists in 1932 and previously a cabinet minister in Ramsay Macdonald’s Labour government of 1929-31, certainly regarded himself as left-wing. He wrote to The Times for 26 April 1968: “I am not, and never have been a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.”
It seems also to be forgotten that the economic programme of the Nazis was essentially what most nowadays would regard as “leftist”, hence:
“‘In the long run, the Nazis aimed essentially at an economic system which would be an alternative to capitalism and communism, supporting neither a laissez-faire attitude nor total planning.’ [ citation to Hardach: The Political Economy of Germany in the Twentieth Century; University of California Press (1980), p 66 ] They introduced administrative controls over investment through licensing and direct allocation of raw materials. But their brand of socialism emphasised central control over economic activity rather than public ownership of firms. Instead of dispossessing private owners, the Nazis severely circumscribed the scope within which the nominal owners could make choices by currency controls, taxes on profits and direct allocation measures of the state.” [Peter Temin: Lessons from the Great Depression: The Lionel Robbins Lectures for 1989; MIT Press (1989), p 117. The author is a professor at the MIT.]
nofundy 12.22.03 at 6:46 pm
Unfortunately, there might not be a word. But if there isn’t, there should be.
May I suggest instapundification?
John Kozak 12.22.03 at 6:51 pm
It’s quite saloon-bar-feeble, isn’t it? Particularly Pirie, particularly the reflex tabloid hostilities (shouldn’t economics bods like congestion charging and similar externality-internalising?).
Is there a decent UK libertarian blog?
novalis 12.22.03 at 7:24 pm
rv. agnos, Douglas Hofstadter (IIRC) proposes that a “homological” word is one which describes itself, while a “heterological” word is one which does not. For example, “short” and “long”, respectively. Using this taxonomy, this Adam Smith post is would be heterological. Bonus question: Is heterological heterological? ;)
markov chainey 12.22.03 at 9:14 pm
oxymoron anyone?
Matt Weiner 12.22.03 at 11:24 pm
Self-refuting? The classic, apolitical example is “This page intentionally left blank”–it would be true if it hadn’t been said.
Jeremy Osner 12.23.03 at 2:15 am
Matt — similarly, Jim Kweskin and the Jug Band released an album some years back called, “See Reverse Side for Title”.
msg 12.23.03 at 9:43 am
The statement at the end is false.
Left and right are terms of convenience that have almost nothing to do with actual humans living actual human lives.
As indices of specific events with linear components they may help political consultants and advertising analysts make their money, but most of the real people I know don’t think of themselves in those terms, or didn’t until that artificial dividing-up became inescapable without conscious resistance.
I don’t see it as being linear and accurate, both. It’s Manichean politics.
It reminds me of the one-drop rule. The way Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are seen as ‘black’. Strom Thurmond’s daughter has one ‘white’ parent, and one ‘black’ parent, therefore she’s black. That racist view is so ingrained it’s invisible.
Someone who thinks one way about taxes is ‘right-wing’, someone who thinks one way about human rights is ‘left-wing’, but it seems obvious the terms themselves are being defined by a different group altogether. So that the categories are themselves an action, ennabling one, handicapping another.
A three-dimensional solid composed of millions of autonomous, or semi-autonomous, moving parts, is being delivered up as a bell-curve line on an XY graph.
—
Too many of us were raised with the illusion of the commanding strength of truth and logic. Too many still harbor that illusion, that simply explaining to psychotic madmen that they don’t make sense and they’re causing grievous harm to innocent people will be enough to stop them. The results of that delusional comfort are all around us.
The statement at the beginning was true.
Alex Singleton 12.23.03 at 1:25 pm
To Bob, who wrote that “right-wing†and “left-wing†have long since ceased to have any precise political connotations, I largely agree. I’m a libertarian or classical liberal, rather that a conservative. However, I do think that libertarians and conservatives can work together quite well, particularly in Britain where there is a tradition of libertarianism within the Conservative Party.
TheYeti 12.23.03 at 4:07 pm
Brilliant. You took a tantrum from the Adam Smith Institute and showed it to be a farce, mainly by failing to acknowledge the general argument was originally put forward by leftists.
‘Why is it talk radio is so attractive to right wingers?’
‘Because liberal viewpoints require thought and reason and intelligent discussion. ‘
‘Rightwingers just like to hate and simplify their positions, which is why demagogues like Rush do so well.’
If you were truly thinking this through, you would have pointed out the foolishness of both sides.
Unfortnately, you sound like a partisan hack – just like the fine fellows at the ASI.
Mikhel 12.23.03 at 4:37 pm
Theyeti —
In which post did the members of CT make the claim that liberal viewpoints — counter to conservative — require intelligence and reasoned analysis?
Rv. Agnos 12.23.03 at 5:15 pm
Self-refuting might be best answer. I guess I thought there might be a word that meant “self-refuting.”
“Heterological” is not quite right, since it has more to do with the word itself than its meaning.
AL 12.23.03 at 6:04 pm
RE: rv. agnos
False syllogism (as in deductive logic that disproves the premise).
Phelps 12.23.03 at 7:07 pm
I would agree that they are wrong, but not for the same reasons. I think that the popular and influential blogs are right wing, and they based the opinion on that. From that flows the other assertions — that the most successful bloggers are those who are most adept at reasoned argument and that leftwingers, unlike rightwingers, have no real arguments — when you only look at the top 100 or so blogs.
ASI is probably right in that the left has generally prevailed when they can resort to violence and threats of violence, which is an option unavailible to them on the internet. In the absence of the option of violence, libertarianism becomes more and more practical, and I think that is the reason it is surpassing conservatism on the net.
Thorley Winston 12.23.03 at 8:31 pm
Phelps wrote:
That is how I interpreted the article as well. When I think of the most influential right-of-center blogs, I generally tend to think of Arnold Kling, the Volokh Conspiracy, Daniel Drezner, Asymmetrical Information, Winds of Change, and the like. Blogs which are generally about ideas and trying to persuade readers through pretty intellectually honest argument rather than just party spin and/or trading insults, which unfortunately tends to be both the norm and the highest achievement of most* left-of-center blogs that I’ve seen.
TW
* There are a few legal left-of-center blogs I’ve read which appear to be an exception to this but their influence is generally smaller IMNHO than that of the right-of-center blogs I have listed and yes Armed Liberal is also a part of Winds of Change.
Steve 12.23.03 at 9:14 pm
I consider myself a pragmatic progressive, and I am a trained scientist. I see a similar pattern in some of our local wingnuts who pounce upon me if I have a letter published in the local paper, say, lauding Dean as an alternative to Bush. The wingnuts’ arguments are usually lacking in a certain logic, and they regurgitate many right-wing talking points that are explicitly designed to obfuscate. I’m not suggesting that all progressive ideas are necessarily nondebatable, but the low quality of the wingnuts’ thought is impossible to refute, even if they had an open mind to begin with. But they’re usually so sure of themselves that it isn’t usually worth the time to respond…
Bob 12.24.03 at 8:55 pm
Alex,
Thanks for the advice about joining the Conservatives.
Of course, another switch between the parties in Britain is this:
“More voters now consider the Labour Party ‘sleazier’ than the Conservatives, according to a poll.” – at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1825447.stm
serial catowner 12.25.03 at 2:15 pm
Hard to remember that the blogosphere is inhabited by people who own computers and have connections. An optimistic bunch, not troubled too much by chronic health problems or the obsolescence of their job skills, and hopeful that most things will be twice as good in another four years. Unfortunately, the traditional institutions for problem solving antedate computers…
Bob 12.25.03 at 9:48 pm
All of which helps to explain why more voters believe Labour is more sleaze ridden than the Conservatives?
The alternative, unsurprisingly, is that some with computers follow the political news and recall the pressing circumstances relating to Keith Vaz’s sudden health problem on the run up to the 2001 election, or the donation to the Labour Party by a publisher of porn magazines and what the then chairman of the Labour Party said about that in an interview:
“If you are asking if we are going to sit in moral judgment, in political judgment, on those who wish to contribute to the Labour party, then the answer to that is no”
– quoted at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2357617.stm
Some even remember another Party donor and the Mittal Steel affair, a supposed “British” company that wasn’t even registered in Britain and employed hardly anyone here or what Tony Blair said to the Chicago Economic Club in April 1999 about:
“. . If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar. . .” – at:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=4&kaid=128&subid=187&contentid=829
Of course, it was billed as a keynote speech at the time . . .
They perhaps then remember the “sexed-up” dossiers to justify war with Iraq and wonder how many other lies and half-truths wrapped in spin there have been. What ever happened to Jo Moore, that Blairite apparatchik who thought 9-11 was a good day to bury bad news?
They may also remember how Elizabeth Filkin was pushed out of her job as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. They perhaps recall the string of reports in the “leftist” press on the political sleaze and corruption in Labour heartland councils, which can be easily dug out with google, like:
“The worst local government corruption case since the Poulson scandal of the 1970s ended yesterday with hefty jail terms for a senior Labour councillor and the property developer who bribed him. The four-year sentence for Peter Birks, former chairman of planning in Doncaster finished the virtual elimination of the old, miner-dominated Labour party in the South Yorkshire town, which has already seen two former council leaders and two former mayors among 21 councillors convicted of fraud. . .” – from: http://society.guardian.co.uk/councilsincrisis/comment/0,8146,666246,00.html
“A council rocked by the fraudulent spending of anti-poverty grants on hotels and prostitutes may have lost the chance to reclaim much of the £200,000 stolen by its former deputy leader. Reed, 54, was taken to court this week from jail, where he is serving three years for the fraud, and warned by a judge that he could face another year in prison if he failed to meet repayments. He is likely to have to sell his house to meet liabilities over the thefts from the now-defunct National Local Government Forum Against Poverty.” – from: http://society.guardian.co.uk/councilsincrisis/story/0,8150,914091,00.html
Naturally, there’s more, much more . .
Bob 12.26.03 at 1:36 pm
Btw Philip Stevens, then political editor of the Financial Times and now associate editor, wrote in his weekly column on 28 April 2000:
“Mr Blair is manipulative, he is obsessed with presentation, he stifles legitimate dissent.”
I make that full marks for perception.
Comments on this entry are closed.