|
|
|
February 03, 2006
Anyone feeling centered these days?
Glenn Reynolds links to Daniel Henninger's thought-provoking piece in the Opinion Journal, the thesis of which is best expressed in the subtitle: "Today's voters crave ideology."Actually, I think the following title would be more accurate: "Today's "base" voters crave partisan ideology."While Mr. Henninger's piece is well thought out, I think it's a bit short on analysis of the people who dislike (even detest) the Michael Moore, moveon.org ideology as much as the Pat Robertson, AFA ideology. Far from being on the fringes, the people who feel this way tend to be in the majority. Are they they guilty of the "pragmatism" which Henninger characterizes as dominating the mainstream media? Like most political analysts, Henninger identifies the spectrum as right wing, left wing, and (ugh) "middle": People who crave the middle are simply going to be disappointed in 2008. The Democrats have abolished the middle, and the Republican middle has discredited itself. There is a reason John McCain markets himself as more right than center; he knows ideology matters just now. So do George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback and the rest.What's missing in the discussion of ideology-versus-pragmatism is any mention of libertarian ideology, and that's because the Republican base and the Democrat base both tend to abhor libertarianism in favor of communitarianism. Libertarians like me are quite accustomed to being ignored by communitarians. I can't speak for all libertarians, but I get awfully sick of hearing people yell about how what they want is being ignored when I've been used to it for years. There is something degrading about hearing the outrage of people whose vociferous demands have been ignored when my ideology doesn't count at all. I mean, imagine if I worked myself up to a full scale rant about how "it's high time that the president discussed the need to relegalize drugs!" It would be laughable, and it doesn't matter at all how strongly I might want it to happen. So, it's not that I don't have an ideology; it's that I'm asked to select between two ideologies I find morally abhorrent. And then, on top of that, I am now told that "ideology" has to be defined as either liberal or conservative. With all respect to Mr. Henninger, it's a bit much. If I seem like a pragmatist, it's not because I lack ideology. It's because I see no place for my ideology. Does that place me in "the middle"? I don't see how. If I don't like communitarian thinking, but I am asked -- no, forced -- to choose between the communitarian left and the communitarian right, and I don't like either side, is it fair to paint me as being in the center? (The problem may be mine. I may have become too accustomed to feeling off center. . .) posted by Eric on 02.03.06 at 09:04 AM
Comments
"I can't speak for all libertarians, but I get awfully sick of hearing people yell about how what they want is being ignored when I've been used to it for years." Harkonnendog · February 3, 2006 8:16 PM This pollster who called me tonight asked me, "Democrat, Republican, or independent?" and I of course answered independent. A little later came the question, "liberal, conservative, or middle of the road?" and all I could answer was "no." Allan Beatty · February 4, 2006 12:51 AM Obviously, what we need is an official, no-holds-barred, "LIBERTARIAN DAY OF OUTRAGE!" Eric Scheie · February 4, 2006 7:54 AM |
|
April 2011
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2011
March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 Sarah Hoyt Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
• People Are Not Rational • No Biorobots For Japan • The Thorium Solution • Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera • Voter Fraud? • This war of attrition is driving me bananas! • Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry? • Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression? • Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Well, it's difficult to win elections without the ability to organize and rally large numbers of people around a cause (set of causes).
I speculate that libertarians, by their very nature, generally aren't the rally-ing type. You've mentioned many times in your blog your distaste for 'groupthink'. Libertarians are individualists and generally don't like being in, or being identified (pigeon holed) as members of a group. They'd rather stand on their own. The result is, once a critical mass of libertarians get to gether, their tendency is to want to disperse again rather than become more cohesive. An extreme sort of illustration might be something like 'The United Anarchists Party'.