So, I’ve been going back and forth for awhile now on whether or not to include posts of a political nature on the blog. There are reasons both for and against and for the life of me, I can’t seem to decide one way or the other, so I’ll just be thinking aloud for a few paragraphs.
Why blog about politics? Because it interests me. I mean, really interests me. I have been living and breathing politics for over a decade now and consider it an incredibly interesting subject of the utmost importance to our lives. In this day and age, political principles are more important than ever and are something I devote a great deal of thought and research to. Given that, aren’t posts relating to those thoughts worth making? If I can make my case, shouldn’t I?
Why not blog about politics? Because it’s annoying. I know there are blogs I’ve read, both personal and professional, where when they go off on political tangents that disagree with my point of view, it can be bothersome. I can be reading a general review of a comic book, and then bam, there’s a George W. Bush/Fox News/Republicans are racist line that pulls me out of the “fun” reading and suggests to me that the person whose point of view I had respected enough to seek out voluntarily doesn’t necessarily respect my point of view. I can say one of those blogs I’ve gone from reading regularly to not-at-all. Knowing the effect political threads can have on me, personally, should I then engage in the same activity? (Plus there’s the issue that the only commenting reader I’ve got I’m fairly sure disagrees with me politically. 😉 )
I know I’ve struggled quite a bit to disassociate authors from their political views. Michael A. Stackpole is an author whose work I love and respect immensely, but essays he had posted on his site and/or the Huffington Post, as well as comments made on his podcasts, I could not agree with less. I’ve just gotten back to finishing his Age of Discovery trilogy and the volume in question is dedicated to Al Gore (to be fair an earlier one was dedicated to John McCain, but to be honest I’m not a fan of McCain either). If I let myself get consumed by his political view, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy his work anymore– and I do enjoy his work and want to continue enjoying his work. But I’m aware that it’s taken a conscious effort on my part.
So I’m left with wanting to enter the fray myself, but not wanting to at the same time. As a reader, do you have any thoughts to offer?
Consider a test case. The Arizona law. I support it. I have reasons grounded in broad principles I’ve held all my life, on specific law enforcement ground, and from firsthand accounts from a close friend who actually lives there. I don’t think that support makes me racist or anti-immigration. I think the President characterizing the enforcement of the new law as arresting people out having ice cream with their kids is fear-mongering and political opportunism. I think having a Justice Dept. comment on looking into filing a legal case against Arizona when the Attorney-General hasn’t even read the bill in question (approx. 10 pages) is ridiculous. And I think having a Deputy Secretary of State go to China and apologize for our human rights “deficit”– apologize to China— thanks to this law is amateur hour and not a position I can get behind on any level. I say again– human rights. China.
So, there’s a sample. Friendships strong enough to survive political talk? I’ve had some that could, some that couldn’t. Looking for feedback here.
2 responses to “The Third Rail of Blogging”
I understand the need to insert something that stirs you. Lately I’ve been posting things of a philosophical nature on Facebook and I don’t think it’s going well (come on, Facebook is goofy, right? 😉
I think you have every right to. It’s your expression, after all. Where else will you do it? I remember hearing something somewhere about how the Internet is the only real democratic forum left (of course, we pay for that by having a bunch of troglodytes running around publishing blogs–but can we really judge?).
Example: I had a knee-jerk reflex that opposed the Arizona law. It was racial profiling at its finest, right? I mean, reasonable-suspicion-my-foot. But the more I learned, the more I realize they needed something a little drastic around here to get the problem under control. I’m not against immigration, just illegal immigration. Perhaps it could even be temporary. Perhaps we could start getting legislation in place after we get things nailed down that would make the US more accessible legally for people who wanted to work. Who knows? But it’s something to try. I think the media has blown this out of proportion. You raise an excellent point.
And therein lies my point. We have a tendency to filter through the internet literature and only read political commentaries that we agree with, thus reinforcing our own point again and again. We pad our own little precious universe. I think it’s valuable to experience the dissonance of disagreement every now and then so one can consider other points of view. It feels like sandpaper on your brain sometimes, but it’s healthy. So don’t feel bad about posting your thoughts and opinions on politics or whatever; because above all, it’s your damn blog, and people should hear other voices once in a while. Good friends–the best friends–know that. 😉
Whew. That was a novel. Maybe that should have been a blog post. Goodness knows I’ve been away long enough.
Facebook is a jungle into which I cannot bear to trek. I just… I don’t know. Did you see the recent South Park episode? 😉 But, hey, if those philosophical musings ever find its way onto the blog…I enjoy philosophy. So long as you don’t write in page-long sentences the way Kant does.
Re: Arizona– my sentiments exactly. Immigration is f-i-n-e fine. Illegal immigration is something else entirely. They are two different things. Taking my opposition of the one and then building your (a general “your”, not you specifically) argument about the other is a diversionary tactic that doesn’t further the debate, it only demonizes those who disagree with you by painting them as uncaring monsters. It reminds me of an attempt I once made to have a serious discussion regarding taxes– online (cue laughter)– where I was arguing about how much someone can be taxed, and my positions were dismissed/attacked/ignored as arguing for tax elimination. I’m arguing that one should never have a right to $0.50 (or more) of every $1.00 I earn, the response I get is “taxes are good, they pay for roads, how would you pay for roads?” “Uh, well, the taxes they’re already getting should be sufficient…” Reductio ad absurdum? I dunno. (Hey, philosophy stuck!)
One of the things I neglected to mention in the blog post was that the Arizona friend who supports it was an ardent Obama supporter. (I was not, but I think that’s clear. 😉 )
Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I agree with the insularity of internet politics– or anything, really– and it’s something I do try to balance out on my own time. Once a week venturing into the Daily Kos or something like that. The distinction for me, though, is when it tips over from disagreeing with someone/offering an opposing view, to just being an a-hole and insulting them for daring to think that way. i.e. support the law = racist. Tea Party = racist. Oppose Obama = racist. Disagree with me = racist. It’s that kind of thing that drove me from other blogs as a reader. If you ever catch me doing that in reverse, call me on it. Because I’ll be trying to explain my views/persuade, not demean the opposing view.
Maybe my next post will be “Why I Watch Glenn Beck”. Ooo, I can feel the tension already! 😉