This weekend, I was at Adam's house on Sunday afternoon to play a few board games, all-in-all very relaxing. During the talk that goes along with such things, Adam pointed out to his liberal friends, Rich and Russ, that my "W" hat stood for "George W. Bush" and then went on to mention the bumper sticker and yard sign I have on my Jeep. They were, of course, duly horrified. I tried to stay out of that conversation as best I could, since there's rarely any point in discussing politics with those that don't agree with you, as they aren't going to change their minds any more than you're going to change your own.
What was really interesting, though, is that when they were saying something about the idea that the media is general very liberal, they were absolutely certain that wasn't true and that Fox News simply is a station full of liars. Then Adam brought up an article I had forwarded to him a couple months ago on that very topic, printed in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal, by Orson Scott Card. Card had also described most media as liberal and backed it up with yet another set of demonstrated facts. Card is the author of quite a few books, including the very popular "Ender's Game" that everyone present had read and really enjoyed. He also writes on a number of other topics, including religion, politics, writing, and history.
Bringing up Card's point of view stopped the discussion of whether the media is liberal or not. I think that's because it's much harder to disagree with someone you respect. However, that made me wonder, when I say the media is liberal and I'm told I'm just wrong no matter how much evidence I present, but then Card says it's liberal that gives the same person pause, is it because I'm not respected? Olympia will probably laugh at that question, as she has a similar complaint about me. She'll tell me that when she tells me what she thinks, it doesn't seem to make a difference, but when someone else tells me the same thing, I'll believe it or at least consider it more seriously. Do I not respect the opinion of my wife?
That's when I realized, it's not about respect. I respect others, but don't agree. I respect others, but don't just take their word for things blindly. But there are some that I listen to more carefully than others. The problem is that there are some that I respect, but I see as partisan. Partisan's the real word that applies here. If I view a person's opinion as partisan, then it detracts from the value I am willing to place in the viewpoint, although I may still respect that person in general. I don't think I'm alone in that, but rather I think I'm part of an overwhelming majority that rejects viewpoints they perceive as partisan.
Partisanship isn't just about politics, although that's the context in which it is normally used. If the loan officer trying to work out what mortgage you are going to take on a house is telling you that an interest only loan is best, he's partisan, in that he has a vested interest in your decision. If I'm told that I'm making a bad decision on a particular choice by someone that will benefit from my changing my mind, I perceive that advice as partisan and either disregard it entirely or at least heavily discount the value. At most, I'll go seek out someone I don't see as partisan to get an opinion I can accept.
Adam's friends were struck by the fact that they did not perceive Orson Scott Card as partisan, and yet he was taking a position contrary to their opinion. Because it's politics, I imagine that they will absorb this new information, reclassify Card as partisan on the topic, reject his opinion (and his facts), and go on believing what they were believing anyway. But for just a moment, there was a revelation that a respected, non-partisan individual disagreed with them, and that gave just enough discomfort that the topic was dropped.
So, do you, the reader, agree with me, or is my opinion on this entirely too partisan to be taken seriously?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A "partisan" is one who is ardently devoted to a cause and to the defense of that cause against challengers. Adjectives used in describing partisan include fervent, militant, ardent, enthusiastic, devoted.
You classified Adam's friends as partisan liberals, because they held similar views which they were prepared to defend. Their opinions were immediately suspect. Your expectation of behavior from them was determined more by their classification than by what they said. In other words, liberals are blind to truth (facts) which opposes a preset viewpoint and you are free to reject their statements without further consideration.
You, on the other hand, are prepared to consider any non-partisan view. This raises interesting questions.
Are you prepared to reject the opinions of known or declared conservatives because they are partisan, implying that you only listen to those who have not formed views consistent with some party or position?
Do you reject religion because of its partisan attitudes?
Do you reject the advice of friends and family, who may have your interests in mind, but who may want to change your mind about something?
I have trouble imagining a thinking person who is totally non-partisan. Cognition is a process of sifting through masses of data, looking for and identifying patterns, reaching conclusions about the validity and relevance of those patterns, and generalizing from patterns to broader circumstances. That generalization places you in concert with others who have reached similar conclusions, forming a party or group of like minded people. If you reject all such groups, you are left only with original sources. Relying only on original sources, rejecting the analysis and argument of others, is a very lonely place to stand, and one where even the simplest of decisions takes a very long time. I suggest that this is a less than optimal strategy for living.
Perhaps this is connected with your dream of paralysis. If you have no trusted sources for input and you are faced with a problem for which there appear to be no good solutions, you are stuck. You can't proceed without a radical innovation. You can't retreat because you can't undo original causes. And you can't stand still because the ground on which you stand is inexorably shrinking.
When manipulation of all of the variables within your control yields no answer, it may be time to reexamine first principles. One or more of your assumptions that "this cannot be changed" may be wrong.
Post a Comment