Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I'm not automatically set against Sunstein's thesis, and was looking forward to hearing more about the social science data he was referring to. After reading the interview, I have to say I'm mostly (but not wholly) disappointed in what he had to say.
The analysis of judges was interesting, but is Sunstein really making a link between the changes in political leanings of men and women who are expected to uphold the rule of law -- and dittoheads?
While it's refreshing to hear Sunstein unequivocally call the nascent slime campaign against Hillary for what it is, he can't point to a similar figure on the right who is slimed by the left.
Now, I agree that there are some political issues on which people reasonably can take right and left views, and argue their positions on the merits. And his point about the left being in an echo chamber merits examination. (I wonder though ... Sunstein repeatedly pushes the "they both do it" narrative without quantifying the degree either side 'does it'. Are left and right equally insular? It should be possible to put numbers to this sort of thing.)
But my real gripe is that, in case after case, the mainstream right acts in bad faith, something you simply don't see in the mainstream left. This is seen most starkly in science policy, since science resists the kind of postmodern slippage of meaning that the right revels in. Evolution/creationism, global warming, abortion, sex education, homosexuality -- you name it, the right argues by creating alternative facts (junkscience.com, Steve Milloy, Africa Fighting Malaria, and so on and so forth), while the left argues by defending what scientists say (yes, it's called a consensus). If Sunstein has his way and the needle is threaded in the middle of these two sides, then science is ultimately debased by such false centrism.
And that is a crying shame.
I still think the social science research may have something interesting to tell us about the divide between liberals and conservatives (e.g. Altemeyer's research extended into liberals would be fascinating I think). But I'm doubtful this book is such a text.
How about flagrant political pardons, torture of detainees, suspension of habeus corpus, voter suppression, an unprecedented Supreme Court intervention in a national election, and a disastrous war yielding horrors not seen since the Cambodian genocide.
And you're telling me, that the INTERNET is to blame?!
The fallacy that citizens across the ideological spectrum are responsible for the moral/political atrocities of the past seven years is beyond insulting.
Stick to the law, Mr. Sunstein.
Sunstein has always struck me as a pretty smart guy, so his comment that he thought Bush Jr. could be a good president comes as a shock.
Anyone who bothered to read that now notorious Vanity Fair profile of Bush before the 2000 election would have known exactly what we were getting... and "good president" is not it.
People who knew Jr. knew exactly what he was. The tragedy is that the people who should have known better were the ones doing the most rah-rah-ing as a sly and terribly dangerous man was appointed to the White House by GOP justices on the Supreme Court.
Cass should go back and read now what he should have read then. Maybe then he wouldn't say such waterheaded things.
While political discussion may indeed be getting more polarized, (and that is arguable, read about Lincoln's time), it seems absurd to say the internets is causing it.
People may seek out like-minded people, but they don't need the internet to do it. Dittoheads are radio listeners, remember. People may choose to read Time, Newsweek, or other magazines that slant one way or another. And don't forget TV. You can choose to watch CNN only for Glenn Beck if you choose.
These are all different forms of media. The internet does better than all of these in providing facts and analysis from various sources. In fact, if more people would look up facts on their own using the internet and do their own analysis, they'd be better off.
You can read the comments section of any Salon articles and see that most people here are not sheep and have their own opinions.
The internets has allowed nasty little Americans to talk to each other, and a lot of them have come to the realisation that my president is about as appealing as herpes, therefore the internets is to blame.
It ain't the internet's fault.
Torture, illegal detentions, the price of oil, an economy which is failing, the rest of the world's views on America taking a nosedive, the utter failure that is the War on Terror, the frequent and highly effective pantsing the hard-copy media has recieved by the blogs, the subprime crisis (Brewed to a large extent by the conservative love affair with de-regulation), the use of and the rapid de-secularisation of American politics are all to blame.
Your president's policies are to blame for the polarisation of America, he is not a pretty good president he IS one of the worst in America's history.
...but if new technology gives us unprecedented access to information, it also gives us more ways to avoid information we don't like.
Isn't that how our human brains have been functioning for the past 2.000 years?
Sure, teh internets will amplify it in a way, but it's definitely not the cause. We are.
I respectfully imagined gregrocker in one of the church owned nursing homes rocking so hard the rocker tipped him over. Careful.
ot- On a lark, when Former President Carter was being booze-breathed out of office by Kennedy, I wrote Mr. Jimmy Carter.
Odd- Just yesterday I was with my two son in a restaurant named Windy Hill. Rosalynn and Jimmy stopped there for lunch years ago as they passed through town. The conversation about President Carter was brief. The Carter's daughter use to attend a summer tennis instruction class in Mercersburg Pa, or something like that.
ot- back to the ot- On a lark...A received a short written letter from Jimmy Carter after he lost the second effort to 'govern' and I never could believe the ugly time back then- uglier now than ever...Mr. Carter had dry humor. He said, ..."unfortunately, I'm looking for a new job..."
Jr. Bush or Sr Bush?
'um call the fbi...
'um off rockers.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
