I did a guest post today at Greg Sargent's Plum Line about the conservative closed feedback loop and how it supplied the real context for Sarah Palin's speech yesterday. Those interested in such things might want to click through to it.
Meanwhile, since I spent the day reading The Corner's coverage of Tucson, I missed my chance to be the first kid on the block to attack Mark Udall's idea that Members of Congress should sit all mixed in together for the State of the Union, not separated by party as they normally do. I think it's a terrible idea...well, to do it once as a stunt is only a bad idea, but overall it's awful. If you want the argument, the person who did get it first as far as I know is Dan Amira, and he nailed it, so I'll just send you there.
Bernstein:
ReplyDeleteI agreed then with Chait, Sanchez, and others on their side of the argument.
I'm wondering why you only linked to Chait, and not to your own post(s) on the subject.
Chait concludes: 'Other such closed information circuits can be found in American culture, but none of them is the dominant faction of a major political party.'
There's no actual argument that things are better on Chait's side of the fence. Just this assertion.
I'm just catching up today. Read your guest post on the Plum Line; thought it incredibly insightful on why Palin produced the video she did. Was somewhat dismayed there weren't any comments here- when you do good it is important someone pat you on the back, positive reinforcement and all that. Then I thought I should check comments at the Plum LIne. Afraid I gave up after reading only a few.
ReplyDeleteWondered if you are familiar with the work of educator ED Hirsch- cultural literacy. Part of what I remember from reading him 2o years ago was the importance of the shared background. This is part of what is being lost by the "solitudes", of people largely only talking to their own kind and losing the corrective of different perspectives.
I found Amira's piece utter unpersuasive, and am kind of surprised you found it otherwise.
ReplyDeleteHe argues, in essence, that it gives us a useful clue as to what the parties support by watching what they applaud. Really? It seems to me that people who 1) care about what the parties support, 2) can identify the people in Congress and 3) can be bothered to note when they stand up are the sort of people who already have a pretty good idea of where the parties stand on any particular issue. In fact, they could probably predict when the Republicans or Democrats will applaud based upon what's being discussed. The applause-o-meter is an additional piece of information for people who don't need it.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteWell, it's symbolic, either way. I wouldn't say (obviously I can't speak for Amira) that getting rid of the regular rituals of the SOTU would suddenly mean that no one knew what the parties think. But in a nation that has lots of partisanship (which is good) but very few rituals of partisanship, it would be a shame to take away that one.
A number of comments have appeared on this thread and shortly after vanished.
ReplyDeleteOne of them was mine, reposted below.
Bernstein:
I agreed then with Chait, Sanchez, and others on their side of the argument.
I'm wondering why you only linked to Chait, and not to your own post(s) on the subject.
Chait concludes: 'Other such closed information circuits can be found in American culture, but none of them is the dominant faction of a major political party.'
There's no actual argument that things are better on Chait's side of the fence. Just this assertion.
I use Andrew Sullivan's blog for my homepage, not because I'm a big fan of Sullivan but because it updates frequently and links to many things I'm interested in.
ReplyDeleteIt was there that I got my first news of the Tucson shootings.
The response on the left to the Tucson shootings parallels the response to the Duke lacrosse rape allegations. At first the facts were declared to support a pre-existing narrative, pointing to lessons our society must learn. As facts inconsistent with the narrative emerged, the facts were declared irrelevant. It was still the narrative and its lessons that mattered.
ReplyDelete