And ultimately, what the fuck does it matter? Does it make the slightest practical difference whether Ann Coulter believes her own ever-increasing hysterical slander, or whether James Dobson honestly believes in Jesus and thinks he's living a good Christian lifestyle? Does it harm the discourse any less whether Michael "Savage" Weiner is really a bloodthirsty fascist or just playing one on his radio show?
I imagine most of us who assume they're faking it make that assumption because the things they're saying are either completely incoherent, as if they literally did not understand what they were saying, or blatantly hypocritical, or at least an argument made in transparently bad faith, as if no one would notice. It all boils down to the same thing -- the inability to believe that a serious, intellectually honest person would say the things these people are saying.
And it's true -- no serious or intellectually honest person would say such ridiculous things with a straight face. Except there's a lot of money involved for the top players of the game; for $25 mil a year, I'd be more than happy to say the things Rush Limbaugh says. I might be inclined to give much of it away just to preserve my conscience, but still, that's a lot of money.
And the amount of money and notoriety in that game helps make sense of the nonsensical, helps provide a rhythm to the bizarre spasms of choir-preaching going on there. That the whole thing might be a marketing gimmick to gull the rubes has more logic than them really not seeing their own self-contradictions and armies of strawmen. It's easier to figure that, say, Jonah Goldberg has a visceral aversion to an honest day's work, than to try to wrap one's brain around the notion that he actually believes what he says, or that he even believes it's intellectually consistent, much less honest.
Most of the inherent entertainment value, at least for me, in trying to parse the opacity of their arguments, is that more often than not, you really can't tell if they mean it or not.
4 comments:
Ahh, sweet link-love!
To be clear, I do think there are some obvious "bullshit into performance art" practitioners: the recent Henninger WSJ column, where it seemed like he got a dare to see if he could somehow tie the "blame the darkies for fucking up the economy" theme into the "war on xmas" theme; and of course, the Powerline stooges.
Hinderaker's recent claim that Bush hardly makes any verbal gaffes, and his legendary classic that Bush is a misunderstood genius surrounded by philistines are just too far out there. The usual suspects might try to tell you that Bush's garbled speech is a virtue in some way, but they're still acknowledging it as being garbled. Hinderaker is just flat-out saying, "Nope, he's eloquent as all fuck. Sounds like a Shakespeare play every time he opens his mouth." Anyone who could honestly believe that is the kind of person who believes that they could turn themselves into foam rubber and jump off a skyscraper without injury. Natural selection tends to severely punish people like that.
So maybe I'm just lucky to know so many good folks like this, but I see the same sort of reality-avoidance syndrome among so many relatives and acquaintances, and I know they're not faking it for money. I imagine the farther you move up the wingnut food chain, the less you ever encounter anyone who will actually get in your face and argue with you - they just live in their echo chamber and categorically refuse to engage anyone who tries.
But all that aside, my main interest is just in the practical side of it: there is an eager audience for it, regardless of the motivations of those peddling this shit. I just hate seeing people dismiss this sort of reactionary rabble-rousing as irrelevant. Tom Tomorrow said something recently about people who brush off the latest tirade from Glenn Beck or Limbaugh by saying that no one takes those clowns seriously: tell it to President John Kerry.
Of course we shouldn't dismiss these wackos. They matter, and have effects. I'm just wondering what an effective countering strategy may look like here. Prima facie, reasoned exchanges can't be expected to work: by the basic premises of the situation, they're either completely venal, hence not interested in counter-arguments; or they've sealed themselves in bubbles and echo-chambers, media not normally conducive to rational discussion. Plus, a lot of this crown must be self-selected in the first place -- I don't think you usually join Limbaugh's audience because you're interested in what the other side thinks. Normally, I suspect, you're either a rage junkie, you've already been brainwashed elsewhere, or you may be too stupid for civilization. All conditions untreatable by the light of reason.
Relentless mocking may work better than argument. I wish there was some kind of empirical study to determine what measurable effect the guys at Sadly, No! and similar blogs have had in weaning people off of right-wing milk.
Failing that, we should get George Soros to buy out 35% of radio stations in America, and turn them over to normal people. Or bribe politicians to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
Yeah, exactly - I don't have any idea how to deal with people who simply refuse to accept basic concepts such as the possibility of being wrong, the fact that you don't create reality by wishing really hard, and the old slogan about being entitled to your own opinions, not facts. I don't know if mocking works, in that sense, but it keeps me from going insane.
On another, more pleasant note: how about a year-end Top Five (or ten, or whatever) Albums of 2008 in the next few weeks, Heywood? I might try it myself, but I've spent most of the year catching up on stuff I ignored for some reason when it originally came out, so I'm hopelessly behind the times.
I'm disappointed that you would sell yourself for $25 million. Would you do it for $10? As the old joke goes, we know what you are, now we just have to agree on the price.
Really, I am disappointed.
Post a Comment