Praise and Disses By Political Orientation
In Michael Totten's "Builders and
Defenders"
The Raw Data
Version 1.0 (May
10, 2003)
In order to understand the argumentative strategy deployed
in a recent controversial blog post, I have analyzed Michael
J. "Totten Builders and Defenders" and assigned labels to
individual "Argumentation Units" based on whether they support
("praise") or attack ("diss") a left or right political
position. Details are discussed and data are presented below.
I assume that the reader will take this document cum
granis salis. Yes, it is accurate and I do
think it does in some sense illuminate Michael's argument trends. At the same
time, the task of taking apart someone's post like this is not a little
ridiculous. This heightened sense of the absurd sustained me mightily
during the thankless, but necessary, task of compiling the data.
It is my fervent hope that no one inflict such an analysis
on any of MY posts.
*
* *
The Argumentation Unit was set at one sentence because
usually, there is one persuading technique employed per sentence. Occasionally,
I have combined two or more sentences into one because structurally they can be
thought of that way. In one place I divided one sentence into two for the same
reason. To some extent, this is arbitrary; I have tried not to pad the analysis
either MichaelÕs or my way.
It became clear as research proceeded that while Michael
employed only two persuading techniques, the praise and the diss, they were
deployed at different intensities, from a fulsome unequivocal statement of
political position to a milder implication of position. Both left and right
views are represented in all intensities. Thus, there are eight basic
categories:
1-2 Outright praise of liberals/right
3-4 Outright disses of liberals/right
5-6 Subtle praise of liberals/right
7-8 Subtle/hedged disses of liberals/right
Michael, on a comment board, has drawn attention to the distinction between far left and liberal statements, and he makes similar ones for the right and far right in his post. Accordingly, here, in the raw data, I have also distinguished between them whenever it seemed appropriate. A revision may break these down more precisely, but they would not affect the overall balance between left and right praising or dissing.
Finally, I created a category called "serious
distortions," in which I believe Michael is flat-out wrong in his
assertions. I have annotated my reasons for believing so. I suspect that he may
disagree.
Some sentences appear under two categories, as the meaning
can be construed as a simultaneous swipe at one side and praise for the other.
Some sentences were not categorized as they served neither praising or dissing
functions.
While I have tried to be fair, I recognize that another observer might assign the sentences of Michael's post to these categories somewhat differently than I have. I've tried to give him the benefit of a doubt when I had doubts (by defaulting sentences that confused me to what I thought his point was), and I've annotated many of the somewhat ambiguous sentences with what I believe they mean.
Total number of praises of liberals/leftists/far leftists: 9
Total number of praises of right/far right: 20
Total Number of disses of right/far right: 20
Serious Distortions: 4
Subtle Praise of Liberals/Leftists: 1
Outright Liberal Disses: 24
Subtle/Hedged Disses At The Liberals and the Left: 15
Outright Praise of the Right: 11
Subtle Praise of Right/Far Right: 9
Outright Disses of the Right: 9
Outright Disses of the Far Right: 2
Subtle/Hedged Disses of the Right: 9
Serious Distortions: 4
Nb: My annotations appear in brackets [ ].
1. It seems (to me) that liberals are more likely to
travel...
2. Liberals are more likely to listen to Òworld music,Ó and
are more likely to watch foreign films.
3. The New Republic and Dissent both publish excellent
analyses of international relations and foreign policy. [New Republic is
not liberal any more, but I'll give Michael the benefit of a doubt.]
4. Liberals want to build a good and just society.
5. The first priority of builders is the immediate
surrounding environment, starting with the home and moving outward from there.
6. Next is the community, followed by the city, the region,
and the nation.
7. Liberals, as IÕve said, are builders. And
Israel is inside the sphere of liberal influence. [Structurally, one
sentence.]
8. The Arab regime in Sudan enslaves black Christians. This
indeed is odious. But itÕs far beyond the ability of liberals to affect.
1. A protest against Sudan would be utterly useless. The
regime wouldnÕt listen, and everyone knows it. [Liberals don't waste time. But
see next sentence: this is just a setup for a subtle swipe. But I'll give
Totten the benefit of doubt and say it's subtle praise.]
1. After September 11 I discovered an intellectual weakness
on the left that I never noticed before.
2. For some reason, perhaps for several reasons, liberals
and leftists are bored by the outside world.
3. Épublications like The Nation and The American Prospect
rarely feature articles about what happens in other countries.
4. "Éonly some leftists I know have actually engaged in
a years-long course of education in the history of international politics (no,
Howard Zinn isn't sufficient), or long study of military theory and history, or
even, in many cases, long study of political history that isn't simply
doctrinaire propaganda from a similar didactic point of view." [three
major disses in one sentece and counted as such]
5. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to study the
negative consequences of American foreign policy.
6. look at other left magazines like The Nation. Foreign
policy is unmentioned except as an excuse to whack the Bush Administration.
(one sentence structurally).
7. Many of these articles could easily have appeared in
The Nation or other left magazines, and yet they didnÕt.
8. Presumably the editors are bored with the subject, or
their writers donÕt know enough to write about it.
9. But I find this [writers lacking historical knowledge]
far more often on the left.
10. I learn more about world history from them
[conservative links] than I learn from the left.
11. The Nation has nothing informed or accurate to say on
that subject [of Iraq].
12. Its writers usually ignore it completely.
13. And because they ignore it, because they donÕt study it,
when they do pipe up they tend to get everything wrong.
14. Why are liberal intellectuals less interested in the
history of foreign countries than conservatives are?
15. I have never heard anyone ask this question, and I
wonder if others even notice the problem. [based upon 14, above;
"the question" is the diss here.]
16. The other side of the world is the lowest of all
priorities [to liberals].
17. I assure you the left hasnÕt noticed [that they are less
interested in learning history than conservatives.]
18. It [principle of self-interest only in foreign affairs]
partly explains why Tom Daschle focused on prescription pills for old people in
war time.
19. The right side of the blogosphere laughed uproariously when
anti-war protesters carried placards that said ÒPeace In Our Time.Ó
20. The left just didnÕt get the reference.
21. One of the most common criticisms of liberals lately is
that Israel is held to a Middle East double-standard. Every Arab state is guilty
of far worse than anything Israel has ever inflicted on Palestinians. [one
sentence structurally: add "but" between the two.]
22. Liberals: Read about Iran.
23. DonÕt just read about American policy there, read about
Iran.
24. Find out what happens when America isnÕt looking.
Outright Disses of the Far Left
1. In other pieces IÕve noted an annoying equivalence
between the far-left and far-right.
2. The far-left says Republicans are Nazis.
3. Radical leftists think the Bush Administration is like
the Nazi Party for one specific reason. They havenÕt studied the rise of the
Nazis. (structurally, one sentence).
4. They truly believe the comparison is apt not because
they misunderstand Republicans, but because they misunderstand Hitler.
5. This [a radical left comparison of Bush and Hitler] is
paranoid like McCarthyism, but the cause is quite different.
6. What he [radical leftist] doesnÕt understand, very unlike
Joseph McCarthy, is what itÕs like to live in the other country
7. McCarthy knew Stalin well. The Indymedia poster knows
nothing about Saddam Hussein. [one sentence structurally]
1. They'll do it [liberal mags publish articles on other
countries] occasionally, but almost always in the context of how it relates
back to America. [Left /liberai approach is myopic]
2. The Nation might report on the effects of Iraqi
sanctions, but rarely does it publish anything about Iraq in its own context.
[Left /liberai approach is myopic]
3. Those bored with foreign countries generally are less
likely to study international politics and history. [From previous quote,
"those bored" really refers to leftists]
4. Liberals think of themselves as more worldly than
conservatives. [Liberals are deluded. Hedged immediately in next
sentence, 5 below, but still a separate thought.]
5. This is true in some ways, but not so in
others. [Liberals are partly deluded]
6. It seems (to me) that liberals are more likely to travel,
and are more likely to visit Third World countries in particular. (If you meet
an American traveler in, say, Guatemala, odds are strongly against that person
being aRepublican.) [Structurally one sentence] [Liberals seek out poor
countries that have little influence on overall world affairs.]
7. Liberals are more likely to listen to Òworld music,Ó and
are more likely to watch foreign films.
[Liberals like the "softer" aspects of a foreign
culture as opposed to economic figures, study of politics, etc]
8. And it [articles in "liberal" New Republic and
Dissent] isnÕt all filtered through a partisan lens. [But much is.]
9. Conservatives donÕt write about China and Iran because
theyÕre into Taoism or because they swooned at the Persian film festival.
The interest is there because these countries are dangerous. [One sentence
structurally. Liberals don't see dangers that conservatives see.]
10. It's not that the left is stupid. [Implication is that
left are something close to stupid.]
11.ÒThink globallyÓ but Òact locallyÓ is a bumper sticker
for the left. [Leftist thought is just a slogan.]
12. Rather, because liberals are builders not defenders,
liberal intellectuals focus on internal problems rather than threats from
outside. [Liberals just can't see foreign threats.]
13. They [far right] understand Lenin perfectly well. ItÕs
the Democrats they donÕt understand. [One sentence structurally. Whatever, this
means, it sure isn't praise and implies some kind of diss. Possibly means:
Democrats are so confused, even Lenin makes sense. Possibly means: far right
can't understand why Democrats can't see external threats.]
14. So what looks like hypocrisy and a liberal
double-standard is partly a result of perfectly rational priorities. [Liberals
often look like hypocrites with double standards. If you look closely, some of
it may be based on reason.]
15. Everybody needs to get out of their rut. Start small.
[Structurally one sentence. In context of the recommendations, there's a clear
diss of liberals: Liberals start small by learning square one about Iran.
Conservatives should enhance their understanding by taking in a
Persian film.]
1. If you want to learn about the history of the
BaÕath Party, SaddamÕs human rights abuses, the fate of the Marsh Arabs, or
Iraqi public opinion, you have to seek out magazines and journals of the center
and the right.
2. If you want to find a person who knows the history
of pre-war Nazi Germany, the Middle East during the Cold War, or the partition
of India and Pakistan, youÕre better off looking to the right than to the left.
3. I did this [link to good conservatives] for
one reason only, the same reason I read them myself in the first place. I learn
more about world history from them than I learn from the left. [Structurally,
one sentence.]
4. The pieces on Iraq [in conservative magazines], though,
are indispensable.
5. Conservatives defend what is already built and
established.
6. Defenders, unlike builders, are on the lookout for
threats.
7. This is what conservatism is for.
8. The interest [by conservatives is in China and Iran ] is
there because these countries are dangerous.
9. Conservatives are more likely to study pre-war Nazi
Germany because theyÕre watching out for a repeat.
10. Joseph McCarthy had a deep understanding of
Communism.
11. McCarthy knew Stalin well. [I believe Totten means this
a compliment, but I could be missing a subtle sense of humor.]
1. Compared with conservative magazines, publications
like The Nation and The American Prospect rarely feature articles about what
happens in other countries. [By comparison, conservative mags are better
on foreign countries.]
2. (If you meet an American traveler in, say, Guatemala,
odds are strongly against that person being a Republican.) [Republicans
wouldn't waste their time in an insignificant country.]
3. Read The Weekly Standard and National Review and you can
easily find articles about, say, China or Iran.
4. I included a list of what I call Ògood
conservatives." [Not all conservatives are good, but these are.]
5. The right side of the blogosphere laughed uproariously
when anti-war protesters carried placards that said ÒPeace In Our Time.Ó [The
right knows that this is an historical error of hilarious proportions.]
6. Far-right conservatives have the opposite problem. They understand
Lenin perfectly well. [Structurally one sentence. Far-right conservatives have
a perfect understanding of at least one subject.]
7. And he did find some Communist spies. But he saw the
tentacles of Communism everywhere, whether there were adequate grounds for it
or not. [Structurally one sentence: just drop the "and." While thereÕs
some dissing here regarding his paranoia, the overall gist is that, McCarthy
was successful, and while he went overboard, there were times he had good
reason for his suspicions.]
8. What he [radical leftist blog poster] doesnÕt understand,
very unlike Joseph McCarthy, is what itÕs like to live in the other country.
[Joseph McCarthy knew what it was like to live in another country.]
9. This [conservatives refusal to complain about
Uzbekistan] can be explained by Òrealism,Ó and there is a case to be made for
it here. [Conservative foreign policy that looks hypocritical can plausibly
construed as "realistic," given these circumstances.]
Outright Disses of the Right
1. I have little interest in what National Review says about
labor unions, taxes, abortion, the death penalty, or the environment. [Note:
first outright diss of the right occurs halfway thru article.]
2. Conservative writers hardly ever complain.[about
Uzbekistan].
3. The Uzbek regime is our Òally.Ó But itÕs the same sort of
filthy ally Saddam was when he took on the mullahs in Iran. [Structurally one
sentence.]
1. In other pieces IÕve noted an annoying equivalence
between the far-left and far-right.
2. A hyper awareness of threats leads to hallucinations of
banshees in the bushes.
1. Liberals are more likely than conservatives to study the
negative consequences of American foreign policy. [Conservatives tend to ignore
unpleasant consequences that they shouldn't.]
2. ItÕs easy to find writers on both the left and the right
who lack historical knowledge. [There's lots of right wingers who don't know
history.]
3. I read those articles [articles about domestic issues in
magazines on the right] occasionally because I need balance, and sometimes the
magazine makes good points. [Sometimes the right is right.]
4. But I rarely agree as a whole no matter how well-written
the article. [The articles at least have the virtue of being well-written, but
I donÕt think theyÕre entirely right.]
5. Conservatives are myopic in ways that look hypocritical,
too. [Conservatives can look hypocritical but they are only myopic.]
6. But it sure looks hypocritical, [Conservatives look
hypocritical.] [Structurally one sentence. It isn't really hypocritical, but it
very much looks that way.]
7. Éand it weakens the case on the right against other
dictators. [Structurally one sentence. On a practical level in terms of
overall foreign policy, the Uzbekistan policy makes it difficult to confront
other dictators.]
8. Conservatives: If you live in a major city, next time the
Persian film festival comes to town, buy yourself a ticket. [Get a life,
conservative policy wonks!]
9. The outside world is greater than the sum of its threats.
[Threats are important, but they're not everything.]
Serious Distortions
1. This is not a partisan point IÕm making. IÕve been on the
left forever, and I have no reason whatever to shill for the right. [Use of
the"Above the fray" technique, i.e., narrator assumes the stance of Òobjectivity.Ó
But even casual study of the article contradicts this.]
2. That we shouldnÕt meddle in other countries if our own
needs work is also a liberal idea. [Normally Michael is clear, but not here. I believe Michael is referring to
what is known as "realpolitik." If it is realpolitik, then in fact,
it is Kissingerism. It may be a liberal idea but Kissinger made it famous.]
3.The right side of the blogosphere laughed uproariously
when anti-war protesters carried placards that said ÒPeace In Our Time.Ó [I
never saw such a sign at any peace march. Assuming they were even there, in
crowds that numbered between 200,000 to 400,000 or higher, they were vastly
outnumbered by other signs and people with no signs.]
4. Joseph McCarthy had a deep understanding of Communism.
And he did find some Communist spies. [The former is, to be kind, borderline
hilarious. As for the latter, having thankfully not kept my 50's red-baiting
chops in the best of shape, I'm curious who the commies were that McCarthy
found; according to Navasky this
week in The Nation, they were small fry.]