The Ugly Party vs. The Grown-Up Party
I concur with Michael Gerson's classifications. From his piece in the WaPo:
My political friendships and sympathies are increasingly determined not by ideology but by methodology. One of the most significant divisions in American public life is not between the Democrats and the Republicans; it is between the Ugly Party and the Grown-Up Party.
He quotes Weigel's posts on Journolist:
When Rush Limbaugh went to the hospital with chest pain, Weigel wrote, "I hope he fails." Matt Drudge is an "amoral shut-in" who should "set himself on fire." Opponents are referred to as "ratf -- -ers" and "[expletive] moronic."This type of discourse is an odd combination between the snideness of the cool, mean kids in high school and the pettiness of Richard Nixon rambling on his tapes. Weigel did not intend his words to be public. But they display the defining characteristic of ugly politics -- the dehumanization of political opponents.
Unlike Weigel, most members of the Ugly Party -- liberal and conservative -- have little interest in keeping their views private. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh," Ann Coulter once said, "is he did not go to the New York Times building." Radio host Mike Malloy suggested that Glenn Beck "do the honorable thing and blow his brains out." Conservatives carry signs at Obama rallies: "We Came Unarmed (This Time)." Liberals carried signs at Bush rallies: "Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush."
...The rhetoric of the Ugly Party shares some common themes: urging the death or sexual humiliation of opponents or comparing a political enemy to vermin or diseases. It is not merely an adolescent form of political discourse; it encourages a certain political philosophy -- a belief that rivals are somehow less than human, which undermines the idea of equality and the possibility of common purposes.
I have to say, as somebody who is neither left nor right, but a politician-despising fiscal conservative/social libertarian/"personal responsibilitarian," the ugliness that has come my way has been from the left. And, I've found that conservatives, like my Christian friend Tom, disagrees with me on a number of issues, but he doesn't have to toss me aside as a human being and hate me for merely existing the way I've experienced from some on the left.
For example, I was against the Iraq war, and conservatives would tell me to my face that they thought I was a nitwit and why, but when some on the left didn't like something I posted, they attacked me anonymously, en masse, and among other things, tried to destroy my blog comments section with hundreds of posts asking "Are you a tranny?" and "Do you have a penis?" and 30-page spam posts every minute from the TOR server the Chinese dissidents use to access the Internet.
And, oh yeah, while we're at it -- here's the seventh grade loser contingent on Mickey Kaus.
Grow the hell up, already. If you have nothing to say about the guy's politics, unplug your computer and masturbate, for god's sake.
via Cathy Young
Comments
Great article! I'd go further to say it is the politics of emotion versus the politics of pragmatism. Those who let their emotions govern their actions too significantly lead to these types of "ugly" lash outs. I think one's character is, in part, defined when one's point of view falters under a solid rebuttal. Will you then lash out or will you give the rebuttal consideration?
Posted by: TW at July 3, 2010 2:23 AM
I agree-while people on the right can act ugly and idiotic, it seems far more prevalent on the left. I've had my car defaced by people who didn't like my McCain/Palin sticker (they need to die, among other things, written on my car). I can listen-if not agree-with people who are genuinely concerned that everyone in the US needs health insurance given them, and food/shelter/whatever. But the people who want to calmly state their views are fairly rare. I'm certainly not good at doing it all the time. It's a skill one learns, and I'm learning.
Posted by: momof4 at July 3, 2010 5:51 AM
The Goddess Writes: unplug your computer and masturbate, for god's sake.
Silly Amy, that's a contradiction! Masturbation is why the computers are turned on in the first place!
Posted by: Patrick at July 3, 2010 6:31 AM
Uh...thanks, Patrick...forgot about the other team there for a moment!
Posted by: Amy Alkon 
at July 3, 2010 6:43 AM
I'd second the observation that this behavior almost always seems to come from the left. I've met a handful on conservatives who've behaved this way, but have lost count of how many times I've seen Liberals become vicious towards someone, often over very minor disagreements. I think that a simple review of comments sections on blogs and websites will bear this out.
Any longer I just avoid discussing politics with self declared Liberals because I assume that they're going to become bullying and irrational.
There's a theory of political identification that holds that people tend to select positions that suppress their own fears and anxieties about themselves. So Conservatives focus on crime, order, and licentiousness because they are guarding against their own violent and sexual impulses. Liberals fixate on status, discrimination, and victimization because they are prone to intolerance, narcissism, and vindictiveness. While I don't entirely agree with this premise, it does account for the glaring contradictions between what Liberals claim about themselves and how they actually behave.
Posted by: Barnacle Bill at July 3, 2010 7:16 AM
>>And, I've found that conservatives, like my Christian friend Tom, disagrees with me on a number of issues, but he doesn't have to toss me aside as a human being and hate me for merely existing the way I've experienced from some on the left.
Bullshit example, Amy:)
You cannot extract proof that politeness belongs to one political point of view rather than the other on the basis of personal friendship!
I know a gorgeous woman, an otherwise delightful, sunny-natured type with excellent taste in movies, who - incredibly - pays $100 per session for occasional consultations with a "medical intuitionist".
The consultations apparently involve crystals, massage and stupid woo-woo music, and produce dietary advice to strengthen energy flow to the internal organs.
I think she's a total fucking moron on this subject. She thinks I'm atrociously close-minded. So what? Our lively friendship is based on far more than this area of total disagreement, and we both know it.
There is no point at all comparing those vicious anon. internet louts to your lovely, well-mannered Christian chum!
To be honest, I don't even understand why you'd try?
Posted by: Jody Tresidder at July 3, 2010 7:49 AM
Tom doesn't REFUSE to ever speak to me or hate me the way some on the left do. He became my friend DESPITE disagreeing with me on issues, despite the fact that I'm an atheist.
I also find that at parties, conservatives will agree to disagree with me, but not think I'm a horrible person for having different views. This is just a generalization, of course, but, generally speaking, I do find that, as Cathy Seipp said, the tent is bigger on the right.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at July 3, 2010 8:16 AM
I've also found this to be true at a monthly dinner I go to for writers/pundits/screenwriters. A guy, who will have to remain nameless (rules of the dinner by the host), was so insulted at what Moxie and I thought about some education issue that he took his dinner and went and sat in the corner at the other end of the room!
PS I've had disagreements with conservatives there, and they just argue with you, they don't seem to get so upset that a person who believes as you do actually gets to remain on the planet.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at July 3, 2010 8:27 AM
I don't think it's a fair comparison - you're in California (right?); it seems likely that conservatives at parties have needed to learn basic social survival skills in a way liberals haven't. I wonder who would be more polite to you in Mississipi or Alabama or Texas.
Posted by: kf at July 3, 2010 8:29 AM
Is only the last sentiment by Cathy Young? I'm confused.
Posted by: lenona at July 3, 2010 8:37 AM
>>Tom doesn't REFUSE to ever speak to me or hate me the way some on the left do. He became my friend DESPITE disagreeing with me on issues, despite the fact that I'm an atheist.
Amy,
I get that!
Similarly, my occasionally nutty friend doesn't refuse ever to speak to me...because I think she's simply a bundle-of-cash on legs to the fraud who gives her advice based on something called "medical intuition"!
She is a friend DESPITE our massive disagreement.
But I don't suggest, on this basis, that people who have faith in the most pitiful alt. medicine charlatans tend to be politer than others.
On the contrary, based exclusively on their internet presence, I'd say most alt. medicine boosters are aggressive assholes.
Posted by: Jody Tresidder at July 3, 2010 8:57 AM
Sorry, Jody, that's different. People who believe in astrology (ugh, I know a few) don't get offended if you don't believe and even if you let them know you think it's silly.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at July 3, 2010 9:21 AM
I don't think it's a fair comparison - you're in California (right?); it seems likely that conservatives at parties have needed to learn basic social survival skills in a way liberals haven't. I wonder who would be more polite to you in Mississipi or Alabama or Texas.
It's conservatives on the Internet versus liberals on the Internet. People on the right will sometimes link to me to say I'm an idiot about this or that, but they don't send over anonymous mobs to try to destroy my comments section, calling me a "tranny," etc.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at July 3, 2010 9:38 AM
Is only the last sentiment by Cathy Young? I'm confused.
Cathy posted the link on her Facebook page. None of this is a comment by Cathy.
Posted by: Amy Alkon
at July 3, 2010 9:40 AM
Amy's right. I've been interested, and involved in, politics for years and the distinction she's pointing out has always been apparent. Hence the expression, Conservatives think Liberals are stupid, and Liberals think Conservatives are evil.
Liberals tend to assume that the correctness of their positions should be intuitively obvious to all good people. So if you disagree with them, you're not a good person. It's really that simple.
Posted by: janet at July 3, 2010 10:32 AM
>>Hence the expression, Conservatives think Liberals are stupid, and Liberals think Conservatives are evil.
Funny thing, janet.
I've heard a different expression: Conservatives think Liberals are stupid, and Liberals think Conservatives are Really Nice Deep Down, But A Trifle Selfish.
But I move in very polite liberal circles:)
Posted by: Jody Tresidderj at July 3, 2010 11:28 AM
I think the disease of ad-hominem nastiness is pretty common on in much of our discourse these days, left and right. Popular conservative blogger Dan Riehl suggested that Obama would smother his own grandmother (who was dying and whom Obama was visiting at the time) for a boost in the polls. Conservative radio host and Liberty and Tyranny author Mark Levin once told a caller her husband would be better off if she killed herself (or something similar). If you read comments on many conservative blogs, liberals are frequently accused of wanting to destroy America for earnestly held beliefs that accused terrorists should receive protection under the Geneva conventions. I don't much read hard core lefties like Glenn Greenwald or Kos, but I've seen lots of bad-faith ugliness devoted to the few conservatives who have written there disputing issues. I know that Jeffrey Goldberg gets tons of ugly emails for his views on Israel (he doesn't allow comments, but posts occasional emails). I read across the political spectrum, and ad-hominem ugliness abounds in all parts, especially in places that have pretty free commenting policies. This blog appears to be an exception to that trend, which is cool.
In my experience, the ugliest and most childish behavior occurs online, where the relative anonymity of the internet liberates people to act far worse than they would if speaking to someone face-to-face. Fallows had a good guideline for writers along these lines - don't make criticisms of people that you wouldn't make to their faces (or something similar). I think that's a good practice. Thinking about that makes me wonder if the spread of Facebook connect through the web might improve things. When one logs into a site via Facebook connect and comments, those comments are associated with one's real identity. I'm guessing fewer people would be willing to publicly own up to spewing the sort of rancid bile that passes for blog commentary online than now.
Posted by: Christopher at July 3, 2010 11:49 AM
Why should I refuse to speak with anyone over a disagreement on an issue? That makes no sense to me. Unless the issue is something completely amoral and harmful, like someone arguing that it's okay to beat your children, I see no issue that would cause me to cut off all ties with anyone.
I haven't always agreed with Amy, but she's still the lovely, vivacious and witty columnist I fell in love with all those years ago. Nothing's come up that would cause me to say, "I can't talk to you any more."
Posted by: Patrick at July 3, 2010 1:26 PM
"Why should I refuse to speak with anyone over a disagreement on an issue? That makes no sense to me. Unless the issue is something completely amoral and harmful, like someone arguing that it's okay to beat your children, I see no issue that would cause me to cut off all ties with anyone."
This is an interesting subject, Patrick. I guess the question is, what other views would go in the category of "believing it's okay to beat children"? Believing it's okay to assault people and lock them up because they choose to take medicine without a prescription or ingest other drugs? Believing it's okay to forcibly take substantial amounts of money from people to fund everybody's favorite Ponzi scheme, Social Security? Believing it's okay to torture someone just because someone in a uniform says it's a matter of national security?
Moral outrage is so much easier to recognize in hindsight. We all like to think we would have been anti-slavery or outspoken opponents of segregation, but odds are that we wouldn't have been.
Posted by: CB at July 3, 2010 2:26 PM
This article makes a lot of sense -- although when he starts to daydream about the fancy Aspen Institute towards the end, I felt like yelling "FOOD FIGHT!" and plopping a pie on top of his head. I don't even know what the ASpen Institute is about, so I'm probably off-base.
Posted by: Jason S. at July 3, 2010 8:21 PM
As a regular poster here...and fairly conservative compared to most of the above (usually the only big issue we tend to agree upon is economic...though I am with crid on his drug posting, I won't pay mind to the tears of those athletes either)
Anyway, despite my tendency towards strongly conservative viewpoints, I've seldom ever been attacked in a particularly vicious way.
Sure I've had some vocal and impassioned debate opponents, but that is different, and in almost every case in which one of those I was arguing with lost their temper, I was given an apology by the impassioned party.
When I visited one of those liberal websites that kept trolling here and spamming these boards...ooooh it was not pretty. Ridiculously juvenile. Far worse than people suppsosedly their age should have been acting.
Posted by: Robert at July 4, 2010 9:16 PM
kf said: I wonder who would be more polite to you in Mississipi or Alabama or Texas.
In the most liberal city in Texas (Austin), I've experienced much more outright scorn, condescension, and oblivious intolerance from lefties. At least once a month I have to explain to a liberal that it isn't tolerance to put up with things that don't bother you--tolerance is treating people who do things that really bother you with courtesy. Each and every time, their little faces turn stormy and they shout "No! I don't have to put up with that! That's WRONG!!," referring to some offense so grave as listening to Rush Limbaugh. Liberals actually think they are performing a virtuous, courageous deed by refusing to tolerate those who disagree with them. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, they do so with the approval of their own consciences. They expect applause.
Posted by: L at July 6, 2010 1:08 PM
kf said: I wonder who would be more polite to you in Mississipi or Alabama or Texas.
In the most liberal city in Texas (Austin), I've experienced much more outright scorn, condescension, and oblivious intolerance from lefties. At least once a month I have to explain to a liberal that it isn't tolerance to put up with things that don't bother you--tolerance is treating people who do things that really bother you with courtesy. Each and every time, their little faces turn stormy and they shout "No! I don't have to put up with that! That's WRONG!!," referring to some offense so grave as listening to Rush Limbaugh. Liberals actually think they are performing a virtuous, courageous deed by refusing to tolerate those who disagree with them. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, they do so with the approval of their own consciences. They expect applause.
Posted by: L at July 6, 2010 1:54 PM
