They say in Harlan County There are no neutrals there. You'll either be a union man Or a thug for J. H. Blair. (from Bloody Harlan by Florence Reece) One irritating feature of online argument, especially in an election year, is the routine assumption that everyone is on one side or the other and that which side you are on determines what you say. If you say something favorable about a Republican candidate or negative about a Democratic one you must be a Republican supporter and are therefor obligated to respond to any argument offered against Donald Trump. If you say something favorable about Biden you must be a supporter of the Democrats and obliged to defend Biden against any and all arguments.
I have had the same experience, even with my good friends. After Trump was elected, I didn't join in with those who inserted in every conversation, relevant or not, something like "Well, we have a president who <something horrible>" I never joined in, even though it was clear they expected me to also denounce Trump. One friend noticing my lack of response, turned to me and asked "You don't LIKE Trump, do you?!" Years later, she still thinks she knows what I think about every possible political issue, because she has lumped me in with the group of people who wear MAGA hats, follow QAnon, and watch Fox News. I've tried to explain to her what a libertarian believes, and that I recognize the nuance in all these issues, but it's useless. The only way we stay friends now is to never, ever discuss politics at all.
Keep sharing your thoughts, David. It's nice to know that some other people try to think about issues from first principles, instead of as a matter of what one's tribe has told them to think.
Unfortunately gone is that period of history in the US and Australia after WW2 where a more bi-partisan attitude was applied to politics generally as most of the then adult male population (including politicians) had fought in either WW1 or WW2 (and many females had served in the military themselves or the war effort generally and had lost loved ones).
There was a more open society where both sides of politics hoped that their children didn't have to go through what they had had to endure. It grew, for many, out of a mate-ship under fire where all were equal.
We now have the luxury where wars are fought by the few and the remainder have time to be selfish.
Where we are misrepresented for our views (where we try to use reason and logic to discuss a subject), little can be done to correct that misrepresentation.
I believe Mark Twain once said:
"Never argue with an idiot as he (she) will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience.
Since I taught in a political science department, it was interesting to watch my students try to put me in a partisan box. And my friends on the Right and the Left simply have come to regard me as a political nutcase. You, David, unfortunately probably aren't in a position to allow yourself to be regarded as a nutcase of any type.
Once my department got used to me it was kind of fun. Two of my best friends were one a hardcore Army brat Marxist and the other a guilt-ridden conservative Lutheran. We all enjoyed good beer. And we enjoyed discussing politics, knowing each others basic thoughts, I think we all learned quite a bit from each other.
But that doesn't happen, or work well, in the ordinary world. People like having a rooting interest that doesn't require much thought. And they don't like defending their team. They think its obvious their team is always the best and should win every game/election if the other team doesn't cheat.
I almost lost a good libertarian of some 20 years when I merely predicted, about 6 weeks out, that I thought Trump might likely win Michigan (where we both resided) and that if he did that would probably mean he'd win the Presidency. My libertarian was aghast. How could I dare support Trump. I pointed out that I didn't, but I had no rooting interest, I didn't like Trump at all and despised Clinton (partly because I am a veteran and I believed and believe that she held a particular animus for the military and anyone who had ever served voluntarily), and that my read of the lack of Clinton yard signs and supportive chatter told me she was in trouble.
He couldn't accept that I was applying observation and logic neutrally when Trump was so icky. (He didn't say icky, but that was the gist.) He eventually got past it, but it was touch and go. And he is generally a very logical fellow.
Ah, well, some of us oddballs are very irritating to the two fan crowds.
I am, however, a 70 year fan of the best team in major league baseball, the St Louis Cardinals, and I'll fight anyone who denies that.
An excerpt from The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. “For many months during the election campaign, my close friends urged me to declare my support for John Kennedy. I spent many troubled hours searching for the responsible and fair decision. I was impressed by his qualities, by many elements in his record, and by his program. I had learned to enjoy and respect his charm and his incisive mind. But I made very clear to him that I did not endorse candidates publicly and that I could not come to the point that I would change my views on this.”
One thing that might help is to make it very clear that you don’t endorse any candidate.
It probably won’t have much of an effect.
Other solutions are to stop making any comments about candidates; or to have faith that most of your readers understand your libertarian views. The bothersome comments are coming from very few, but loud commenters.
We like hearing your views on candidates. You might also go whole hog in the other direction and do deeper analysis on both candidates.
I used to take a "politics don't matter attitude". Eventually, all policies trend toward the median voter, right?
But after 2020 I changed my mind. There really can be a big difference depending on whether an R or a D is in charge. Part of this was COVID where policy was important and varied wildly, but you could reference the entire George Floyd era. Does the median voter believe in 12 genders and the 1619 project? And yet that's what we got.
There are other things that have changed slowly. There may not have been as big a difference in economic conditions in CA and FL in the 1980s or 90s, but today there is a huge difference.
Lastly, the issue that most animates me is school vouchers. It's very obvious that only red states are going to implement it, that there will be zero bi-partisan votes for this stuff. The median voter would probably support it, but special interests won't and only one party will get behind it.
First of all, thank you for allowing free subscribers to post. I'd go bankrupt if I paid for every source I read. Second, I recently elicited a stunned Pikachu face from a friend for suggesting that not all republicans, by default Trump supporters in 2024, are insane conspiracy toting racists. My mild-mannered, thoughtful cousin-in-law believes his policies are better for the country, no conspiracies or hate is involved. Shallow, image driven politics is dangerous.
I’ve experienced the same problem all my life, as I’ve never wanted to associate myself with either left-wingers or right-wingers. “If you aren’t on our side, you must be on the other side.” Sigh. The two-party system that you have in the USA must make it worse. I live in Spain, where there are more parties; but they still tend to be divided into parties of the left and parties of the right.
Apologies again for the incorrect inference of your politics. I was basing that bad read on a comment you might have made on ACX about getting a “What’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this” vibe when you were an undergrad and I was imagining someone in the vein of a young Bill Buckley. It’s also entirely possible you never said anything of the sort, so my bad.
I have a hobby of building up fictional back stories for the regular commenters there. A weird way to amuse oneself but it gives me a chuckle now then.
Carl Pham hasn’t been there in a while but I had him as a former Jesuit priest, speaking 6 languages proficiently and still being an occasional advisor to the pope.
I was sorry to see him go. With time his back story might have become a novel.
Sometimes this can be headed off by anticipating the reaction and stating up-front, "No, I'm not a fan of person X, but that's no excuse for railroading him," etc. I do appreciate the frustration of encountering people who don't make any effort to think about whether their assumptions of you actually fit anything you've said.
It might be illuminating to examine occasions where the usual Manichean lines blink out of existence, and suddenly the 50-50 split turns into 90-10.
The most recent example I can think of would be 9/11. Check any approval poll around then. Before September, Bush rated probably around 40-50%, probably attributable to the usual political lines (and maybe exacerbated by the legal problems around the 2000 election). After September, approval shot up to around 90%, and the cause was clear.
One obvious prediction to make is that grave external threats drive out this type of bickering. One obvious counterexample is COVID. One response I have to this is that COVID might not have rated as a grave external threat to many people - possibly coupled with a conditioned belief that we can't believe everything our institutions tell us.
As one of the "non-neutral" commenters highlighted, I'll just note that I was commenting while also supervising a toddler, and had gotten through three or so of your posts without figuring out for sure whether you agree with my view that Trump is quite unusual in his willingness to grab for extralegal power and his intent to use power for personal advancement. Absent that frame, I expect you'd be indifferent between him and Biden, or slightly prefer Trump (on grounds that he'll do less, because inept and unpopular with the sorts of establishment lawyers who know how to get things done), or, as you say is your preference, prefer the President be from whatever party Congress is not from.
I may be unusual in having a larger-than-standard dose of a kind of Puritan-origin type of thinking, fairly common in the U.S., especially in the Northeast and Colorado/Utah/Idaho, which tend me to think corruption at the top can take everyone, or nearly everyone, right along with it (the Dietrich Bonhoeffers of the world excepted). But I admit I still am confused about what you really think of Trump's character... do you think he is disgusted by Roger Stone's conversation with a cop re: assassinating members of congress, and will ensure that no hint of endorsing violence toward his enemies is permitted among those who work for him?
Like you say, 'Most people are not very interested in political, economic, historical matters,...' However, 'Most people enjoy cheering for their team. ' That really sums it all up.
I'm annoyed by the same phenomenon, but I also catch myself doing something similar enough that it might be almost indistinguishable in some circumstances.
In my case, when it comes to US politics, I figure both sides are (ahem) political animals, which means they rarely tell the truth, never give a truly balanced evaluation, and crave power badly enough to convince themselves that otherwise unethical behaviours are OK in this context. (And that's the ones that _aren't_ outright sociopaths.) There may be a few idealists not yet corrupted, but they are probably teenagers.
Yet I can and do class people in one or other American political bucket after hearing a handful of their opinions, and am rarely surprised by their later statements.
I have had the same experience, even with my good friends. After Trump was elected, I didn't join in with those who inserted in every conversation, relevant or not, something like "Well, we have a president who <something horrible>" I never joined in, even though it was clear they expected me to also denounce Trump. One friend noticing my lack of response, turned to me and asked "You don't LIKE Trump, do you?!" Years later, she still thinks she knows what I think about every possible political issue, because she has lumped me in with the group of people who wear MAGA hats, follow QAnon, and watch Fox News. I've tried to explain to her what a libertarian believes, and that I recognize the nuance in all these issues, but it's useless. The only way we stay friends now is to never, ever discuss politics at all.
Keep sharing your thoughts, David. It's nice to know that some other people try to think about issues from first principles, instead of as a matter of what one's tribe has told them to think.
Unfortunately gone is that period of history in the US and Australia after WW2 where a more bi-partisan attitude was applied to politics generally as most of the then adult male population (including politicians) had fought in either WW1 or WW2 (and many females had served in the military themselves or the war effort generally and had lost loved ones).
There was a more open society where both sides of politics hoped that their children didn't have to go through what they had had to endure. It grew, for many, out of a mate-ship under fire where all were equal.
We now have the luxury where wars are fought by the few and the remainder have time to be selfish.
Where we are misrepresented for our views (where we try to use reason and logic to discuss a subject), little can be done to correct that misrepresentation.
I believe Mark Twain once said:
"Never argue with an idiot as he (she) will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience.
Since I taught in a political science department, it was interesting to watch my students try to put me in a partisan box. And my friends on the Right and the Left simply have come to regard me as a political nutcase. You, David, unfortunately probably aren't in a position to allow yourself to be regarded as a nutcase of any type.
Once my department got used to me it was kind of fun. Two of my best friends were one a hardcore Army brat Marxist and the other a guilt-ridden conservative Lutheran. We all enjoyed good beer. And we enjoyed discussing politics, knowing each others basic thoughts, I think we all learned quite a bit from each other.
But that doesn't happen, or work well, in the ordinary world. People like having a rooting interest that doesn't require much thought. And they don't like defending their team. They think its obvious their team is always the best and should win every game/election if the other team doesn't cheat.
I almost lost a good libertarian of some 20 years when I merely predicted, about 6 weeks out, that I thought Trump might likely win Michigan (where we both resided) and that if he did that would probably mean he'd win the Presidency. My libertarian was aghast. How could I dare support Trump. I pointed out that I didn't, but I had no rooting interest, I didn't like Trump at all and despised Clinton (partly because I am a veteran and I believed and believe that she held a particular animus for the military and anyone who had ever served voluntarily), and that my read of the lack of Clinton yard signs and supportive chatter told me she was in trouble.
He couldn't accept that I was applying observation and logic neutrally when Trump was so icky. (He didn't say icky, but that was the gist.) He eventually got past it, but it was touch and go. And he is generally a very logical fellow.
Ah, well, some of us oddballs are very irritating to the two fan crowds.
I am, however, a 70 year fan of the best team in major league baseball, the St Louis Cardinals, and I'll fight anyone who denies that.
Please keep casting your pearls; the swine will do what they always do and the non-swine will apprehend what you write.
An excerpt from The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. “For many months during the election campaign, my close friends urged me to declare my support for John Kennedy. I spent many troubled hours searching for the responsible and fair decision. I was impressed by his qualities, by many elements in his record, and by his program. I had learned to enjoy and respect his charm and his incisive mind. But I made very clear to him that I did not endorse candidates publicly and that I could not come to the point that I would change my views on this.”
One thing that might help is to make it very clear that you don’t endorse any candidate.
It probably won’t have much of an effect.
Other solutions are to stop making any comments about candidates; or to have faith that most of your readers understand your libertarian views. The bothersome comments are coming from very few, but loud commenters.
We like hearing your views on candidates. You might also go whole hog in the other direction and do deeper analysis on both candidates.
Politics, as a very wise man once said, is the mind-killer.
I used to take a "politics don't matter attitude". Eventually, all policies trend toward the median voter, right?
But after 2020 I changed my mind. There really can be a big difference depending on whether an R or a D is in charge. Part of this was COVID where policy was important and varied wildly, but you could reference the entire George Floyd era. Does the median voter believe in 12 genders and the 1619 project? And yet that's what we got.
There are other things that have changed slowly. There may not have been as big a difference in economic conditions in CA and FL in the 1980s or 90s, but today there is a huge difference.
Lastly, the issue that most animates me is school vouchers. It's very obvious that only red states are going to implement it, that there will be zero bi-partisan votes for this stuff. The median voter would probably support it, but special interests won't and only one party will get behind it.
First of all, thank you for allowing free subscribers to post. I'd go bankrupt if I paid for every source I read. Second, I recently elicited a stunned Pikachu face from a friend for suggesting that not all republicans, by default Trump supporters in 2024, are insane conspiracy toting racists. My mild-mannered, thoughtful cousin-in-law believes his policies are better for the country, no conspiracies or hate is involved. Shallow, image driven politics is dangerous.
I’ve experienced the same problem all my life, as I’ve never wanted to associate myself with either left-wingers or right-wingers. “If you aren’t on our side, you must be on the other side.” Sigh. The two-party system that you have in the USA must make it worse. I live in Spain, where there are more parties; but they still tend to be divided into parties of the left and parties of the right.
Apologies again for the incorrect inference of your politics. I was basing that bad read on a comment you might have made on ACX about getting a “What’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this” vibe when you were an undergrad and I was imagining someone in the vein of a young Bill Buckley. It’s also entirely possible you never said anything of the sort, so my bad.
I have a hobby of building up fictional back stories for the regular commenters there. A weird way to amuse oneself but it gives me a chuckle now then.
Carl Pham hasn’t been there in a while but I had him as a former Jesuit priest, speaking 6 languages proficiently and still being an occasional advisor to the pope.
I was sorry to see him go. With time his back story might have become a novel.
The problem is that neutrals are effectively free-riders.
Sometimes this can be headed off by anticipating the reaction and stating up-front, "No, I'm not a fan of person X, but that's no excuse for railroading him," etc. I do appreciate the frustration of encountering people who don't make any effort to think about whether their assumptions of you actually fit anything you've said.
It might be illuminating to examine occasions where the usual Manichean lines blink out of existence, and suddenly the 50-50 split turns into 90-10.
The most recent example I can think of would be 9/11. Check any approval poll around then. Before September, Bush rated probably around 40-50%, probably attributable to the usual political lines (and maybe exacerbated by the legal problems around the 2000 election). After September, approval shot up to around 90%, and the cause was clear.
One obvious prediction to make is that grave external threats drive out this type of bickering. One obvious counterexample is COVID. One response I have to this is that COVID might not have rated as a grave external threat to many people - possibly coupled with a conditioned belief that we can't believe everything our institutions tell us.
As one of the "non-neutral" commenters highlighted, I'll just note that I was commenting while also supervising a toddler, and had gotten through three or so of your posts without figuring out for sure whether you agree with my view that Trump is quite unusual in his willingness to grab for extralegal power and his intent to use power for personal advancement. Absent that frame, I expect you'd be indifferent between him and Biden, or slightly prefer Trump (on grounds that he'll do less, because inept and unpopular with the sorts of establishment lawyers who know how to get things done), or, as you say is your preference, prefer the President be from whatever party Congress is not from.
I may be unusual in having a larger-than-standard dose of a kind of Puritan-origin type of thinking, fairly common in the U.S., especially in the Northeast and Colorado/Utah/Idaho, which tend me to think corruption at the top can take everyone, or nearly everyone, right along with it (the Dietrich Bonhoeffers of the world excepted). But I admit I still am confused about what you really think of Trump's character... do you think he is disgusted by Roger Stone's conversation with a cop re: assassinating members of congress, and will ensure that no hint of endorsing violence toward his enemies is permitted among those who work for him?
Like you say, 'Most people are not very interested in political, economic, historical matters,...' However, 'Most people enjoy cheering for their team. ' That really sums it all up.
I'm annoyed by the same phenomenon, but I also catch myself doing something similar enough that it might be almost indistinguishable in some circumstances.
In my case, when it comes to US politics, I figure both sides are (ahem) political animals, which means they rarely tell the truth, never give a truly balanced evaluation, and crave power badly enough to convince themselves that otherwise unethical behaviours are OK in this context. (And that's the ones that _aren't_ outright sociopaths.) There may be a few idealists not yet corrupted, but they are probably teenagers.
Yet I can and do class people in one or other American political bucket after hearing a handful of their opinions, and am rarely surprised by their later statements.