Mass Voting Behavior
How to create an echo chamber.
For a variety of reasons, I’ve been on Reddit quite a bit over the last year or so after having been largely absent from it for many years. For most of that time, I’ve mostly been on non-political sites related to hobby interests but, since the election, I’ve also spent some time participating in the politics, world politics, and fednews subreddits.
What I’ve noticed there mirrors what I see here but with a massively larger universe. The rules of the site, dubbed “Reddiquette,” clearly state that up/down voting is designed to measure value added: “If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it.”
In reality, almost everyone uses it to display their opinion of the post headline, without any regard for the article.
This is especially amusing on the politics and world politics subs, where the only thing one is allowed to post is a direct link to a news article on an approved site. The politics sub further specifies that the headline must be exactly that used on the site, minus a handful of keywords (Breaking, etc.).
And yet, because most of the participants in these subs are anti-Trump, they’ll simply downvote any article whose headline—and these are news articles, not opinion pieces—suggests that anyone is happy with Trump’s performance. Even if it’s an opinion poll from a reputable organization.
The fednews site, naturally, is mostly federal employees frightened or anxious by the various DOGE transgresions. But the same thing is happening there. Any suggestion that a lawsuit is likely to fail because a particular action is likely to be within Trump’s authority will be downvoted.
The result, of course, is an echo chamber, as anyone who deviates even slightly from the mob consensus is viewed as a troll.
We instituted an up/down voting system here a long time ago in order to encourage people to contribute usefully to the conversation rather than just trolling. Once it became clear that any comment supporting conservative positions or politicians would get downvoted, we removed the downvote option, leaving only upvotes.
This helped, I think, in that thoughtful comments tend to get upvotes. But, still, it’s clear that comments that echo the left-leaning consensus of the commentariat get rewarded. And there are those who miss the ability to downvote, since it ostensibly removes the need to directly respond to trolling. (Although, people seem naturally predisposed to do that, regardless.)
I’m not sure what to make of all this, to be honest. There’s no way to enforce a rule to upvote based on quality, not viewpoint. And I think this site, in particular, is going to have a hard time attracting thoughtful Trump supporters (and, yes, I think they exist considering how many of them I know) given the academic, analysis-driven nature of the commentary here. But I do wish there was an ability to encourage thoughtful cross-viewpoint exchange.
Back when AOL political chat rooms were only lightly tilted (labeled From the Left, From the Right), there were a handful of conservative chatters who routinely articulated their politics firmly, but not obnoxiously. One had worked as a legislative aide to a Republican Congressman from Arizona, and he brought an insider’s perspective to the chat. He also responded – respectfully – to anyone who challenged his viewpoint. It was interesting and almost enjoyable just to read his back and forth. (I would bet he is an anti-Trumper now.) I abandoned the chats when they became rightwing cesspools – the “left” rooms were full of GOPer trolls, the “right” rooms were a Fox News echo chamber. The comments here are interesting and helpful – I particularly enjoy reading Jen, who, like the AZ guy referenced above, has legislative/political experience, and thus offers a perspective that sheds light and gives a political junkie – like me – something more to consider. Almost goes without say – because I am saying it – teeing up conversations as Dr JJ and Dr.T do every day – is also a talent for them and a gift to us, so many thanks to both of you!
Is your claim that they are thoughtful on general, but not about Trump? Or that they are thoughtful about their defense of Trump?
I can’t say I’ve scoured the internet for what I would consider to be thoughtful defenses of DOGE or Trump in general. But I also haven’t really seen any.
Maybe the problem lies with me. If that is the case, I need to be pointed to an actual thoughtful defense specific to Trump and DOGE.
Separately, I think it is important to note that a simple up or down vote does not really capture why someone would choose to vote or which way.
Binary choices don’t work for complex issues.
I suspect that this problem goes back before there were newspapers named “Democrat” and “Republican.” To some degree, it’s human nature to sort by belief, to some degree it constitutes a philosophical defense mechanism. There are probably other factors and rationales, but in any event, it takes courage to venture outside of a comfort zone.
And strength most of us lack.
I believe this is represented by the Thumbs Up uniary* polling system adopted by OTB.
*I invented the word. I’ll notify Funk and Wagnalls next week.
@Kurtz: I keep banging on about this, I know, but it’s still possible that American conservatism is moving in directions and toward goals for which no consensus is possible. The failure of dialectical philosophy is still that there’s not always a synthesis. Only mutually exclusive thesis and antithesis.
My subscription toWAPO hasn’t run out yet. They’ve “improved” their comment system. Used to be you had the opportunity to upvote. Now you get four buttons: “Clarifying”, “New to me”, “Provocative”, or “Thoughtful”. None of these capture, “Well said, and I agree”, or “I hope WAPO notes this criticism”. I thought it was silly and started hitting all four buttons on comments I liked. WAPO appears to have caught on to that and now you can only choose one button, Almost everybody just uses “Thoughtful” as equivalent to like, probably because the button location is convenient for right handers. Having only an “upvote” or “like” option isn’t perfect, but it does seem better than the obvious alternatives.
Along with commenters, it’s become hard to find thoughtful conservative pundits. I think that’s partly a function of the Republican party having moved to such extreme, and essentially indefensible, positions. Let’s get away from James friends. Can we name three major media columnists, who speak for a significant faction of the Republican Party, that are really worth reading? OK, I read some in an effort to try to understand the opposition. But three “thoughtful Trump supporters” who make persuasive, intellectually honest, arguments. When I started reading OTB it was because James andSteven and Doug did that, but James and Steven can’t anymore. Rolling through the lists at WAPO and NYT, I don’t see anybody.
Just eliminate any voting. Not very prevalent on this site, but lots of bots out there anyway, posting, liking etc…It’s better for people who truly want to engage to reply “I agree…etc. ” or “I disagree etc.. ” clicking a thumbs up is not really engaging in the discussion, it’s like watching and clapping.
I love Reddit and use it both personally and professionally. However, it’s important to note that its users skew younger and male.
I do stay far away from the politics subs – the closest I get to that are subs I’m in for my state (Colorado) and local areas, which can get spicy, but are often a good source of info. The non-political subs tend to be a lot better overall in terms of quality comments and utility, and I think the voting system works much better there.
One great thing about it is it’s competitive – if you don’t like how a sub is run, you can create your own. Another thing I like about Reddit is that, in most cases, the moderators enforce the sub rules consistently – a least in the areas I visit (I may be self-selecting here).
I’ve long been a vocal opponent of the voting system here at OTB for all the reasons you cite for making it problematic on Reddit, but I think it’s tolerable now that the downvote was removed. For political content, voting mainly ends up being a measure of popularity or community zeitgeist, not quality.
@Kurtz: I too would like to see this mythical creature. I can sort of imagine a thoughtful Trump voter, as binary political choices can lead to some odd outcomes, but a thoughtful Trump supporter?
Someone thoughtful who supports Trump, the man and the policies? Someone who says “on balance, threatening Canada is a net positive.”
Wait… is it Superdestroyer?!? He offered carefully reasoned and thoughtful racist critiques based on the Great Replacement theory. I could see him adding up all the minorities and white people in Canada, and estimating whether annexing the Great White North will slow down the demographic march to a majority minority country.
@Andy: I agree with most of what you said, as a regular Reddit user myself. I just want to amplify this:
Even then, there’s a fair bit of “I am happy”=upvote and “I am unhappy”=downvote.
That is probably inescapable with human beings. It’s a think that psychology research struggles with all the time, it being the category of “self-report”.
James, what’s the problem you’re trying to address? Most Outside the Beltway commenters probably don’t want more viewpoints. Besides, speaking as an unwanted viewpoint-holder, I don’t see now a change in voting policy would change the environment, except that downvotes would discourage any on-the-fence commenters or even regular liberal commenters who disagree on a particular issue.
@Fortune:..Most Outside the Beltway commenters probably don’t want more viewpoints. Besides, speaking as an unwanted viewpoint-holder, I don’t see now a change in voting policy would change the environment,..
Would you like a little cheese with that whine?
@Fortune: I disagree. Many on here welcome a debate. But you have to make an argument, provide empirical evidence etc… You can’t just come around and drop what about isms off topic, non sequiturs, etc… Otherwise you will likely not be taken seriously, regardless of your political leanings.
@Fortune:
I’m only an occasional commenter so maybe I don’t speak for the more prolific OTB gang, but I don’t think this could be more wrong. It’s not more viewpoints that aren’t wanted–it’s the hit-and-run way those viewpoints get delivered that brings negative responses. When someone throws out a provocative statement without supporting evidence, then refuses to answer serious questions that are raised in response, it’s hard not to wonder if they were just looking to provoke rather than discuss.
I came to this blog years ago looking for a place to hear what smart, honest conservatives had to say because I believed that John Stuart Mill had it right when he said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that,” and I wanted to be sure I was hearing both sides of the issues that mattered to me. Our hosts filled that niche when I started following them. They don’t anymore, because although they still seem pretty smart and pretty honest to me, they no longer qualify for what passes as conservative in Trump’s world.
So I, for one, would love to see more comments with well-supported arguments for a more conservative viewpoint. The problem (at least from my perspective) is that too often the people who come here to offer conservative points of view seem to be more interested in throwing bombs than advancing arguments.
@Mister Bluster: Not a whine. James asked a question and I have a unique viewpoint on it. And what, am I wrong? Am i secretly popular here? Would adding a downvote option or getting rid of upvotes change anything?
@Roger: Personally, I think it’s hard to justify current conservative thinking, but I, too, would love to read something (well anything, for that matter) that does a good job of it. Or even a reasonable job.
@Fortune: “speaking as an unwanted viewpoint-holder,”
I suppose it’s possible that you actually do hold a viewpoint, but you have consistently refused to express or explain it. Instead you do your cutesy rhetorical questions and pretend you’re making a point, while all the time running away as fast as possible from a simple declarative statement.
And all the whining in the world isn’t going to convince anyone that you’re anything different.
There’s a good example of the dynamic. I make a comment to the original article, three people reply to me and I don’t have time to address them, so I throw a rock at the dumbest one. No one walks away satisfied.
Or as Fezzik says in The Princess Bride, “you use different moves when you’re fighting half a dozen people than when you only have to be worried about one.”
@Charley in Cleveland: That’s very kind of you to say.
@Fortune:
Perhaps this deserves some examination. Rather than “throwing a rock,” (I’m not dignifying your “dumbest one” comment), why don’t you wait until you have time to respond, and engage with one of the others by providing evidence to support your point?
This literally is the dynamic that brings proper exchanges to a halt. It’s not NICE to throw rocks, AND it certainly damages your credibility. Why take the sh!tposting way out?
@Fortune:
Unpopular opinion, I think this is spot on for the majority of people. We all want to convince ourselves that we want other viewpoints, but at the end of the day few people really want them. This holds true for all sides of any given point. Generally speaking we all look for agreement, with some options to move on the edges.
FWIW, I include myself in the prefer “validation” category. Congnative dissonance is hella uncomfortable
Additionally, I’d go so far as to say that most people also have a hard time separating opinion from fact-based opinion.
Again, as @wr points out, you rarely if ever express an actual opinion beyond first-year seminar non-commital comments like “I think the discussion of bribery is ‘interesting.'” I get it, that’s a common tick that I had to get beaten out of me.
BTW, I write that because I honestly am interested in understanding your viewpoint.
It also gets to a broader point that most people mistake opinion for “grounded opinion.” Even more so that alternative viewpoints, people really don’t want alternative grounded opinions (especially based in expertise). Perhaps the most common example of this is everytime that Steven gets into a discussion about structural issues driving agentive decisions.
So, I guess the question to ask, since you’re invoking the “smartest man in the world,” is why are YOU choosing to address the dumbest one? I mean, I get the desire to go for the easiest response–but it it’s not even satisfying you, what’s the point?
Update: I see @Jen beat me to the final point.
@Jc:
I don’t even want a debate.
If there was a conservative poster who would pop in, explain why insane policy #12 was good actually, in a way that could be followed by someone not up on right wing meme culture and without relying on absolute bullshit (Demoncrats committed fraud by hiding Biden’s senility and drooling!)… even if they posted and then dipped out that would be great.
Instead we get a few people popping in to let us know that they are stuck in a bubble of conspiracy theories and lies, and who seem to want applause.
The closest thing we have to a thoughtful conservative voice here is Andy. But he is more libertarian or something than anything approaching modern conservatives.
(To be clear, I am not saying he is not thoughtful. I often don’t agree with him, but I understand where he is coming from.)
Our dear hosts are small-c conservative but entirely out of step with what passes for any conservative movement in the US. Raging leftists at this point.
@wr:
Flows naturally from the cutesy “I don’t support Trump, but…” fakery. When the foundation of one’s house of cards is dishonesty with one’s self, bad faith inevitably follows.
Unpopular opinion: there are plenty of alternative and different viewpoints on OTB. That’s why there’s spirited and often heated discussions here all the time.
It’s just that certain specific viewpoints find themselves made anathema because they have stench of dishonesty, trying desperately to defend the indefensible.
Having run out of defenses, we got a new knot yesterday from the “conservatives”: yes Trump and Musk are “the bad guys,” but it’s actually the fault of Obama and Trump’s antagonists. Spin spin spin.
When someone who supports Trump can’t admit it, it’s because said support is not morally or intellectually defensible. “I support Trump because he’s a racist and I am too” is a good faith defense, but an amoral one. That’s why so many for whom this is true won’t say so out loud.
When those who’ve spent weeks defending Musk’s incompetence are suddenly blaming MAGA on Obama and Democrats, it’s because they’ve run out of excuses.
My views get criticized here. All the time. Others respond to criticism with whining and self-pity rather than standing on business. They whine because their Trumpism doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Those looking for somewhat thoughtful pro-Trump views might try reading the National Review from time to time. Note: many NR conservatives are considered woke RINOs, as on occasion they dare to critique MAGA’s cacophony of errors.
@Matt Bernius:
I want to push back on this a bit. I think a lot of us would take other viewpoints, but so much of what passes for “heterodox” thinking is usually just a ton of lies, bullshit, or just straight nonsense that is shoveled at us and we are just expected to take it because some marketplace
of ideas garbage.
Like, I’m coming to the shocking realization (over the last couple of weeks) that not only do we (as readers & commentators here) know a whole hell of a lot more about politics in general, some of us approach subject matter experts on various things. Sometimes it’s hobbyist level expertise, but sometimes its more. Like, we just know more than average. Even the trolls need to have a better than average knowledge of what they are talking about, even if they only use that to piss other people off.
Sure, there’s probably a lot of motivated thinking and eliding going on, but I think most of us just know when a viewpoint or argument is wrong, bad, or just absolute shit.
@DK: This is the strangest reaction: when I say “I believe X” and the response is “no you don’t”. Go ahead, DK, say something about Trump being attracted to his daughter, it doesn’t matter, I’m not really responding to you, I just wanted to highlight your comment for other commenters. Someone asks me to explain my positions, well the first thing to address in our 2025 political scene is I don’t support Trump. What can I do if someone doesn’t believe me? If someone says “you sound like someone who supports Trump”, trust me, you’re not listening. I can’t make you crawl out of your thought patterns. You want to know what a Trump supporter thinks, I might be able to get closer than you can, but I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m not a secret Trump supporter, why would I be, why would I come to Outside the Beltway as a Trump supporter and deny it? It’s popular on the left to say if someone tells you who he is, believe him. Except you don’t.
@Beth:
QFE. People have all sorts of competing views on sexuality and relationships. Some (like my parents) think the so-called traditional heterosexual monogamy model is best. Others prefer the single life. I know gays who believe gay relationships are uniquely transcendent (and those who think only lesbians really have it figured out). Some would never consider not being in an open relationship. I’ve seen debates over the acceptable boundaries of open relationships. Some champion age-gap relationships, others scoff at them.
But mostly these people tolerate all these different forms of sexuality and relationship (including my parents). None of them tolerate pedophilia. So it would be inaccurate to characterize their specific intolerance of pedophilia as “they don’t accept any alternative sexuality.” No, they just don’t accept pedophiles.
If you have a room full of people — some progressive, some former McCain and Reagan voters, some doctrinaire liberals, some liberaltarian independents, etc. — with different views on Israel, Palestine, whether or not Biden should have been forced out, US-Russia relations, how Democrats need to comport themselves, the definition of fascism, and on and on…
…sorry that’s not a echo chamber hostile to “different viewpoints” just because there’s a specific viewpoint most of these people won’t coddle. I do know of liberal echo chambers online. Nice places.
@DK:
Can’t upvote this enough. Bravo!
@Fortune:
That doesn’t explain anything. This may be part of the problem you are facing. You have, however, made plenty of other statements, been asked to explain, and you skated. I’m thinking here of the time you made a statement, then complained that we took your words at face value instead of “kind of getting what [you] meant.”
That statement had less to do with Trump than it did the Constitution itself. So, regardless of your choice at the polls, you are still expressing a view without providing a foundation for it.
I’ll tell you what, I will choose to believe your claim that you are not a Trump supporter. In exchange, you have to believe me when I tell you that some of my closest friends are Trump supporters. I respect those people’s intelligence, but not necessarily how they think about politics. That respect goes both ways.
Think about what that means in relation to you.
The saying is, “when someone shows you who they are, believe them”. That is an important distinction. The fact that you cast it differently does not speak well of how you approach these conversations.
Beyond that, the issue is that even if you did not vote for him, you are here attempting to defend some of his actions, so your actual vote is irrelevant–you are expressing support for what he is doing even if you think he is unfit to be President. In short, regardless of what you say about Trump, you are still stuck with defending the parts of his agenda you agree with, because you are…wait for it…attempting to defend the actions you support.
The orange man bad meme from Trump supporters exists for a reason–it is an attempt to tie opposition to the person rather than the policies. The irony is that it says more about those who say it and believe it than it does their opposition. It demonstrates that they are the ones who base their support on the person rather than the policies. It is certainly more complicated than that, but it also has a grain of truth to it. Again, I don’t know that you are part of that group, but you do display similar dispositions.
Here is the bottom line, Fortune, you are on a site that has a much wider range of viewpoints than you seem willing to recognize. They range from center-right to center-left to well to the left of mainstream.
Hell, I have never made the claim that I am anything other than outside the mainstream but have had someone say, “I’ve never met a Leftist who didn’t think they were in the center.” I am pretty sure it was not you. But you seem to think that we are all in lockstep. We definitely are not.
But the majority of your posts reflect that you belive we are. And that is on you, not us.
As @Gustopher points out, look at the interactions with @Andy. I have criticized some others here for how they respond to him. But if you look at how I interact with him and compare it to the conversations you and I have had, you should see a major difference. That probably is not a justification for the aggression and frustration I have directed at you in some threads, but it probably should make you re-think your view of how you fit in here. Meaning, take the criticism you receive to heart, and maybe you will find a better experience here.
If you read my posts, try to remember that you are talking to someone who has read pretty widely. I sought out Huemer and Rothbard. I have read quite a bit of Adam Smith. I have read a good bit of the Bible. That is just a sample. Not only have I read them, I spent time thinking about them. I didn’t read just to say I did it. I took their views seriously. Why? Because I see no value in existing in an echo chamber.
But I expect people who venture here to make a similar commitment to actual engagement–there are plenty of places to go to engage in shallow discussions.
If you do not have the time, that’s fine. But it’s hard to square that time constraint claim with some of the other things you have said here. When I take your posts as a whole, I see someone who feels put upon, but is unwilling to accept that maybe some of the criticism is correct. That is juvenile, but par for the course in today’s America.
@Matt Bernius:
I had suspicions wrt this long before this thread.
I have kicked around a lot of explanations for @Fortune’s posts here. I’ve expressed some of them here in responses to them.
It sometimes seems like they are here specifically to validate their assumptions about ‘the left’. I have not drawn that as a definitive conclusion; I have tried to rule it out. But I cannot do that, either.
ETA: To clarify: avoiding the difficult responses suggests an attempt to avoid discomfort.
@James
“thoughtful Trump supporters (and, yes, I think they exist considering how many of them I know)”
Where can I find things written by thoughtful Trump supporters? And what do you mean by thoughtful? I know someone who is very intelligent, PHD in civil engineering, now retired, who supports Trump. I suppose he could be described as thoughtful in general but he also believes in conspiracy theories and alternative facts.
I could understand if someone told me “All I care about is ending abortion. Yeah, he’s nuts. But he’s the only choice I had”. I would think that person was underestimating the risks but I get it.
But how does a thoughtful person support something like this : “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”?
@Scott O:
A thoughtful authoritarian.
Assuming that all other expressions of position are sincere, then one could question their thoughtfulness if, for example, they also claim fealty to the Constitution.
@Fortune:
Upon reading this thread, and to put down a thought I had even before this post existed, I would submit that if OTB was, in fact, inhospitable to dissent there would not have been such an ongoing attempt by a number of regulars to try and draw out your views.
Kurtz and Matt have really, really tried to get you to elaborate on your views. I have repeatedly asked for deeper engagement.
This thread has been, at least in part, an attempt by several regular denizens to take you seriously and explain why you get pushback.
While I am sure there are other such places on the vast and wide internet, I would suggest that this is not the norm at all.
@Fortune:
To expand on several responses, I think it’s a mixed bag. Some people here genuinely want to read well-argued counter-points, while others reflexively turn to ad hominem and other dishonest rhetorical tricks to avoid engagement with the points made.
I’m also a person here who is semi-frequently an unwanted viewpoint holder, and I get a lot of both kinds of pushback when that happens, both fair and unfair. That’s just the nature of the beast. That is just the reality of online forums and has been an enduring characteristic since I started debating on BBSs in the 1980s.
More broadly, humans are social animals with strong incentives for conformity to group norms and ideas. Given that reality, viewpoints not held by the majority of any group will inevitably be controversial and generate pushback.
You may have noticed that my comments here are often very long. One big reason for that is because I have to bat away the unfair characterizations, address the fair points, and spend sufficient effort such that what I’m writing is understood and can’t easily be intentionally misunderstood (not an easy task with only written words). Taking contrary positions is inevitably going to require more effort to defend them from a hostile audience. Again, the nature of the beast.
I think the commentariat should be kinder to newcomers, but at this point, you should be under no illusions about the zeitgeist here. If you want to disagree or make a point that is at odds with that zeitgeist, then at least make it well. Thowing a rock at the dumbest response accomplishes what, exactly? It only hurts you and makes you look like a troll. It allows the people who disagree with you to not take your points seriously and reinforces the idea that those on the other side are just trolls who are dishonest and unable or unwilling to take a position and defend it.
I get that most people don’t have time to get into lengthy debates after entering a lion’s den where there will be a high degree of fair and unfair pushback, but you can at least make yourself look more reasonable by making a short, substantive opinion or point in lieu of rock throwing at the dumbest response. I’d also suggest picking your battles. There are many times I choose not to make an unwelcome comment on something here because I don’t want to get sucked in, and usually, the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze. I’m still working on that part.
@Fortune:
Here is a good place to examine.
You have made this claim, which I will accept as true, but here’s the deal: you always show up to defend things Trump does. Moreover, when given opportunities to elaborate on areas where you do not support him, you never do so.
When directly asked on this topic, numerous times, you have not ever explained what this stance means to you. You have never helped us understand your position.
When you say “I am not a Trump supporter” it sounds very much like people I have known who would say “I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian!” but it just so happens that they voted Republican and more or less supported the Republicans both with their vote and with whatever they had to say about politics.
It was a way to deny direct association with a party (and a way to dodge being responsible for them) while at the same time really obfuscating their position.
Further: if lots of people think you sound like a Trump supporter, maybe that should tell you how you are coming across.
During the past 10 years of MAGA scorched earth (and another 8 years of Tea Party prior) I have spent innumerable hours and words bringing the data, and constructing rational arguments, against burning this county’s social-economic-governance to the ground in favor of fallacious “notions” deliberately pushed viral into national consciousness.
I no longer have interest or patience to accord equivalency to the policy positions of a Trump supporter (or the Trump strategist deliberately manipulating the brains of their targets).
What these people espouse is dangerous, and destructive to everything that generations and generations have built upon, fought for, sacrificed for, to create what is in fact, a pinnacle of social and communal organization, despite all the short comings, all the failings. Despite.
Their rationale is always lacking; they consistently cite misinformation, disinformation, or have an information hole
The money and the individuals underwriting the MAGA mentality is also dangerous. The trajectory of their goals (when ultimately uncovered) seem to arc towards a Putin styled kleptocratic oligarchy. They betray the values of fairness, access, and betray an increasing egalitarianism, that lifted the working classes to a place at the table with a voice of their own. They betray a lifetime of effort by generations of our families to create a stable, civil, educated community.
Look at the full length and breadth of the human condition, beleaguered by all kinds of affliction and deficit. Right here and right now, at this point in time, we have managed to configure a civilization that has been able to deliver “the mostest” for the most members. Not perfectly. But still. And yet, I know a good many Trump supporters who have very comfortable lives, and they are ready to burn this country down because they’ve gorged themselves on the “wrongly connected dots” spoonfed to them.
These Trump supporters lie about the Constitution. They lie about history. They lie about economics. They lie about immigrants eating dogs. They lie about Clinton something something pedophilia. They lie about talking to Putin. They lie about things they just did or just said. They lie about Jesus.
So no, I will not give their words the same consideration that I give to others, who despite our disagreement, remain committed to an honestly deliberative, empirical reality, and committed to compromise on process.
Earlier I @gVOR10: challenged the group, including our hosts, to name three Republican pundits worth reading. Other than for “know the enemy” reasons. Anybody got even one?
@gVOR10:
It depends on what you mean by “Republican pundit.” Who are some equivalent “Democratic pundits” that we can use as a guideline or standard?
@Andy: Jamelle Bouie. He has an incredibly strong background in political parties of the mid-1800s through the end of the Reconstruction. And it either explicitly or implicitly inspires a lot of his thinking about present day politics. I think it leaves him with some blind spots when it comes to fascism, but he’s still one of the most interesting columnists and pundits currently practicing the craft of puditry and columnating.
Ezra Klein is a far weaker thinker without Matt Yglesias (who is far, far weaker thinker without Ezra Klein), but his is often still worth listening to. Especially his podcast, where you will either be drawn in, or soothed to sleep by his gentle voice. He’s a little aggressively mainstream.
And, for a far, far less serious suggestion, I suggest the fine folks behind the QAnon Anonymous podcast — tracking the insane mostly-right-wing conspiracy theories. I’m not sure they are really pundits though, as their commentary is mostly of the “look at these freaks!” variety and the “oh crap, those freaks are now mainstream Republican”.
In a similar, not-quite-pundit podcast vein, I would suggest Chris Hayes’ “Why Is This Happening?” podcast, which is mostly interviews with minor left-leaning pundits, and usually at least aspires to not be reacting to the outrage of the week or day (he has a much less interesting MSNBC show for that). It’s a smorgasbord of left-leaning pundits and a bit hit or miss, as he sometimes injects himself into it a bit too much.
@gVOR10: I occasionally read French, but mostly to see an evangelical slant on conservative thinking in order to better understand evangelical political worldview. It doesn’t often work, and it still would be fair for you to characterize my reading as still in the “know your enemy” category if you chose to.
I’ve done this several times in the past. And yet it still comes up. So here we go again with a short list, off the top of my head, of right-leaning pundits/authors/commenters*:
-Yuval Levin
-Oren Cass
-Patrick Deneen
-Reihan Salam
-Rob Henderson
*Not sure if all would claim the R tag, but I think it’s fair to say they take a more right/conservative perspective.
[please don’t read this as a blanket or fitted-sheet endorsement of any of them or their positions]
@Mimai:
Pin it so you don’t have to type it again in a month.
P.S. You’re stuck endorsing everything those people have ever thought.
@Kurtz:
I hardly endorse my own thoughts and beliefs.
@Fortune:
From what I’ve observed, most of your comments whistle through the air and land with the thud of a rock.
Human nature generally doesn’t respond well to that.
Did you not ever experience a rock fight as a kid?
@Fortune: You show up here
–and NEVER ONCE have acknowledged that one of the commenters has made a fair point–about anything. This behavior is typical of Maga/Trump supporters.
We learn this in Kindergarten — I give you a starburst today… and you give me a Tootsie roll tomorrow. If you can’t acknowledge or give credit for a fair point made by a poster you aren’t going to be taken seriously. Never Back Down doesn’t play well here. I never back down either — from people that show a propensity to never back down.
@Jim X 32: the behavior described is also the hallmark of someone arguing in bad faith.
All that time spent and Fortune still can’t comprehend he’s not a Bold Truth Teller but rather a baby hummingbird that can’t fly yet and needs everyone’s help to get back to his nest before the end of the Cocomelon episode.
The reason there isn’t conservative opinion outside of “hurr durr must own libz” is because the left fixes and creates while the right is incapable of doing anything other than sharpshooting with no clear purpose. “Keep things the way they are benefiting the same people and exploiting every one else” is indeed a kind of a viewpoint.. and it’s an intellectual black hole.
And how many of them have written a paragraph justifying any of those political views outside of “I like truck some and gun more”? Indeed, pushing them on those justifications will also push the friendship because they also know there really is no answer.. but they just deeeply want Republicans to win because reasons and heritage of being a traitor in support of slavery. It’s emotional, not logical.
I’d bet you a drink and/or money, James, that:
The single salient difference between your conservative friends and the people who frequent this blog is that your conservative friends secretly ENJOY watching peoples’ lives get ruined [“Those Jobs Truly Were Excessive”] while most people who post here disagree with opinions of conservatives but still want them to make more money per hour and want them and their families to receive better health care.
@Fortune:
Look I know that it feels like we’re piling on–I almost didn’t write this, but I want to be true to my desire for clarity. As @Kurtz and @Steven L. Taylor call out, the following statement really isn’t useful:
The issue with this is you’ve boiled it down to an individual versus the policy positions that individual is advancing–for whatever reason. To some degree, I get this–at the end of the day we vote for individuals here in the US. So, I can totally understand anyone saying that they don’t support Trump.
It would be much more useful to talk about specific policies or actions being taken and your support for them. Or alternatively, to talk about your commitment to concepts higher than the individual. In recent week’s we’ve seen you rise to the defense of Trump and Musk against what you see as unfair accusations. Clarifying that ultimately you care more about “the truth” than individuals would help (though be aware if might open you up to more questions if you’re ignoring all the times the individuals you are defending assault “the truth” in far more egregious ways).
This gets to:
@Steven L. Taylor:
Sweet baby jeebus, 1000% times this. It sucks to internalize, but if everyone in a specific context is telling you something then 99.9999999999999% it really is about you, not them. I wrestled with this for the longest time. FWIW, my life turned out better when I realized that others are very well seeing something I’m not seeing.
@Beth:
I totally cosign this. Speaking from personal experience, what drew me to OTB back in the late aughts was finding this to be a great center-right blog. I’d grown up in a conservative-leaning household and spent most of my 20’s moving slowly left. James, Steven, Doug (RIP), and Alex attempted an even-handed, grounded approach to discussing politics.
I suspect that experience mirrors a lot of our left-leaning commenters.
And to be completely transparent, they shifted my views on a number of issues (in particular around things like the outsized role structure plays in politics).
And, with all that said, I also think everyone has their limits. Recently, I contributed to a series of posts on the Biden pardons. In those, despite always acknowledging that I totally understood WHY the pardons happened, I watched many commenters just jump over the arguments and suggest what I was doing was supporting Trump. Heck, despite attempting to ground my arguments in logic and a consistent ideology, those posts apparently helped lead to people quitting the site.
I’ve seen similar behavior on other posts that Steven and James have made.
Look everyone is entitled to their opinion. I also think it’s helpful to do occasional self-checks about how much discomfort a grounded opinion might be causing you (and how welcome that discomfort is).
@Gustopher:
Given those examples, to add to Mimai’s list, I’d put the right-leaning columnists at the NYT and most people working at the Dispatch – especially Jonah Golberg, Kevin Williamson, and Nick Cattogio (AKA the former “Allahpundit” from HotAir). I’d say most of these are more “conservative” than “Republican,” given the state of the current Republican party as being Trump’s bitch.
In my mind saying you do not support Trump does not mean you do not support Trumpism – you can be fully behind whatever policies he puts forward while thinking he’s personally a boor. If anything it can give one a veneer of ‘See, I’m not a partisan, I’m able to criticize people on my side’. It’s not unlike how during the Gaza posting days, people relatively freely criticized Netanyahu while posting in support of what he was actually doing.
@Assad K: Which is yet another example of how a person might be able to clarify their position.
@Assad K:
That’s exactly how most of the pro-Trumpism people I know put it, especially the anti-establishment types. There are also single or limited-issue voters who can subsume all the bad Trump stuff beneath the one or two things they care about. A few people in my family, for instance, voted for Trump because he is the more pro-life candidate. He is far from being a real pro-life candidate in their eyes, but he’s much better than any Democrat and especially Harris on that particular issue. Binary choice elections tend to force such choices.
@Fortune: Ah yes when you stated that abortion rights were the same as the right to suicide bomb people I attempted to engage you. You of course galloped to a new topic instead of confronting the reality of the policies you support. Which is that healthy women who want healthy babies are dying at much higher rates. That as a result of your preferred policies the USA’s maternity mortality rate is worse than some third world countries.
I’d love for you to actually engage in a thoughtful conversation about this.
Long term people here know that I’ve been down voted heavily by the brigade. Mostly for topics related to guns. I didn’t cry or run away. I continued to engage and will continue to engage in commentary/conversation here regardless of any voting numbers.
@Matt: I think this thread should put to rest any idea that Fortune wants to actually engage in conversation.
@Matt:
WAIT… what the heck now?
@Matt Bernius:
Wait, you missed that? Yes, @Fortune attempted to make an analogy between suicide bombing and abortion.
I guess I could see @Fortune taking umbrage at the way his post is characterized here. But that is the pattern–post something lacking meat, refuse to clarify, and either run away, or accuse everyone of intentionally misunderstanding. And still refuse to clarify.
I think that is what has been so confusing to me, even allowing for many different personal reasons for commenting. I know if I comment, and someone asks for clarification or responds in a way that implies misunderstanding, I want to explain what I meant. If your goal is not to communicate, then why are you communicating?
I think the comments in this thread indicate just how much of an echo chamber OTB has become (among the commentators at least). To say it’s only “orange man bad” comments at this point is an understatement. So why would someone like me, who vaguely supports President Trump, engage with the condescending elitist audience who comments here?
That’s a sincere question that I think is related to what you were getting at in this post. Somehow OTB is no longer an avenue for open inquiry and that really really (yes, really) bums me out.
@meh:
I’ve started and deleted this reply multiple times. I’m not sure the best way to approach this. So…
James has a point. A valid one.
Maybe the best way to start a conversation between the two of us is a request for clarification on this:
I will cop to some condescension.
But I expect, for lack of a better term, substance. Otherwise, I do not see the point in exchange.
Having said that, in some ways I get the difficulty. American political culture is mostly shallow. There are exceptions. And I admit that I see one side as much worse in that regard–right now. However, it is an issue on both sides of the aisle. And to be clear, I am not criticizing the electorate, per se, I place most of the blame on politicians and media.
Moreover, and I am pretty sure I am a minority among the commentariat on this, there is no reason the assymetry between sides of the aisle could not flip.
A note: It is specific to James. When I see someone describe him as on the Left, it genuinely bothers me. I have immense respect for James–it has nothing to do with him, really. But he is center-right from just about any standard perspective. Certainly if one looks at political factions in peer countries.
And in American politics, that description of his positions would have been non-controversial for individuals in the mainstream, what, 12 years ago? And this is coming from someone who freely admits he is well to the left of the mainstream.
Do you understand why that matters so much to me?
I say these things so that you can understand a little about my perspective.
Now, back to my request. I am really curious what you mean by elitist. I think defining a fuzzy term is a necessary step. Otherwise, it is likely we end up talking past one another. I have thoughts, but they depend on what you mean.
@Matt Bernius: https://outsidethebeltway.com/welcome-to-february-forum-3/#comment-2982903
My response was.
Fortune had plenty of time to raise any objections with my characterization. Instead he galloped to a different topic.
@Matt:
Fair enough. I gave too much credit to Fortune. And my credit was hardly full-throated.
My sincere apologies to you, Matt.
@Kurtz: No reason to apologize. I agree entirely with your post.
Thanks though