Redstate

A little bit of inside blogball for your Wednesday evening.

By Leon H Wolf Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Recently, for some reason that I can't begin to fathom, the blogosphere has found itself in quite a dither over some ridiculous comments that Ann Althouse made on her blog. We've had some rather... er... robust discussion about the comments amongst ourselves, but thus far, no one's really been motivated to write upon it. After seeing about 3,000 blog posts giving Althouse's flimsy explanation way more intellectual credit than it deserves, I've decided that it's time to weigh in.

Click below the fold if you can bring yourself to care...

I'll begin this with a disclaimer of sorts: I never read Ann Althouse. I have a limited time to devote to blog reading, and Althouse has just never made the list. The only time I've ever even read a single one of her posts prior to this particular dustup was during the altercation with Jeff Goldstein and John Cole over the nefarious Pajamas Media* - an exchange in which she came out looking much the worse for wear. So, it's possible that my entire perception of her has been unjustly colored. I'm willing to consider that as a distinct possibility. In any event, Althouse kicks the whole thing off with this:

Virtually every word out of my mouth was an observation about something no one was talking about and that would -- back in Madison, Wisconsin -- have been said at the earliest possible moment. So there I was, the resident liberal.

I am struck -- you may think it is absurd for me to be suddenly struck by this -- but I am struck by how deeply and seriously libertarians and conservatives believe in their ideas. I'm used to the way lefties and liberals take themselves seriously and how deeply they believe. Me, I find true believers strange and -- if they have power -- frightening. And my first reaction is to doubt that they really do truly believe.

One of the reasons 9/11 had such a big impact on me is that it was such a profound demonstration of the fact that these people are serious. They really believe.

I need to be more vigilant.

Now, rather obviously, the first thing that got everyone's dander up was the rather explicit comparison between passionate libertarians and conservatives and the 9/11 hijackers. Since that point, everyone seems to have basically accepted that Ann didn't really mean to make that comparison, and I think that frankly she's gotten off way too light on this. If that isn't what she meant to do, then what in the world could she possibly have meant by the fact that she finds true believers (by which she means, as she just explained, conservatives) "frightening" when they have power? And what to make of the fact that she follows up her "enlightenment" about conservatives with her "enlightenment" about the 9/11 hijackers? And above all, her sum reacion, after attending a conservative conference, is that she needs to "be more vigilant?"

I dunno, maybe I'm crazy, but I tend to think that when you follow up your description of passionate conservatives by, um, comparing them to the 9/11 hijackers, then you probably meant to compare them to the 9/11 hijackers. Frankly, if I had wanted to say that conservatives remind me of the 9/11 hijackers in about three not-too-subtle ways, it would have probably come out sounding a lot like Althouse's post. However, folks who have met her seem to be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt on this point, so everyone has moved on to the second ludicrous assertion in in her post: that people who believe things are scary.

Jonah Goldberg's response to Althouse's post (Goldberg was at the conference in question) was almost saintly in its charity (Goldberg's observation that Madison, Wisconsin is not an "oasis of empiricism, realism and philosophical skepticism" was much nicer than anything I could have said, for sure). Subsequently, the two got together on BHTV and had it out. Apparently, Althouse's explanation for her "people who believe things are scary" screed was that the conservatives in question were lauding federalism without specifically denouncing slavery. This blogger has more.

Now, this has all been going on for the better part of two weeks now, so it seems to be received wisdom that this explanation is somehow plausible for the original blog post in question - but I challenge anyone to go back up to the first blog quote, read it again, and try convincing yourself that this is anything more than a post hoc rationalization for a very boorish post. What is especially bizarre to me is the extent to which the blogosphere feels the need to debate this post hoc rationalization, as though it were some sort of valid point. For instance, here's Ramesh and Ilya Somin, and Orin Kerr and Eugene Volokh, and, well... I could go on, but I won't. You get the picture.

Part of the reason that I think that Althouse's "argument" is a post hoc rationalization for her post is that it's so facially absurd that no person of average intelligence would actually allow themselves to be caught making it in public. Let us be serious - I mention the Constitution and my respect for it quite frequently; need I denounce slavery (which is explicitly contained therein) every time I do so? May I comment upon the warmth and comfort of my cotton boxers safely in Ann's presence, or will the cosmopolitan cynics from Madison think me a neanderthal for not first denouncing slavery, upon which the cotton industry was built? This is not a genuine reaction of people in Madison, Wisconsin (or anywhere else, for that matter), that any discussion of federalism which is not preceded with ritual denunciations of slavery is indicative of people who are - to bring this back to the original point that Althouse made - to be watched with the vigiliance required for potential terrorists.

And this is what I want to bring it back to. Ann's had many posts on the subject since then. You can read them here or here or here , if you want a taste. What everyone seems to be losing sight of is that the original post had nothing to do with this, and there's not a darn thing that racism or Jim Crow have to do with the assertion that people who believe things are scary. Like the 9/11 hijackers. In responding to Virginia Postrel, who sought to address the real point of Ann's original post, Ann is forced to concede that the original point dealt not with states rights, racism, jim crow, federalism, or any other thing being currently discussed in connection with Ann Althouse right now - it was about her assertion that people who believe things are scary:

Is the Postrel paraphrase apt? It does omit the fact that I made a closer comparison between libertarians and conservatives on the one hand and lefties and liberals on the other. And, in context -- what terse context there is -- you can see that I'm talking about the ideologues and hardcore fundamentalists of either stripe.

I mean to say -- and it's there to be seen if you are a sympathetic reader -- that I instinctively think of my fellow human beings as sensible and practical. We have some ideas and principles but we also watch how things play out in the real world and are prepared to modify what with think and correct our course when things aren't going well. People who embrace an idea with a death grip scare me, and they should scare you too. Look at history. Look what happens when people believe so deeply they lose sight of where their ideas are taking them and go along with their ideas even if they require other people to suffer and die. I don't trust the true believers and ideologues. I find them strange when they don't seem to feel the pull of common sense and human empathy. I don't want them to have power. They can sit around thinking and talking or praying and brooding, but I don't want to see what they would do with the world. That said, obviously, most people who are attracted to religion or politics of the left and the right are ordinary practical, sensible people. I still think that. It will still surprise me to encounter anyone in a death embrace with an idea.

Note: that's not exactly a repudiation of the original post, apology for its content, or meaningful clarification. And this is what really chaps my backside about this kind of sanctimonious pragmatism that Althouse put on display: nothing displays vacuity of character to me like a person who will mock another - not for the particulars of their conviction - but for the fact that they have strong convictions. I suppose there are corners of society where nihilistic apathy is all the rage with the sophisticates, but color me less than impressed. I had quite a few things to say about this to the otherwise delightful Betsy Newmark during the Harriet Meirs fracas, and I won't recapitulate it all here. Suffice it to say that it beggars the imagination how one could bring themselves to think and write about politics as much as any political blogger does if strength of conviction is something to be vigilant for, rather than something to be applauded. I understand that people who think this way exist, but what I don't get is why we all have to use an incalculable amount of bandwidth pretending that all along they were making some sort of sophisticated point about modern societal understandings of federalism w/r/t slavery. And however Althouse might have been scared by the big, bad ideologues, comparing them (either explicitly or implicitly) to the 9/11 hijackers is completely beyond the pale. At this point, the only thing I'm interested in hearing out of this whole exchange is a post from Ann which says, very explicitly, "I'm sorry." Not, "I'm sorry all you boorish ideologues misunderstood what I actually said," either. Because if a person can't show the basic decency not to compare me (and I'm proud to call myself an ideologue, and someone who fervently believes in his causes) to the 9/11 hijackers, then I could care less what their views on federalism (or their post hoc rationalizations of their boorish comments) really are. Absent that basic level of decency, I'm afraid that we have nothing left to say to each other.