Twitter Bullies

Well, it finally happened. I met my very first cyber-bully.

Many of us remember bullies from grade or high school. Growing up, we all get more or less solid training expressing frustration with others. Parents are our first model in metabolizing anger, and then come teachers and peers.

What most of us learn, in our earliest years, is how to tell someone that they did something that bothered or hurt us and why.

Along the way, we notice an interesting group of people. These are the people who get furious with you when you tell them they did something wrong. While nobody likes to be told they bothered someone, this group of people responds with particular outrage: how dare you tell me I bothered or hurt you. You wimp! Now you’re really going to get it from me.

And then you get the abuse. Insults, threats, intrusions, unwanted contact…anything, it seems, in the attempt to intimidate you, get you to back off, or show you they are far more powerful and important than you.

So what happened? You just told them they did something wrong or that you didn’t like. Why didn’t they just say sorry, or even “no, don’t think what I did was wrong, and here’s why.”

What happened is you humiliated them, usually but not always in front of a crowd (often a gang) whose regard means as much to them as your parent’s, family’s, or significant other’s love regard means to you.

Here’s a common but by no means exclusive possibility. You didn’t know this (now that you do, you’ll probably be more careful), but when you took them to task for doing something they probably know is wrong, unwise, or ill-advised, you took them back to a horrible place. This is a place they may have long forgotten (or just long to forget) where they were the ones on the receiving end of criticism, yelling, teasing, exposure, shame, intrusion, threats, or even physical violence.

Truth is, many bullies live in deep, close, and intimate knowledge of what it means to feel inadequate, worthless, and powerless. When you cross them, it becomes your turn to find out exactly what it is (or was) like to be them.

For a number of reasons I tried to explain elsewhere, communication here has to be inductive rather than discursive. That is to say, it usually works better in these situations to help someone feel something rather than (just) telling them how they made you feel.

So now you’re going to get attacked, verbally or physically, but always emotionally. You’re going to get picked on, taunted, bullied, harassed, or even assaulted.

The luckier folks with this background learn to put those painful feelings to words, music, or art. The unluckier ones are left with using whatever means at their disposal (usually fists or words) to let you know just how much it hurt them to be told they hurt you.

If you have the presence of mind to say, “whoa, I just told you I take issue with something you’re doing and now you’re calling me an X, Y, and Z,” they’ll invariably say “no, you started it.” In a certain sense they’re right, in that you inadvertently exposed a strong vulnerability. But when you step back and compare what you did with what you got in return, you’re left scratching your head.

Many of us know the eggshell feeling we have around certain bosses, partners, and workmates. We can easily feel controlled by their volatility, but my sense has always been they’re not out to control us so much as stabilize a very vulnerable and precarious self-regard.

Put another way: if the thermostat in your car is broken, and the heat or air conditioning kicks on hard at the worst possible times, you’re going to have strong feelings about a passenger touching the controls, opening a window, or even complaining about the temperature.

Self-esteem is a little bit like the ambient air: when it’s doing its job, we don’t notice it, but once there’s a sudden change in temperature, pressure, odor, or oxygen level, we feel it. And we’ll go to great lengths to correct the situation, regardless of how little or differently the situation seems to be affecting others.

These days on twitter, the cyber-bullies I see the most are the ones who’ve developed a strong sense of loyalty to a politician or even another tweeter. When you say something critical of the beloved leader, you threaten the glue that holds the group together.

You don’t usually hear, “hey, you got your facts wrong, and here are the right ones,” or “what you said is inaccurate, unfair, or untrue.” What you get instead is “oh yeah? Well this is what you do that makes you an even worse person!” or just the far more economical “you’re an asshole!”

You don’t typically get engagement on the issues, because that’s not where these folks live. They don’t inhabit a world of issues to be discussed, so much as personalities to be protected: at all costs, against all enemies, foreign and especially domestic.

They may or may not use military or totalitarian language approvingly to describe their paramount virtue: loyalty to a beloved leader experienced as extraordinarily vulnerable to criticism.

My sense is that the leader is question is often far more tolerant (or even welcoming) of criticism that the loyal devotee. I also suspect that loyalty here doesn’t mean fidelity (as in to principles) so much as a promise: never, ever to hurt the beloved, and to gang up as quickly and fiercely as possible on those perceived to be a threat to the cohesion or self-esteem of the group.

Why, you ask. Why is this discussion for you about the NDAA, health care, abortion, or the best ways to get out the vote, and why is it for them about what an awful, rotten person you are? In more general terms, why is this conversation, for you, about what’s being said whereas for them it’s all about you?

Well, truth is, we don’t always know. And that’s something important to say in the context of this article, so let me emphasize it. We can and often do speculate about what goes on in someone’s head, but they’re the ultimate authority with regard to what happened to them, what they feel, or how they think.

Be open to the possibility (if you’re lucky and the winds are right) that someone may inform you that you’ve got your facts or narrative all wrong. Let them surprise you and display some non-bullying behaviors. They may, for example, tell you precisely where and how your understanding is in error, without insults or invective.

You should also be prepared for it to get ugly. For some, the Rubicon has been crossed the moment (they think) you’ve called them a thug or bully, and there’s just no going back from there. Not that you’ve got them all wrong and here is how, no: you insulted them, grievously, and now you’re going to pay.

In general, I think, people who are not (afraid they are) bullies tend to respond with confusion or bewilderment and then clarification when accused of bullying. I also think people who have been accused of this before are more likely to retaliate instead.

Like me, you may have also seen people getting threatened in addition to insulted. It’s important to note that, to my estimation, no political party or other group has (yet) cornered the market on bullying behavior.

My advice if and when you find these folks is much the same as if you bumped into them outside of twitter: leave them alone. This doesn’t mean letting them intimidate you or stop you from speaking out as best you can on things that matter to you. It means give them as wide a berth as possible when they float into your timeline.

If you follow someone who RTs the bully a lot, consider muting or even unfollowing them. If you unfollow, be prepared for some anger if this is perceived as a hostile attack rather than wish for relief. Expect retaliation if the individual in question identifies as part of the bully’s gang.

When a Twitter bully does something you disagree with, consider carefully how directly you want to say so and why. If they engage you, be clear about your twitter rules (mine include no verbal abuse) and politely decline (no matter what you want to say back!) their invitation to make the exchange about persons rather than issues.

Realize that even though you always could have chosen better words, there’s probably little chance you could have escaped their wrath for calling them on some misbehavior.

If you decide to engage them, be prepared for all labels, descriptions and accounts (regardless of their intentions) to become names, and for all names to be hurtful; that’s just their world. They typically blame their anger on others, and you may even be held fully responsible for their choice of words and tactics.

Needless to say, I don’t recommend this.

My best advice is to wish them well, as this is not only the right thing to do but often has the side benefit of disarming them (if you’re extremely lucky, a bully will be touched enough by your kindness to convert their contempt for you to respect on the spot). Most bullies aren’t used to being treated with genuine respect, to say nothing of kindness; by the time they realize you’re not engaging them in the typical way, you already have a great chance to head for the exit.

If they follow you and chase you, consider a firm request to go away or unfollow. Or you can block them.

I’ve rarely seen bullies persist after that, but it’s always possible. If so, consider reaching out to friends who’ve dealt with these exact or similar people before, or have a look at many of the wonderful online resources now available on bullying and cyber-bullying.

Oh, and good luck. Despite the bullying and other inconveniences, Twitter remains an intriguing world for the social explorer.

Conservative Democrats: The New Right Wing in America

The last two years have been nothing if not extraordinary for students of politics and history. A historic and ground-breaking President, elected through a groundswell of hope in democracy, civil rights for all, and an end to Republican rule:

• remains opposed to marriage equality

• endorses signing statements (having opposed them as a candidate)

• opposes habeas rights for those suspected of terrorism

• has rounded up, imprisoned, and deported record numbers of people believed to be illegal immigrants where they may languish for years without access to the judicial system

• apparently no longer believes individuals are legally innocent until proven guilty by a court of law or that his comments, as Chief Executive, could affect the ability of individuals to receive a fair trial.

How did this happen? How did Americans, so enamored of the principles this nation was founded on, rally to elect an historic President, then proceed to shrug their shoulders as the work of democracy languishes?

~~~~~~~

The first echoes of this movement occurred during the Health Care debate, when Obama was presumably trying to advance a public option. As you know, he later expressed his opposition to it. Even later, it was revealed that he had secretly negotiated it away.

That was when defenders of the public option began to take heat from defenders of the administration for being naive with regard to politics, economics, health care, or policy in general. Angry upon learning what happened to the public option behind closed doors, they were scolded for being impractical, unrealistic, and “ideological.”

What was happening is that ideals (such as the ones the campaign ran on) were becoming a hindrance, and had to be dealt with somehow. So they became ideology, and defenders of this point of view became “pragmatists.”

The summer of the health care debate was also the summer of the Tea Party. This was a pivotal one: far more, I think, for the Democratic Party than for the nation.

That was also the summer of the loudest, most obnoxious, and frankly frightening political displays in recent memory.

You remember the Tea Party, don’t you? Yes, they’re the folks who called Obama a socialist. This comes easy, of course, after years of being told by right-wing radio and television that “liberal” is a dirty word.

Now the Tea Party has fallen on hard times, but they’re not gone. They live on, though not in the way you’d think.

Where did the Tea Party go, along with its signs and slogans? To find out, just ask yourself: where and when is “liberal” still a dirty word?

Where do you go to meet, greet, and befriend the kind of good, sensible Americans who just know the country’s biggest threat lies in the progressive viewpoint and its adherents? You know those bleeding heart liberals, the ones always championing causes like social justice, the undocumented, unions, and the due process rights of even the most heinous defendants?

Probably haven’t bathed in years.

Yes, I know, you can find the right kind of American (pun intended) on the radio and on TV. But where else?

Hop on Twitter and look up hashtags like “firebagger” and “emoprog.” Now look at the people using them.

Ask yourself: when did people start looking for newer and better ways to say “dirty fucking hippie?” What kind of person prefers to call their opponents names (like “socialist”) rather than say how and why they disagree?

And why are they so angry?

~~~~~~~

Imagine being progressive during the Reagan and Bush years. Imagine championing the cause of unions like PATCO, for example, or questioning the invasion of Grenada. Imagine being called every name in the book because you weren’t waving the flag or making racial slurs at recipients of public assistance.

What happens to people subject to relentless criticism? They often feel powerless (because they often are). What do they do then? Well, they can identify with the strongest power around: that of the critic. They can find someone else to criticize.

This is what’s happening inside today’s Democratic Party. The party that championed Social Security and the rights of working families is, in some pockets, fighting unions and excoriating defenders of social spending. Not surprisingly, they’re not too fond of those who criticize the intervention in Libya, either.

Lawrence’s message is interesting in this regard. Social spending cuts are inevitable, he claims (just like conservatives of both parties) and anyone who disagrees is simply not as astute as he is about history or how to win elections. Social spending has been cut before, and this makes such action not only morally defensible, but fiscally and civically laudable.

Democrats Against Liberals.

It’s not Republicans punching Democrats anymore; now it’s conservative Democrats punching liberals and progressives for doing anything they feel threatens the President’s re-election.

~~~~~~~

To hear conservative Democrats tell the story, a block of people shifted to the far, far left immediately following the election of a centrist President who always campaigned as a centrist. (PS: If you disagree with that, then you’re one of them.)

Conservative Democrats say they and their candidate never moved, they’ve always occupied the sensible center. Everyone knows you have to govern from the center, right?

Oh come on, you don’t stand for a “principle” and try to lead a nation! That’s not how you win elections! That’s ideology!

Now I think Unions, public employees, the poor, and peace have always had their defenders, and that they used to reliably be called Democrats. That started changing with Reagan, who very effectively wooed former Democrats to his side with promises of power, patriotism, and privilege. It accelerated, of course, under both Bushes, continued to some degree under Clinton, and seems on its way again with Obama.

“Don’t be a naive dirty hippie. Be a clean, sensible (ie prosperous and respectable) conservative!”

~~~~~~~

Yes, the center has shifted in American politics. But not according to the conservative narrative, the political equivalent of the geocentric universe.

I think those Democrats once in the Tea Party’s line of fire got sick and tired of being called socialists, dropped their guns, moved to the right, picked up new ones, then began hunting “emoprogs,” “firebaggers,” and anyone else who has the audacity to criticize their leader.

Now ask yourself: in what system of government do people applaud one another for “taking down” a member of the opposition, rather than convincing them with reasons and arguments?

In what form of government do parties and politicians become the most cherished and defended objects, rather than principles (I don’t know, like maybe the ones a nation was founded upon)? Where and when is criticism of a party or leader experienced as so toxic that it must be silenced, rather than argued against?

In what system of government are the “pragmatics” of winning elections opposed to “ideals?” Where are you most likely to find “pragmatic, sensible, adult” people (projectively, I think) accusing their opponents of being childish ideologues?

If we don’t already know the answers to these questions, we most certainly know who to ask.

Projective Identification (Induction)

Here’s the situation: someone says or does something that really gets under your skin. Sometimes this kind of thing typifies your relationship with them, sometimes it doesn’t. What’s going on?

Melanie Klein proposed the notion of projective identification to account for situations like these. It’s a funny notion because it gets explained in a number of different and sometimes confusing ways. Here’s mine:

Let’s say you had a bad day at the office because your boss (a kind person, really, and maybe even someone you look up to) was very critical of your work. You feel like shit, and you come home to your partner, roommate, or significant other.

Now let’s imagine two ways of telling someone how you’re feeling. One is to put those feelings to words and share them with others. Another is to help the other person feel what you’re feeling without telling them (exactly) what happened.

Let’s say the first way works better when you’re good with words, don’t mind talking about what happened, and trust the person you’re telling not to shame you, criticize you, or get overly upset about it.

Let’s say the latter way works especially well when saying what happened feels too embarrassing, could leave you feeling too exposed or vulnerable, brings up the feelings again in a bad way, raises the risk of criticism, or could unduly upset the other person.

Taking the first way is straightforward; you simply give an account of what happened and wait for your conversation partner to respond. Hugs, warm words, or shoulder rubs are not uncommon here.

The second way requires more work, but comes naturally to those used to communicating this way. Your interlocutor asks how your day went, and your answer manages to contain some criticism, cutting remark, or snide comment that leaves them feeling just as hurt as you felt at the office.

Except they don’t know what happened, only how it made you feel. Except they might think they’re being criticized because of something they did, rather than because they just happened to be around you at that moment.

When the second way succeeds, the communicator experiences the power of being in the position of the criticizer rather than the powerlessness of the criticized. This alone can bring a tremendous sense of relief. There may or may not be guilt over feeling better by making another person feel bad, which often gets ignored or rationalized away.

There is also the relief that comes from someone else having to deal with the feelings that were once inside them. There is also the fact that misery loves company. Rather than be alone withe one’s awful feelings, there are now at least two people feeling the same flavor of bad.

So what do you do to avoid being treated or treating people this way? First thing, I think, is to recognize why people do it – not so much to be evil (rare, but happens) but to borrow your car.

Yes, that’s right. Their car, you see, can’t carry the weight of the feelings it’s been asked to carry right now. Not that it necessarily makes you feel any better, but the fact that you’re being used in this way testifies to your (sometimes far) superior ride.

Some of us were born with pickup trucks, others with Maseratis, still others with Vespas. Each of them has their use and unique attractions, but not all of them are as up to the task of carrying baggage (or in some cases, moving furniture).

Second thing is to realize that all of us induce feelings in one another all the time. Put two people close enough together for long enough a time (family members, roommates, lovers, co-workers, etc) and induction is bound to happen. It’s often just a question of what kind and for how long (one can think of infatuation as the opposite of the process I described here).

Third thing is to recognize, then refuse, the invitation to borrow others’ cars without their permission or to be taken for a ride. A word of caution, however: if someone really, really, needs your car and there’s no other ride around, expect them to get upset when you hide the keys. Doesn’t mean you have to lend your car; it means they have to upgrade theirs.

There is also humor, which can backfire, but is sometimes worth the risk.

When being guilted by induction, I might look over my shoulder and wonder out loud who my interlocutor is talking to. When someone’s being devaluing, I might hand them a dollar bill and ask them to make it feel like fifty cents.

When trapped in a castrating or demasculinizing encounter, I’ve been known to look down at my groin and say “hey, give it back!” I may or may not follow up by saying the appendage in question can be rented for a nominal fee.

Anyway, the point is projective identification can be a fun game but only if you know you’re playing it.

The Obamabots

You’ve seen them. You’ve conversed with them. You may have even shouted at a couple. You may even be one, or in a process of recovery.

They’re most certainly among your neighbors, workmates, and relatives. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Obamabot. Depending on how they make a living, they may also be a Twitter Thug.

Now I know there are a lot of folks who identify as Obamabots, using the term endearingly to describe nothing more than a passionate supporter. That’s fine, and I wouldn’t discourage them for a moment; I’m just using the term rather differently here.

What is an Obamabot? For me, someone who:

• reacts with panic and/or outrage to any criticism of Obama or prominent Democrats

• regards any such criticism as a personal attack on Obama, the nation, or people of color (truth in advertising: I’m latte.)

• regards any criticism of Obama or prominent Democrats as an extraordinarily potent threat to their re-election which must be countered by any possible means

• is unable or unwilling to respond to any such criticism without scolding, name-calling, making fun of last names, and/or personal attacks (e.g., “takedowns”)

• lacks the knowledge or skills needed to respond to such criticism with reasoned arguments

• has cultivated indignation over a perceived indignity into an art form

• over-relies on “counterproductive” and its synonyms to discourage any criticism of a Democratic president

• cannot understand how anyone could disagree with Obama on anything and still vote for him (truth in advertising: like me)

• cannot understand how anyone who doesn’t do what they do could possibly think they’re a more effective advocate for a candidate or cause

• regards any criticism of them as criticism of Obama, Obama supporters, or Democrats in general

In short, an Obamabot is a demagogue who masquerades as a patriotic American on Twitter who’s trying to stifle dissent (and thus strangle our democracy) out of blind and fanatical devotion to a beloved leader.

Now why do I care? For an Obamabot, of course, the only thing I care about is destroying Obama.

I care primarily because I think our nation and civic traditions deserve more and better conversation, not less and worse.

Also, I don’t know the man, but I don’t suspect Obama wants Obamabots. My hunch is the man wants passionate people armed with nothing more than convictions and reasons volunteering for campaigns, talking to neighbors, and driving people to polling places.

I’m also impelled to write this by a growing sense that this kind of extremism might be just enough to turn off independent voters, something which Democrats just cannot afford to do.

Follow You, Follow Me

One of the first things you learn about Twitter is how to negotiate the delicate issue of “followership.”

For those who don’t know, Twitter is a form of social media where individuals create accounts and post 140-character messages to the world. Individuals have the option of following people whose messages they want appearing in their “feed,” which gives the “followee” the ability to send Direct Messages, or DMs, to the follower. DMs are confidential posts that (we are told) are private between the individuals in question.

If the followee decides to “follow back,” then this enables both parties to send confidential messages to one another in addition to posting public conversations. In addition, every user has a profile, on which the number of people you follow and who follow you are posted.

One thing that I learned very quickly on Twitter is the kind of social status attached to the follower number. The more followers, ostensibly, the more people want to read what you have to say, and thus the more “popular” (I think Twitter exerts a strong regressive undertow back to high and grade school, but that a post for another time).

The other thing I discovered very quickly was the number of different views (I hesitate to call them “philosophies”) of followership people have. Some expect you to follow them back if they follow you first – and will tell you so. Or they may just unfollow you if you don’t follow back. Others just follow and don’t seem particularly bothered if you follow back.

Different expectations come into play here as well. Depending on the individual, some are less inclined to demand reciprocal followership if the person of interest is famous and/or has a lot of followers. But here I’ve heard the thinking go two ways: one is that they follow so many people they can’t be expected to follow everyone who expresses an interest in their stream; the other is that given how many people they follow what’s the harm in adding just one more (i.e., me)?

Then there is the “unfollow,” where you stop following someone after a longer or shorter period of time. Once again, depending on the person and twitter relationship, unfollows varyingly raise concern, hurt deeply, are met with indifference, never come to the followee’s attention at all, or are even met with relief.

Here’s where it gets most interesting for me: how people react to being unfollowed.

Most people I unfollow either unfollow back or keep on following silently, which is far more often than not, for me, the best situation. Once in a blue moon I (or twitter) may have unfollowed someone by accident; if that’s experienced as deliberate (and reacted to in silence) that certainly has the potential to be a problem.

Far and away the best outcome to an unfollow began with the person I unfollowed simply replying back asking why. Keep in mind all this is on the public timeline, which means anyone can see this conversation.

I replied by giving my reasons for unfollowing (see below), at which point she replied with her perspective, in an unusually frank and non-defensive manner. It was both what she said and how she said it that convinced me I had misunderstood her earlier behavior. So I followed back and am quite glad I did, as our conversations have become all the richer since.

Most of all, I’m glad she replied as quickly and maturely as she did, otherwise none of this would have happened and I would have missed out on a fine twitter pal.

For me, one of the least pleasant parts of twitter are those folks who, in their response to being unfollowed, remove any doubt in your mind that this was a good idea. Interestingly, each and every one I’ve had thus far comes from the ranks of a particular political group.

One person I unfollowed replied back (in public, because you can no longer DM one another) expressing outrage that I had done so. She demanded that I remedy the situation at once or face her further wrath.

Needless to say, I was insufficiently charmed to do as she asked.

My favorite, though, is the person who tweeted me back just moments after I’d unfollowed, expressing his pleasure that I had fallen for his “trap.” Huh?

He had been deliberately agitating people of my political persuasion, he told me, with provocative attacks on a figure of some prominence. My unfollowing, he said, was proof of my “utter uselessness” to the movement of which he was (of course) a very, very important leader.

After suppressing my initial reaction to this news, I informed him that I was unwilling to engage in an exchange of insults with him, and wished him the very best in his endeavors (we’re ostensibly members of the same political party). He wished me well in return, which was nice, and I haven’t heard from him since.

Anyway, all this (and more) has forced me to think about why I follow the people I do and why I unfollow those I do. To be clear, these are my reasons; they may or may not be yours, and that’s fine. Hopefully they’ll at least give you something to react to and form your own ideas about, in which case I’d love to hear what you think!

I’ve crystallized them into the following (no pun intended) form, based on what I take to be the three key decisions Twitters have to make on a daily basis – whether or not to follow, keep following, or unfollow:

Bad Reasons to Follow Someone on Twitter
Their avi is very attractive.

Because they followed you.

Because other people you follow (or like) do.

To get them to follow you back.

You want others to know you care about a particular person or cause.

You think this might help increase your follower count.

They’re famous.

Someone else told you to (and you didn’t first read some of their tweets to see if you would have followed them absent the recommendation).

You want to get someone’s attention.

Good Reasons to Follow Someone on Twitter
You like what they have to say and want to hear more.

They provide important information that’s useful to you.

They’re important to you.

You both follow some people of mutual interest already.

They’re so different from you in so many key ways you’re certain to learn a lot about yourself and each other in the process.

Bad Reasons to Avoid Following Someone on Twitter
You don’t find their avi attractive.

They’re not a member of a group with which you strongly identify as a member (e.g., political party, nationality, religion, race, gender, sexuality, social class).

Their tweets force you to think or feel things it is not unhealthy for you to think or feel.

Good Reasons to Avoid Following Someone on Twitter
A representative sample of their tweets does not interest you in the least.

You can easily imagine scrolling past or ignoring their tweets if you did follow them.

You can easily imagine getting very anxious, depressed, or enraged if you read their tweets on a regular basis.

They repeatedly engage in twitter behavior that’s distasteful or repugnant to you.

Bad Reasons to Keep Following Someone on Twitter
They’re part of an important social circle you want to be a part of.

You want to unfollow them, but are afraid of upsetting them if you do.

You want to unfollow them, but are afraid of what others will say or think if you do.

Good Reasons to Keep Following Someone on Twitter
The thought of unfollowing them just never occurs to you.

They keep providing the information, perspective, relief, or good cheer you’ve come to expect from Twitter.

They engage you in good conversation.

They make you laugh, smile, or feel good about yourself.

They make you think or feel things agreeable to you.

They provoke you in ways that feel comfortable and respectful of you as a listener or conversation partner.

Bad Reasons to Unfollow Someone on Twitter
They didn’t follow you back.

Their tweets start making you think or feel things it is not unhealthy for you to think or feel.

You discover they’re a member of a group about which you have very strong negative feelings.

You’re angry at them and want to send them a message.

Good Reasons to Unfollow Someone on Twitter
They begin to engage in twitter behavior that’s distasteful or repugnant to you.

They post the same message over and over.

They use Twitter primarily to proselytize a religious, scientific, medical or other point of view.

They seem unwilling or unable to criticize positions rather than persons.

You’ve been filtering out their tweets for some time in the effort to avoid unfollowing them.

You discover they’ve lied about themselves or done something that undermines your trust in them.

Their tweets constantly make you unhappy or bring you down in a way you did not expect and/or do not like.

You try to engage them in conversation, feeling confident there’s a reasonable expectation that they do so, and they don’t reciprocate.

Their tweets, having captured your interest once, no longer do so.

So that’s my short list. As with anything I post, expect emendations and alterations.

Twitter Thugs

“Good Morning! Twitter Thugs!”
“Yes, hi, I’d like to hire one of your people this afternoon.”
“No problem. We have thugs for every job and budget.”
“Great. There’s this guy — at least I think he’s a guy — who’s been bothering me a lot on Twitter.”
“What’s the issue, ma’am?”
“I don’t know, it just seems no matter what I say he makes fun of me or something I tweeted in a way that everyone laughs at. And then retweets.”
“So on top of being the butt of the joke — if you’ll pardon the expression — you’re a bad sport for not laughing all this off.”
“Exactly. What can you do?”
“Ma’am, we have a crack team of Twitterers working around the globe 24/7 to make sure nobody has to stand for this kind of nonsense.”
“Oh good.”
“What we’ll do is get some information about the offending Twitterer first, then my associate will get a credit card number, and we’ll have everyone laughing at the obnoxious jerk within minutes.”
“Oh thank you, Twitter Thugs!”
“You’re quite welcome, ma’am. You have a nice day.”

“Good Morning! Twitter Thugs!”
“Hi. Would you folks be interested in buying some ad space on my website?”
“How many unique hits a day?”
“About 50,000.”
“Sorry, not interested.”
“It’s a website for folks struggling with anger management. Hello?”
“I’m sorry. Please continue.”
“Last month we had a guest blogger showing our readers how to raise their self-esteem online by lowering that of others.”
“I’m going to transfer you to our personnel department. We have a recruiting drive scheduled for this spring.”
“We’d be perfect.”
“You might hear a few clicks, don’t hang up.”
“OK, thanks.”

“Good Morning! Twitter Thugs!”
“Hi, we — I mean, I have a problem. This isn’t being recorded, is it?”
“No, sir.”
“Good. I need you to discredit some people online.”
“Sure. Can you give me some background?”
“They’re a group of investigative journalists who are really, really annoying me. Just me. Personally.”
“Of course. Is this a one-time affair or would you like to open an account?”
“Um, can we — I mean me, I — can I see how things go first?”
“Absolutely. If you like what you see we can discount our Credibility Reduction membership fee accordingly.”
“That sounds great.”
“Ok hang on, my associate will take your info.”

“Good Morning! Twitter Thugs!”
“Hey, you guys hiring?”
“Depends. Whatcha got?”
“I’ve been told I’m a total wiseass.”
“OK, anything else?”
“I’ve had my ass kicked throughout grade and high school because my mouth wrote checks my body couldn’t cash.”
“All right, I have a few questions for you.”
“Shoot.”
“Got a smartphone?”
“Yes. And several Twitter accounts.”
“We provide all our associates with their own Twitter accounts. I’ll need quick answers now, so I know you’re not Googling. Ready?”
“Yes.”
“Who’s the current President?”
“Obama.”
“And before him?”
“Bush. George W.”
“Good. What do Juvenal and Jonathan Swift have in common?”
“Both noted satirists.”
“Very good. Now, if someone calls you a pussy, what do you say back?”
“I tell them that we are what we eat.”
“Hold the line and someone from personnel will be on shortly to take your information.”
“Dude, that’s excellent!”
“Have a nice day, and thank you for thinking of us.”

“Good Morning! Twitter Thugs!”
“Good morning. I’m calling because I’m just an ordinary citizen very upset over the way my candidate is being portrayed by some on Twitter.”
“We get that all the time. What’s going on?”
“There are folks claiming to be members of my party doing nothing other than reporting complaints and concerns about my candidate and I’m sick of it.”
“I see.”
“As I’m sure you know, there’s a very important election coming up.”
“Yes.”
“Politics is a dirty business, you know.”
“Of course.”
“Blood sport. And I play to win, take no prisoners. Do you understand what I mean?”
“Sir, we cater exclusively to the toughest nails alive.”
“Good. Naturally we’re concerned that any negativity directed towards our candidate could affect voter turnout at this critical time.”
“I’m sorry, did you say ‘we?’”
“No, I did not.”
“Of course, sorry. May I ask something?”
“Yes.”
“Have you tried taking the critics head-on?”
“Every day.”
“I mean, taking on their arguments. Using evidence to show why what they’re saying is false, misleading, or dangerous.”
“No, this is on Twitter. Listen, am I dealing with a professional here?”
“Of course. Let me transfer you to our Dirty Tricks department and we’ll have our team get on it right away.”

“Good Morning! Twitter Thugs!”
“Yes, I need an undercover operation to expose the enemies of a free and decent people. Money is no object, and I’m prepared to pay in direct proportion to the juiciness of the lie.”
“I’m sorry, we’re a Twitter service and we never, ever engage in deception.”
“All right. Fidelio.”
“Please hold, ma’am.”
“Good Morning! Fox News! How can I help you take your country back today?”

The Inanities of “Bipartisanship” and “Governing From the Center”

Ben Stein made some provocative comments on the Sunday morning talk shows recently, suggesting that Barack Obama was the “ideal” GOP candidate. As laughable as that claim is on its face, I think the reasoning behind it has a lot to say about our current political culture.

First, the laughability. Of course Obama would never run as a member of the GOP. He’s a Democrat! But of course Ben Stein knows that. Here’s what he means:

Since the election of 2010, he is clearly moving in the direction of the Republican Party. He has completely signed on to the Republican position on tax cuts and kicking the deficit can down the road.

Long since he signed onto the Bush position on the war in Afghanistan, he’s now swearing he will do something about government spending, even if it angers his most basic constituency, the government employee unions.

To this one could add Obama’s support for indefinite detention, signing statements, giving up on closing Guantánamo, and secret relinquishing of the public option to get insurers to back health care reform.

In effect, Stein argues that Obama has moved so far to the right as to become, for all intents and purposes, a moderate Republican. If he were to switch parties, he would win re-election by a landslide, as no Democrat would oppose him and there are no Republicans nearly as popular to challenge him.

All right, I find the last two parts a bit much, but you get the point: that Obama is not a real, full, or true Democrat, and much more like a moderate Republican.

Obama a Republocrat?
Now the outrageousness. Is that claim really so outlandish? Not if you take the President at his word with regard to his claims to bipartisanship and aiming to govern from the center.

What is bipartisanship? Luckily, we have the emergence of a new chatting and ruling class to tell us. It’s motto is “a pox on both parties!” and its goal is the collapse of political differences in the name of pragmatism (“getting things done”).

Along the way, these folks have a job to do. They have to convince you that the principles you believe in, those that might have motivated you to vote for this candidate over another, are illusory, trivial, meaningless, or even dangerous, as no political progress is possible so long as you hold them.

This is the mantra of “third way” or “no labels” movements. They’d like you to believe that they have found the political philosophers’ stone that turns the dross of partisanship into the pure gold of legislation.

And all you have to do is forget you were ever a member of any party or believed in any damn thing at all.

Ending Partisanship by Killing Principles
They trumpet the end of bickering and the beginning of “getting things done.” Cliches like “working together” and “reaching out across the aisle” are similar ultrasonic whistles, alongside the ubiquitous “compromise.”

Of course all this operates by way of a particular sleight of hand. Partisanship must be detached from any association with principles or “principled” and instead tied immutably in the electoral conscience with intransigence and gridlock.

If you’re a Republican, it’s called obstructionism. If you’re a Democrat, it’s called idealism. The new mavens of civility accord each of these positions moral and political equivalence precisely in order to distinguish themselves from the “partisan” herd.

Irony? In order to carve out identities for themselves as the new conciliators, restorers of civility, and bringers of harmony, they collapse the difference between the parties and devalue what each party stands for.

Lost is any notion of a principled partisanship, proud of principles, and fully willing to compromise, but as a means, not an end. Lost is the notion that partisanship contributes to the political culture by providing clear boundaries (that any rational person is free to question, modify, or reject) without which our conversation becomes meaningless chatter about the best way to accomplish goals that keep changing because our ideals keep changing.

Or worse: change depending on the person who’s telling you they have no ideals whatsoever other than “getting things done.” This is why I think one of the most insidious forms of ideology is the one that pretends to be its opposite.

A Fatal Flaw
And here lies what, for me, is the fatal flaw of our new “centrists.” On the one hand, bipartisanship is held out as this great political ideal and virtue. This suggests that pragmatism ought to trump party differences.

Let’s say we all agree and we give these new heroes the parade they demand. But if this is the case, then why should a voter pull a level for a D as opposed to an R (or a G)? If our elected officials truly believe party differences are getting in the way of “getting things done,” then don’t they also relinquish any right to run, during election time, as representatives of any side other than:

The middle?

The great, big, vast, vacuous and meaningless middle? Here there are no inconveniences like ideals to reconcile with the passion for accomplishing anything at all, so long as it’s something. Here, ideals don’t just corrupt the finished product, they make it impossible, so out the window they go.

This is the political model of new “no labels” civility: the politician who denounces partisanship and works to collapse the effective differences between the parties but asks, at election time, that you remember what jersey they’re wearing and vote accordingly.

“Vote for the candidate who’s better at collapsing the political differences that their electoral fortunes depend on.”

So what’s the answer? May I suggest a politics doesn’t take an antiseptic approach to partisanship but embraces it, and doesn’t oppose it in knee-jerk fashion to civility?

One that speaks from principle, rather than against it? And one that demonstrates, by example, that you don’t have to check your values at the door in order to get things done in and for this great nation of ours?

On This Martin Luther King, Jr Day

Not sure why, but today’s day of remembrance brought back memories of the time a holiday was first proposed honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. some thirty years ago (wow).

I was in high school at the time, on the cusp of the biggest social change of my lifetime, between the 1970s and 1980s. In the 70s, I remember being taught by hippies to love music, the earth, and one another.

We learned about racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and even got some indirect instruction about homophobia. I remember the day vividly. We were seated in our 2nd grade class, and someone derisively called someone else “gay.” We all laughed.

Then our teacher smiled, and asked everybody to come sit down on the floor next to her (she was beautiful and I was always first). Then she asked us if we knew what “gay” meant and someone said “yes, a really dumb person.”

She smiled again and looked at me. I beamed. “Gay means somebody who loves men,” I said. She corrected me. Then she turned to the class and asked “why in Heaven” it was considered an insult to love someone of the same sex.

We were stunned. Nobody had ever questioned things like that before. In fact, many of us had heard our own parents use similar, if not identical slurs. What was she saying – that our own parents were wrong?

I remember going home and checking this new information with my parents, who seemed a little concerned about my question, but confirmed its accuracy. Wow. “So is it like being racist?”

I don’t remember their answer, but I remember mine.

Then, in the 1980s, something changed. Reagan was elected, and there was a resurgence in national pride. Interestingly, though, this came alongside a real coarsening in our civic dialogue. Almost overnight, Russians, the poor, and anyone associated with labor unions became the enemy.

My teachers began to question out loud the morality or efficacy of social support systems, and the term “Welfare queen” began to enjoy widespread currency. PETCO was dissolved by Reagan and people cheered. Some years later Reagan made his “we begin bombing in five minutes” remark and it seemed like I was the only one furious.

I remember my 10th grade history teacher bringing in a former student who was one of the first people into Grenada. He told us how he landed, and faced no resistance from people he derided as gay in multiple ways throughout his presentation. The class, and my teacher, laughed and appaluded.

I think that was the first time I had ever been so furious I wanted to cry and throw up at the same time (which I almost did, in the Nurse’s office). Somehow the America I grew up in got replaced by a colder, meaner, and far more violent one (Bernhard Goetz was another hero I could never quite fathom).

It was in the mix of all these things that a holiday for Dr. King was proposed and met its first resistance. I remember teachers and parents saying out loud it was a waste of taxpayer dollars, that Dr. King had never held public office, and that “you can’t force your politics onto others.”

I realized that I would need arguments to support my position, and that’s when I began seriously studying for me instead of for school or someone else.

I argued back that this was a step towards healing the horrible history of race relations in this country, which prompted some (teachers, parents, and peers) to look at me and say, “what are you talking about?”

Sigh.

I said the holiday isn’t trying to “legislate a political point of view” but advance the promise of the Constitution. I was met then, as now, with cries about the free speech rights of conservatives and “playing the race card.”

As bad as this was for my social life and self-esteem, though, it’s nothing compared to what Dr. King faced, or any of the other folks who lost friends, careers, or their own lives to the cause of Civil Rights.

Maybe it’s recent events in Arizona, the state that was a hotbed of opposition to the federal holiday, that brought this all back for me. Maybe it’s having an African-American in the White House, or the way politics has become more contentious than I can ever recall.

At least now I know I’m not crazy, just a 70s kid. Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, everyone.

Attention

Life is full of inconvenient truths. Galileo. Darwin. Climate change. The parts of our personal, national, and cultural history we barely admit to ourselves, would much rather forget, and never, ever talk about.

In every case, the core argument is the same: “thus-and-such couldn’t possibly be the case because what’s being proposed is simply an outrage.”

Now this is not to delegitimize outrage as a whole but simply to caution against using it as an epistemological device (are you listening, Tea Party?). To put the matter somewhat differently, things can’t be propelled into a state of inexistence by the intensity of the offense we take to them. If they could, they’d disappear each and every time someone got furious at them.

It follows from this that arguing against magical thinking of this sort isn’t the same as saying that something offensive should exist and/or that this is a good thing. No.

It’s simply, in the case of climate change, acknowledging the mountains of scientific evidence that point to the earth currently undergoing a major fluctuation in temperature that is not the result of a natural process and threatens the existence of humans. Of course the oil companies are up in arms about this, and of course they’re working round the clock to call it a “myth.”

In a similar way, neurologists, pediatricians, educators, and parents have been putting their heads together for a long time around something rather important. This is something that continues to gain definition, and something I argue is worth taking seriously instead of dismissing as based on a myth or exaggeration.

This is ADHD. What is it and why is it so controversial? In order to answer that question, we have to look at what the diagnosis is based on (what the aforementioned article disparages, diminishes, and dismisses): attention.

At least this way, if and when someone is still inclined to reject the notion of an attention span, they’ll at least have a better idea of what it is they’re rejecting.

What is Attention?
Science is full of analogies. Light is like a particle; no, it’s like a wave; all right, it’s like a wavicle. Same with attention: science is always looking for newer and better ways of describing a set of phenomena which have drawn a particular kind of interest. When your primary concern is helping a particular kind of child navigate through school and life, you ask certain questions that lead you to look at certain things with greater precision.

While the analogy isn’t perfect (no analogy really is), one of the best ways I’ve found to describe attention is as a beam of light. To use a light effectively, there are a few things you have to know or learn how to do in short order. They are: turning it on, keeping it on, holding it still, switching it from one thing to another (and back), and turning it off.

Initiate
Attention first of all has to be initiated. That means getting started with a task: taking the first step, sitting down at your computer, getting behind the wheel. This is easy enough for most of us most of the time. However, all of us know what it’s like to be so overwhelmed by a task that we don’t know where to begin.

Imagine looking at a messy room, messy house, or driveway full of snow. It can be dispiriting enough to postpone any action taken to make it better, and the more we postpone, the bigger the task becomes in our mind. The garage. The tax return. Ugh.

Now imagine that life itself felt like a messy room. Imagine everything feels like a chore, but not so much because you’re depressed (although you may also be), but because you have such a hard time identifying a time and place to begin.

Imagine also that, as for most of us, once you get started things flow smoothly. Once someone sits you down in front of the computer your novel or dissertation pours out; it’s just getting to your desk that’s the problem. Imagine that your taxes or billing do themselves once someone forces you to do them.

In many cases, you may even forget how burdensome the task seemed once you’re on a roll. What’s up with that? Why is it that all you seem to need in life is a nudge, a more or less gentle push to get going? Why is it that, in order to focus your attention on something, someone or something has to direct it for you?

You start to wonder, at whatever age, what makes you so different from everybody else.

Sustain
Once you’ve turned the attentional light on, your next job is to keep it on. For most of us, attention is like a flashlight with a full battery: once on, stays on. Recharge every so often, but no real effort is required to keep it going once it’s going.

Now imagine that instead of a solid-state battery you have a manual one. You know, the kind with a crank you have to turn by hand to charge a battery. Imagine further that your battery only holds charge for a few seconds, which forces you to crank and crank and crank just to be able to see where you’re going on a dark night.

All of us know how hard it is to keep focusing on a boring lecture, passage, or person. Now imagine the whole world felt like a boring lecture. No, you’re not sleepy, but everything seems to require so much mental effort.

Let’s say starting tasks isn’t hard, it’s just slogging through them that kills you. At any time of the day there’s any ton of things you’d rather be doing. Problem is, once you’re doing them, you want to be doing anything else.

You have a hard time explaining an odd paradox to yourself, to say nothing of everyone else: while just about every task feels odious enough to avoid at all costs, you’re not at a state of mental rest. Quite the opposite, you feel deeply restless inside.

And despite society’s reasoned judgment that you must be lazy, you know you have mental energy. How else would you, in many cases, have such a rich fantasy life?

What you don’t understand is why life gave you a crank-operated cell where everyone else seems to have a battery. Your task, growing up, is to find some explanation for this that doesn’t cost you your self-esteem.

Inhibit
As if things couldn’t get more complicated, you sometimes come into places where they tell you to turn that (at times bleeping) attentional light off. Don’t look! Or at least don’t be obvious about it.

Worse, there are times and places where you’ve not only managed to start a task, and are off and running with it, when along comes someone telling you to stop. Pencils down. Our time is up. Sorry, but I forgot to mention that I’m married.

Ouch. That’s when we find ourselves hitting the brakes, and surprise, surprise: not all of us have the same brand and kind of brakes. Some of us can bite our tongue better than others, not blurt out the answer or secret to the magic trick, keep from telling the semantically or socially inappropriate anecdote, or get dressed and shimmy down the fire escape faster than others.

People call you “impulsive,” and wonder why you can’t be like everyone else. You may or may not be fidgety. Depending on how old you are when people start noticing this, and depending on how much neuropsychology they know, you might start wondering what’s wrong with you, as well.

Shift
Let’s say you can do everything else with your light – turning it on, turning it up, turning it off – but moving it back and forth really kills you. Over here, no, over here – why are two people trying to have separate and simultaneous conversations with you in each ear?

For most of us, dichotic listening tasks are something we only encounter at parties or in laboratories. But imagine life being a series of relentless, contradictory, and incommensurable demands for an attention of yours that’s in constantly short supply.

Imagine you’re at the amusement park and you have to hit the clown’s nose with a water pistol in order to blow up your balloon. Now imagine you have to blow up three balloons: yours and your two neighbors’ and that time is running out. Ugh! You missed! You dropped the ball!

Imagine life being like that. Imagine that since you were a kid, you’ve hated transitions. One classroom to another, one car trip after another. You’re fine once you get used to it, but you’ve come to loathe the words “change of plans!”

Since you can remember, you’ve loved nothing more than sitting in a quiet, dimly lit room with a book, a phone, or your thoughts, but never the company of more than one. Imagine loving people but hating gatherings because being around more than one person at a time just drives you nuts.

Imagine being furiously jealous of and despising the person who can’t stop switching their gaze from you, the TV set, and the other people at the bar.

Imagine having to explain this to people over and over throughout your life. Imagine the toll it takes on you if this fact is brought to your attention by a teacher or parent in a less than compassionate way, at an early age.

Stay
Ok, now imagine you have the opposite kind of shifting difficulty. Instead of being unable to peel your light off one thing and attend to another, you can’t hold your light on one thing for more than a few seconds.

When you can’t, or have trouble doing so, here’s what you hear: “look at me, please,” “where is your mind right now,” “pay attention,” or “am I really that boring a date?”

All you know is that your mind is a grasshopper jumping around, and that it takes every effort on your part to keep your eyes or mind on one thing. You may or may not have figured out, or been told, that it helps to sit in the front row or take dates to the quietest, least visually stimulating places possible. You may or may not have found your way to nicotine, which really helps you focus, or to meditation.

You’ve known all you life you have a restless mind, but you wonder what could ever be done about it.

So here’s your handy-dandy acronym for the attentional functions: Initiate, Sustain, Inhibit, Shift, Stay = ISISS (n.b.: many folks leave off the last S for savings). Think light beam or spotlight and you’re off to the races.

Why is ADHD controversial?
Criticism of the diagnosis comes in many flavors. There are concerns about pathologizing ordinary differences between people, thus stigmatizing them, and an overreliance on medical solutions to everyday problems. There are also understandable concerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in generating the science that medicine is based on.

There are also concerns about unfairly demonizing the video game industry. Today you may also encounter the belief that the diagnosis is entirely the result of poor teaching or classroom management, which suggests that its symptoms should disappear outside of the school environment.

ADHD can show up as impulsivity and/or one or more of the forms of inattention I described above. There are medicines one can take, as well as therapies that involves training the mind through meditation, mindfulness, or brainwave biofeedback.

So what’s the big deal?
The most common thing people face with attentional conditions is being labeled “lazy,” or “inattentive” as if it were a moral failure instead of a clinical condition. Of course the earlier this happens in someone’s life the greater the chance it will work its way into the self-esteem and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Here’s a typical scenario: you’re told you’re of average to above-average intelligence, but that you don’t “apply yourself” in school. Nobody knows why they have to tell you or push you to do everything, or why everything overwhelms you. You don’t know why mental tasks that seem so easy for everyone else – reading a book all the way through, paying attention in class or in a conversation, revising an essay, checking your work – are all so much harder for you.

You don’t know why you can’t sit still, focus (unless you have a cigarette), keep from interrupting or blurting out the answers. All you know is that you act first and think later, and that this has cost you dearly throughout your life.

You may or may not get mad, at others, society, and/or yourself, and channel that rage in more or less appropriate ways. You could turn it outward and become an political leader or educator. You could also turn it inward and think less of yourself or your abilities.

Now because your society is still learning about all this, you’re at especially high risk for making the awful and incorrect assumption that your attentional challenges have anything to do with your overall intelligence. You may or may not act in accordance with what you’re being encouraged to believe about yourself, often by the people closest to you.

The easiest thing for your culture and you to do is assume your failure to meet cultural expectations with regard to output, efficiency, or focus can be remedied through exhortation and blame. The harder thing is to peel the pejoratives away, look at what’s happening, and suggest a solution.

A change of classrooms, some timely teaching tips administered in a non-threatening way, a more structured work or learning environment, medication, meditation, or a really cool new app for your phone all could be part of the solution and an end to your suffering.

But only if you believe that what’s happening to you is real, not a moral failing, and not just an inconvenient truth for someone else.

Olbermann vs our Middling Politics

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/40205221#40205221

Brilliant.

There’s a disease that’s been affecting the American body politic for some time, one all the more insidious by masking as a cure for what is supposed to be an even bigger ailment – partisanship. It goes by many names (one of the best perhaps “the view from nowhere“) but I like to call it Middling.

Middling

Middling is the fetishistic pursuit of an illusory “middle place” in our civic life, free from commitments of any sort – emotional, religious, but especially political – which are always and everywhere seen as forms of “bias” obstructing the search for truth.

It’s sold in many ways, but most commonly as the belief that it’s fashionable to profess no allegiance to any political party or, in the extreme, hold any ideals at all. In one popular expression, it comes across as the desire to mock everything and believe in nothing (because believing in something, of course, opens you up to being mocked).

The Middler

The Middler is also intensely skeptical of (bordering on contemptuous towards) ideals. For them, ideals are the same as ideology, and just as bad as parties in obstructing a clear view of the truth. In place of ideals they profess a “pragmatism” which derives its legitimacy from a caricature of ideals as mindless, inflexible, and ultimately immature.

For the Middler, ideals are the kinds of things only fundamentalists and other zealots have. They’re not zealots, so therefore, they have no ideals or ideologies. It goes without saying, of course, that the belief in the existence and properties of such a political “middle” is itself never regarded by Middlers as a form of ideology.

Now Middlers come by their aversion to ideals, parties, and positions honestly. That is to say, they’re not evil, or necessarily trying to deceive. They’re simply repeating what they’ve been told by people they respect. Those people, in turn, are not evil but simply reacting, I think, to the increasingly hostile and divided tone of our politics. (Of course they also have a product to sell, but that’s another discussion entirely.)

Middling regards partisanship as the principal enemy of the day, holding it to blame exclusively for a loss of civility or sanity.

Now I think they’re right about our coarsening as a culture, and of course I’m concerned about that, too. I just think what the Middlers propose by way of remedy obscures the real problem and ultimately makes matters worse. My issue with the Middlers, then, is not a moral so much as a theoretical and tactical one.

On the level of theory, I question whether it’s possible to have so antiseptic a position towards political, moral, or any other kind of commitment commonly regarded as “bias.” At a tactical level, I question whether – if the goal is to promote conversation about and engagement in the issues of the day – Middling is really the way to go.

Against Middling – Theoretical Concerns

The theoretical argument is simple, though it does have its complexities and nuances, which I recommend highly for the interested reader (start at the bottom of p. 272 of Truth and Method).

It goes like this: you want to be against bias in all forms, eh? Fine. Start speaking.

Ok, when you started speaking (or writing), you had to choose a particular word to start, no? Sure you did. What made you choose that word instead of another? Even better, if a conversation is like a chess match (but even if it isn’t) what made you decide to start with this move rather than that one? With this idea rather than that one?

Aren’t there ideas you hold that you didn’t choose for yourself, that you inherited from the culture, about which you may not even be aware, about which your culture may be unaware?

Call these starting points for and boundaries of conversation “biases” or prejudice if you will, but I like prejudgments more. And good luck trying to get rid of them. Without them, conversation couldn’t even begin, much less distinguish better from lesser arguments.

Against Middling – Tactical and Political Concerns

What Olbermann did masterfully last night is show how it was folks such as Cronkite, Murrow, and the early Ted Koppel – each of whom bore the brunt of “partisan” accusations in their own day – who respectively helped bring an end to Vietnam, McCarthyism, and the Carter presidency (OK Olbermann kind of just implied that last point).

And as I tweeted last night, it wasn’t “objectivity” that exposed Watergate, it was journalism: real, honest journalism that wasn’t trying to play “fair and balanced” games with Nixon on one side and a “partisan” press on the other.

Olbermann did us another favor, however. He suggested that today’s journalistic desire to be free from bias oddly coincided with its utter failure to report effectively, even now, on the Bush Administration’s stated reasons for invading Iraq. In short, he tied the nostalgia for the “old journalism” ascribed to Cronkite with todays journalism as stenography.

In case you think the Judy Miller affair is over, just listen, to an NPR reporter chide a fellow journalist for not taking the Administration’s view of events at face value.

How was this transmogrification of journalism, from speaking truth to power to speaking the truth of power, possible? Without going into details, Olbermann hints that it was through a reduction of truth to mere “facts.”

The truth of Watergate, for example, was that the President broke the law. This is a truth that was being obscured by what today’s Middlers would go after – the “facts” as presented. What a Middling TV, radio, or cable “news host” would do today is try to get “the facts” having a lawyer for the “alleged burglars” debate a real investigative reporter, and then consider their job done.

In a similar way, Middling (non)voters think their civic job is done when they thumb their nose at “the system,” saying things like “a pox on both parties,” then refuse to do anything other that criticize what’s wrong.

Offer a solution? No, that’s for idealists and ideologues. Build something? Why? It could only be mocked (and we couldn’t stand that).

Truth is, Watergate wouldn’t get reported today because “facts” couldn’t have been discovered without someone willing to risk life, limb, and reputation to go out and get them. That’s what people like Murrow did.

Contrary to the belief of those whose feathers he ruffled, Murrow wasn’t an ideological partisan, but he sure had ideals. And he paid the price for them professionally, as Olbermann may yet. Time will tell if the cable viewing market is as supportive of journalism as it is of snark and nostalgia.