Misdirected articulateness and Salon.com

This article by Glenn Greenwald (of Salon.com) reminded me of something I'd written a couple of months ago to a friend. Actually, almost everything on Salon nowadays reminds me of that email, which I will reproduce below, but not without first commenting on a certain pattern that I observe emerging from the liberal half of the blogosphere.

Before the comments, however, here are a few definitions.

Neocon -- A person who professes great love for America and American values. Supports (on principle) the current war in Iraq and hopes for a future one on Iran. Opposes (on principle) abortion, homosexuality, birth control. Professes great indignation at the moral excesses of the modern world. Is Christian. Dislikes/hates (on principle) all other religions. Is very probably xenophobic. Is not amenable to argument.

Liberal -- A person who is the opposite of a neocon, and that too not by choice; a liberal defines himself as being everything a neocon is not, with the exception that he shares the non-amenability-to-argument characteristic. He might also be Christian, though this is typically irrelevant.

Salon.com -- a liberal stronghold.

Given these definitions (without context) most people would conclude that the best thing to do would be to ignore these neocons, who seem at least moderately deranged. But apparently liberals can't get enough of them. They (and by they I mean entities like Salon.com as well as individuals like Mr. Greenwald) examine statements made by neocons and then go forth and denounce them strenuously.

And, inevitably, people follow its example. Whether they do so consciously or not I cannot say, but the fact remains that most liberal bloggers today are content -- happy, even -- to react with outrage to any and all statements that they may come across that seem 'neocon' enough.

Anyway, now that you know where I'm coming from, read the email.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/08/20/rove/

The title of the article is 'The poisonous rhetorical legacy of Karl Rove', which should tell you a bit about how the author likes to make his argument. Indeed, in an article at least 1500 words long, he enumerates everything that makes Rove untrustworthy and loathsome, citing examples from as long as twenty years ago. Verbosity notwithstanding, though, the article can be summarized in one sentence -- `Karl Rove is a cunning man who furthers Republican values at any cost.'

The problem with this approach to denouncing his agenda is subtle but real. If there is nothing more to Karl Rove than his desire to defend Republicanism, then there is no point in subjecting him to the sort of pseudo-intellectual analysis that the author attempts in the article -- it is as misguided as trying to dissect a bully's intentions. If, on the other hand, there is more to him than meets the eye -- if he is in fact driven by motivations that hide beneath the veneer of Democrat-hatred that he so earnestly assumes, then the analysis is incomplete, scratching not even the surface. I would argue, in fact, that the author does not possess the intellectual equipment to make such an analysis.

Of course, at some level this is sophistry, because we all know that the sole agendum of Karl Rove is to bash liberals, which absolves the author from any scholarly responsibility he may have had. People say that the Bush government has galvanized satire in an unprecedented manner, but I say it has also galvanized the sort of ersatz erudition exemplified in articles such as the one above. It is easy to sound intelligent when the subject of your argument is not.

I wrote this email, I guess, to expand upon the point I tried to make on the phone yesterday. If the primary objective of a debate is to provoke a questioning of morals, ideas and motivations, then perhaps it is worth conducting; if, on the other hand, it is used as a means to proselytize, to establish a boundary between imaginary aesthetic goals (Pro-choice or pro-life? Support gays or bash them? Right or Wrong?) it degenerates into insubstantiality. Arguments can only help deal with problems, not solve them.