I have a theory about political bloggers:
99% of all political bloggers are knee-jerk histrionics who have given as much critical consideration to their political ideals as the average person uses to select toilet paper.
As if the first one weren’t enough, I have a second theory about political bloggers:
Most of your Pavlovian political zealots – the ones who salivate at the mere mention of Hillary or Dubya - don’t give a wit about the political ideals that they claim to care so much about. Rather, the blogosphere seems to have attracted the latest generation of drama queens who have masked their need to be the properly outraged center of attention in the guise of being “principled”.
Translation for those of you who don’t speak Stephanese: most political bloggers act like hormonal fourteen-year-old girls on the hunt for something to cry over.
To be sure, there are definitely a few gems out there:
- MW of DWSUWF is dedicated political blogger with whom I disagree on many points but who has – quite admirably in this environment - managed to keep a dispassionate and intelligent blog that is a joy to read.
- Another blogger whose political posting consists mainly of where the political meets the personal is James, who has a set large enough to regularly engage his readers in conversations about topics that make most people do that creepy rocking back-and-forth thing while holding their knees to their chest and sucking their thumb.
- Kevin and Kyle are two fellow Catholics who consistently post through the minefields of politics and faith with respect and class and – if I were them – are justifiably annoyed about now that their track record of taste and virtue has now been marred by an affiliation with this blog.
…and despite the fact that I’m forgetting a couple, my quest for intelligent life in the realm of political blogging has been a frustrating experience indeed.
Just for once I’d like to read a post by a liberal who concedes that an immigration free-for-all is a disastrous idea that encourages the cruel exploitation of people who enter this country without the benefit of being documented workers with requisite rights as human beings.
Similarly, I would do backflips if I could find a conservative who would concede that the human flow from Mexico consists mainly of folks who bust their ass doing jobs that we’ve become too silly and full of ourselves to dirty our hands with and not – as some would have you believe – seething hordes of brown people intent on bankrupting our welfare system.
I’d love to hear a rational and constitutionally sound argument devoid of ad hominem appeal supporting a continued ban on gay marriage.
(That last part was a joke because a constitutionally sound argument supporting a continued ban on gay marriage does not exist.)
I’d like, before I die, to hear my fellow Christians acknowledge the benefits afforded us by secular government.
I would positively faint if I ever heard an atheist admit that the U.S. is hardly a theocracy.
It would be nice if for once a political blogger could form an original thought instead of relying on jackass idealogues like Ann Coulter or Al Franken to do it for them.
On a personal note, I would really appreciate it if in the course of a political discussion people would use logic to argue with me based on the points I’ve made instead of a) throwing up their hands and invoking my home state as evidence that I’m some pinko-commie nutjob or b) using my Central Valley digs as proof that I’m some right wing extremist who’s only a small cache of weapons away from being the next Randy Weaver.
I’d also like for everyone I know in both the real and virtual worlds to conference and decide once and for all whether they’re going to brand me a conservative or a liberal because I’m sick of receiving political e-mail forwards and if there is any way to cut that crap in half I’d be mighty obliged.
