Seriously, why do you bother? Why does anyone bother?

I have two reasons: interactive online forums interest me, and I want to clarify my thinking on a variety of topics. Since I see clear thinking as an essential prelude to effective action or advocacy, I welcome the chance to test my thinking against more conservative thinkers. I hang out here for that reason.

In this connection I would add that clear thinking depends to a considerable degree on clear perception. I don't have to call George Bush, or the people who voted for him, idiotic in order to perceive that American policies have fallen far short of the goals promulgated for them over the past seven years. Ronald Reagan asked Americans if they felt better off in 1980 than in 1976. Do you feel better or worse off, more or less free, more or less safe, than you did at this time in 2000? And if Bush has failed, should not common sense (as well as, for the Americans, patriotism) induce everyone to face the hard facts?

The problem isn't that I'm tired or weary of arguing my position, it's that too many actively don't really want to hear it.

I imagine the time will come again when we do want to hear you, but not yet awhile.

This Republican President and his Administration and the series of Republican Congresses which enabled them has truly done a great disservice to conservatism. I don't frequent enough conservative blogs to know if conservatives are aware of this. Nor do I know if conservatives have even begun to engage in the kind of internal debate necessary to repudiate the leadership and governing philosophy passed off as conservatism by the Republicans which has been inflicted on this country during the Bush years, in order to pave the way to both re-discovering a conservative governing philosophy attractive to the voters and to providing the kind of leadership the country needs from both the majority and minority.

I do know that I hear no such conservative voices here at the forvm, more's the pity. Until I do I confess I could care less about what conservatives think, and we Democrats will probably go merrily on our way until such time as the Republican party regains it's electoral footing and the whole dreaded cycle starts all over again with a new set of actors.

To be truthful I don't believe there is a great future ahead for either of the two major parties once in office without the other being around to keep the one in power honest. Not that I favor gridlock as a solution, merely the honest exchange of ideas through passionate advocacy which tends to manifest itself best in divided government. In other words, yes I expect the Democrats to monumentally screw up at some point should they clean up in '08. But I would hope it would take another 30 years and not the eight the most recent experiment in democracy took to self destruct.

Link

On-line discourse increasingly reflects this reality.

This Administration pushed the pendelum hard right and now its swinging back. Hillary Clinton (of all people!) is now desperately trying to keep the pendelum from swinging too far to the left.

asking Mac to leave or take a hiatus from the site? The "don't let the door hitcha" message is always pretty much a conversation-ender, no matter how politely couched the language in which it's delivered. For the record, his world-weary style has remained more or less unchanged for 5 years now (though like any highland malt, he's mellowed a bit over the years). If he were really going to leave, he'd a done it long ago.

Mac's written a long & thoughtful post with a short & simple message: use a little tact when posting comments. Tact being the practice of imagining how someone who doesn't share your viewpoint is going to perceive your language. He supplied a scenario to help visualize that practice, but if you don't like it you're free to suggest/use another one. There are plenty of other things we could do to spruce up the site, but there's nothing wrong with this one small suggestion.

The larger theme, that part of worthwhile conversation is a willingness to learn to see through your own prejudices, as well as those of the other guy, is good stuff. And that's enough cheerleading for one day.

I come here precisely because I can't argue about politics in most, if not all, social/business settings. I also come here because I believe that 85% of those on the other side actually believe 90% of what they write. :-) To me, that is more important than dinner party etiquette. We would all do well, no matter where we blog, to assume that the other person belives what he is writing (no matter how stupid) and ignore those to whom we can't extend that courtesy.

Finally, to all the Conservatives who feel like the big, bad Liberals are beating up on them.......Boo ****ing Hoo! Stop feeling sorry for yourself and wrtie some diaries about totally repealing the "Death" tax, defunding the UN or appointing Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court. You guys can still do a lot of damage things while Bush is still in office you shouldn't give up so easily.

Orange just has that much better rhyme to it.

the site... or as Timmy would say.. Lincoln 1862, on a topic about global warming... :)(liberal poster collectively shake their heads)

Still the site is fine all in all.... I'm not sure that to expect people to be around forever is rational or normal... I mean I first read Tacitus when he and Kos had each other on their blog rolls... and Kos was as small as we are or close... I remember the change to scoop by both sites.. I remember the longtime members fading away.... Still the size and inability to engage against the group think lead me to Tacitus in dairy forvm.. Still the effort to run a site is so great that I understand why josh and other leave.. Even posting consistently is difficult.. Still where we going to go... If I have a good or bad day I understand that Ken will still be talking about how things don't change and how both parties suck, Still he will defend the conservative side 8/10 times :) MA post on how to solve the middle east crisis is still one of the best plans that has know chance of systematically showing that if they wanted they could solve most of the issues...

I come here first to engage with people who think about national policy and governance at least enough to post their thoughts on different subjects. That I have few peers or friends that have a great enough interest on the subject means that I have to laugh at Timmy driving the new liberal member crazy with his limited effort in debate.. I also understand the frustration that many longtime members feel when this effort even if amusing is used to lessen debate... I am much more wonkish than partisan and am more interested in effective change than flame wars... I understand that we need a daily or at least every other day flame war... but ... One the subject of good debate... Here is one silly idea ... One every week or two you should write a post on or about a person or subject that you disagree with you identifying ethos or philosophy..

I read blaise in fact because he is willing to attack his own team as much as the other side... Still I would love to see Timmy attack the white house on some issue or one of the more hard core lefty attack the house or senate leadership...

Still we have Two contested primaries and many difficult issues facing us as a nation left and right... So I would bet that we get old friends back it just might be awhile. eclimber is one I miss... Liva left.... Spec..

Still got old Mac who refused to let the forvm burn...

I by the way think we need a blog roll small but with two way links... That is how I found tacitus and how others will find the forvm...

Hello old friends and new ones that I have read but not conversed but hope to more often...

and certainly there's nothing wrong in calling for forbearance and charity of spirit, but your diary leaves me strangely unmoved. Maybe it's my background, where I grew up saying f^%$ you to someone was more of an acknowledgment than an insult.

The main reason that I'm surprised by your diary is that you gave me some of the best advice I ever got here, which is to ignore the stuff that I find idiotic or tiresome. It is clever how you excuse conservatives for being close minded yet claim it a flaw in liberals, but then I always thought that breaking stereotypes was something that we should encourage. The problem appears to be which stereotypes are being broken.

This month marks one year (more or less) since I started posting at the old site, and I really haven't seen much of a change other than some people have gotten tired of having the same old arguments over and over again. Some keep it up, some deftly (or clumsily) try to turn the arguments aside, but I don't see that the arguments or the positions have changed much. Some people are rude, some are polite, some react with anger when challenged, some with humor. There are some people that are a delight to converse with, and others that are not so delightful. I'll have to be conservative here and chalk it up to human nature.

Maybe a site like this has a half-life, and without a gradual turnover in participants it will decay and fail. I still think it's too soon to tell. I still get enough back to justify my participation here, but that's a decision everyone has to make for themselves.

I've never pictured the Forvm as a fish & goose soiree. To me it is the holy Ganges. No matter how much we piss into it, all is washed away. Mother Ganga accepts all who seek her copious bosom and excuses with a knowing wink any excesses we show in our exercise of free expression.

those wacky squabbling kids, as being a good bit more in agreement than they may care to admit. Mac wonders whether posters here would talk to others, in person, at a dinner party, the way they talk to each other here. Of course they wouldn't -- unless, that is, they're complete sociopaths who enjoy getting their asses kicked. Harley offers the anecdote about his new brother-in-law's pal, who hates the new bro's politics but knows him as a good guy.

What are the common themes? The first is that fundamental sense of politeness and civility which the reality of human interaction necessarily compels. The second is the truth that a rounded, real-world knowledge of another human person always comes to be more important (at least for those with a reasonable grip on mental health) than a person's mere politics.

A setting like this, by contrast, can never offer anything like genuine human familiarity. We're all really nothing more to each other than odd handles and short blasts of dashed-off, haphazard prose. To achieve civility in this context -- where the principles of deference and regard that naturally follow from real human interaction aren't compelled to develop -- requires, first, that a poster affirmatively identify civility as an independently worthwhile value, and, second, that the poster exercise some personal discipline (as a replacement for the discipline imposed by, say, the real-world dinner party) to achieve it.

Folks fail here on one or both all the time (including yours truly). Some folks just don't care about civil interaction. Others might actually care in the real world, where there is always the risk of getting punched, but that risk doesn't exist here, and they see no need to muster their own discipline. Having said that, though, I honestly don't see a higher incidence of boorish behavior among leftish posters than among others. I mean, truth be told, when I try to envision the platonic ideal of an a**hole poster, Hunter (later Ithaca) really does come to mind. Now I do believe that certain "conservative" notions do value civility and respectfulness in ways that some "progressive" ways of thinking do not, but those are ideas, not people. The capacity for civility and regard -- the tools that pry open the space in which understanding of alternative viewpoints can begin to develop -- seems to me to be a uniquely personal characteristic, and is seen no more on the right than on the left. And that it seems to be notably and generally absent in a place like this is just a function of the fact that we're talking through the intertubes instead of face-to-face -- and, for me at least, means that those who do manage to communicate civility and respect in this setting, and several do leap quickly to mind, are entitled to particular applause.

As my most enjoyable habit is entertaining, I do not tolerate either political or religious discussion at my table, and gently steer the habituated one away from these dire topics.

Neither topic is off-limits here. I will not willingly defend my faith here again. Anyone who feels compelled to defend his positions on either topic will find himself engaged in what the Header tag assures me is "occasional bloodletting". Much blood is being let, some of it drips onto the floor of Walter Reed.

Right and Left are false distinctions. Conservative and Liberal require each other, to maintain some sense of themselves as figures in a landscape. Too much change is bad, maintaining the status quo is equally evil.

To quote Steely Dan:

we're tuned into some of the same things I think. bit of a blab follows.

I've sensed less engaging lately. Irving is right that tere have been few 'good point' posts lately (traveller notwiithstanding).

of course we have a lot of talented and interesting lefties who hold strong opinions. Harley, spartacvs, PM, spin, etc. aren't way to the left, but are radical critics of the admin. and conservative thought generally.

i couldn't/wouldn't want to change their strength of conviction.

but the accompanying feeling of impatience seems to me unfortunate. i'm thinking of e.g. comparing people who doubt that global warming is significantly due to humans to flat-earthers. my own view involves defering to the majority of climatologists. and beleive me there's a lot of discussions around here that are completely dead issues s far as i'm concerned. but the mood can be a little stifling here.

i think folks should be willing to engage in issues they consider dead at a site like this or at the least avoid being dismissive. since we're still feeling the anti-PC backlash, leftists *should* be aware that persuasion doesn't happen under pressure. people just get annoyed, go away, isolate themselves, and then never really accept the ideas you're selling.

(i'm struck by how even though conservatives are feeling some backlash over national security issues, they still really control the issue and IMO are only suffering because the Bush admin. has been going way overboard for the past 6 yrs. ... and eceonmics? conservatives essentially control the debate, have moved the center way towwards the right, but somehow managed to do it w/out getting in peoples faces.)

you might not agree with the above analysis. but IMO there could be a little less point-scoring going on.

that said, i do remember the reception of my views in favor of AA when i first came to tacitus. i think right-leaners here if they are frustrated really should be reminded that the site goes through phases.

so Mac i hope this site is still worth being at. i think it is and see a lot of us doing his/her part to make it something good. it's far from perfect, but it would take a large, large, hit if you were to write it off. i encourage you instead to show some patience, maybe take a break now and then, but also help move it in the right direction when the spirit wills.

best wishes.

correlates with the lack of interest in the current political climate by conservatives.

I probably lurked here a few times a week before the election. Afterwards, my interest in political discourse dropped to zero. I even took a break from Redstate, which I visited daily and at least kept me informed of the goings on of the right.

My ass was sore...I needed a break ;)

Then, I come back to:

- Ken White getting banned (at least I THINK this happened afterwards). I mean...the guy is probably my favorite poster on here, who I couldn't fathom would transgress to site rules. I was correct. It was mod heavy-handedness and, though it may not be logical, the fact that the mod was of liberal bent further turned me off.

- JM leaving (with zero explanation). This was a huge blow for me. He was an extremely good writer, one that I was glad was on 'our' side, especially because he could put my thoughts into words a lot better than I could. Talk about demoralizing...

- A less friendly "left" than what I remembered from before. Maybe its because they smell blood in the water and are still in some kind of frenzy, but quite a few of the posters I respected have become quite unlikable. (This could also simply be vestiges of post-election sore-loserness)

- 100% agreement with the 'pumpkin ash' sentiment. The first post of his I read SCREAMED of Democratic Underground lunacy and I nary a peep was heard from the liberals, neither on that nor, for quite a while, subsequent posts.

I just didn't like the place anymore (though I am back to give it another chance).

{Yeah, hon, the food was great -- but who was that idiot you were talking in on the deck who said he'd vote for a Nader-Buchanan ticket...)

Let's talk about this metaphorical dinner table. First off, "anyone who is a Republican is an idiot" is a stupid statement and an obvious strawman. I'm not sure that variety of sentiment is the problem here. But I'll be the first to join hands and denounce it, as I've denounced invidious generalizations (a pet peeve of mine) in the past. ("How illiberal self-identified Liberals can be" is a similarly suspect generalization, btw.)

As for the current bout of Lefty triumphalism, I make no apologies, at least not for my own. I spent several years hearing that winning elections was the only metric that mattered. My reply was to grumble and suggest, as Ken might, that things have a way of turning around. They did. I'm glad they did. The triumphalism will pass in time, it always does. But it's hardly a problem threatening the good name of the site.

As for a lack of comity, I'd suggest that this has always been the case -- the level of the latter being determined by current events. Big events inspire Big Emotions. The war in Iraq qualifies as such. It seems to me that one should understand that going in, and further understand that everyone, even the snarkiest among us, is arguing in good faith. If you make the latter assumption -- rather than assuming they are illiberal liberals -- then that snark is easier to bear. And to take just one example, the way Blaise and Ken have built a commenting relationship based on mutual respect is a perfect example of how folks can, despite varying viewpoints, get along. That doesn't mean they won't go right at each other from time to time. But the latter is a healthy sign of respect as well.

Back to that metaphorical dinner table. If someone at this table suggested that George Bush was a great president misunderstood by smaller minds, I would think they were nuts. Sorry. But that's my opinion. To pretend otherwise would be a specious form of politesse. This doesn't mean that I would shake my meaty fists and say, "You're nuts!" But I might find a way to suggest that the opinion was somewhat, I dunno, beyond the pale. And frankly, given what we know, I find it hard to apologize for that. However illiberal it might seem.

Tomsyl once opined, in the midst of a similar discussion, that he saw no real problems and what's wrong with manning up and giving as good as you get? (I apologize in advance for the rough paraphrase.) There's something to be said for that. Which leads me to my own dinner table anecdote.

My sister remarried last summer, to a wonderful fellow who happens to be a rabid Fox News conservative. My sister almost immediately followed him into the netherworld of Sean Hannity and the like. At the wedding dinner, I sat at a table with his best friend from college, and best friend to this day. He happily referred to my sister's newly acquired husband as 'the fascist'. And he referred to his longtime friend as the 'deluded commie-symp liberal.'

It doesn't read as good as it sounds, particularly because you miss the affection in their tone. Which doesn't mean they weren't, in their way, dead serious about the distinctions. But they also understood that their political positions did not define the parameters of their friendship. My wish for this site is not that we become pinkie-lifted debate doyennes ever careful not to step on each other's toes. But rather folks who are able to go at each other tooth and nail (Chicago style!) and then understand, in the aftermath, that we might still hoist a metaphorical glass in the aftermath, to, if nothing else, our shared desire to make this place (by which I mean the USA) a better one for everyone in it.

I believe, and would be dishonest not to add it, that the prevailing political winds -- which are basically a hurricane comprised of baby poo if you're a conservative -- have made it harder for some to hoist that glass in the aftermath. And maybe, maybe, that's more the problem than any more general lack of civility on the boards. Maybe.

So. In summary? No strawmen, thanks. Allow us the same triumphalism you enjoyed. Ken and Blaise are the wind beneath my wings. It ain't a dinner party unless someone gets a drink thrown in their face. And in the end? Just cuz we talk smack and get overheated doesn't mean we're not brothers.

Between this and your musing on the notion of "license" (which I'm still thinking about too much to write about), you've brought some real light to the discussion around here in recent weeks. Thanks.

Ok so a simple mind experiment: as you read comments and think about posting a reply, imagine you're doing so at a dinner table rather than the great anonymous internets. This site is supposed to be, after all, the definition of mixed company. Well, I'm not above adding one or two good habits to my many bad ones. Consider me RSVPd.

I still think we could use more first rate front page material from a starboard perspective, but, as you say, applying the same basic tact to a longer piece should make it worth talking over, regardless of which direction the piece happens to lean.

Some of you fine folks may remember my infrequent postings on tacitus.org, and while I continue to read this site daily, the level of discourse hasn't really been worth re-registering here. But I had to do so for this post if only to be a fanboy and agree with every last word.

(Sign me up for your Newsletter Mac)