I just wanted to say a few things about this blog, beside what I already say here. Basically, if I created this blog, it’s because I wanted a place where I can share my thoughts with more people than I post on Facebook. I plan to talk about random things, but I will no doubt write a lot about politics, as well as policy.
I work in academia, so most people around me are liberals and, to be honest, I think they usually are poorly informed on politics broadly construed. To be sure, this is just based on anecdotal evidence, so it doesn’t really show anything, but in my experience intelligent conservative are better informed about the political issues they discuss in public than liberals. (I’m using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” very loosely here, not in any technical sense. As people often point out, the liberal/conservative dichotomy is very rough and, while I often criticize liberals, I’m not really a conservative. Indeed, it’s difficult to characterize my political views in a succinct way, although I guess that “classical liberal” probably comes pretty close.)
One reason to think it might be true, however, is that most environments where you can find intelligent conservatives (such as academia) are hostile to conservatism. (We can talk about the reasons for that later, but that’s not the purpose of this post. Obviously, one reason is that conservatives are vastly outnumbered in most environments where people are smart, but this doesn’t really answer the question.) This means that, when a conservative defends his political views in public, he usually has a stronger incentive than a liberal to make sure that what he says isn’t stupid, because otherwise he can be sure that he will be excoriated whereas a liberal more often won’t. Indeed, I’m often baffled by the incredibly stupid things some of my liberals friends say when they talk about politics, without ever getting any pushback. (Of course, that’s not to say that intelligent conservatives never say any stupid shit, which they often do.)
Another reason to think it might be true that intelligent conservatives are better informed about the political issues they discuss in public is that, unlike liberals in the same environment, they typically hear arguments from the other side all the time because they usually are a small minority in that environment. Indeed, I’m often amazed by the fact that my liberal friends are convinced that no reasonable person could support certain views, when I know there are plenty of good reasons to support them, even when I ultimately disagree with the views in question.
Now, I’m naturally inclined toward a polemical style of writing, especially since I’m really pissed off by the way in which liberals vilify people they disagree with, even though they often have no idea what they’re talking about. (For instance, liberals tend to assume that any restrictionist view on immigration is obviously evil, but how many of them have read even just one study about immigration? In my experience, not many of them, but it doesn’t stop them from treating anyone who accepts that kind of view like garbage.) Moreover, it really annoys me when someone complains about my tone without making any substantive point and despite the fact that I never hear them criticize the tone of people who defend more popular views, which is often even more abrasive than mine. When I hear that kind of complaints, I’m always reminded of this passage of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, at the end of chapter 2:
Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. … With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation.
Again, I work in academia, where not a day goes by without me seeing conservatives being vilified, often by people who are completely uninformed and, in many cases, stupid. I think most people have no idea how much this pisses me off and I really don’t like being lectured about it because, to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t think many people in academia are in a position to lecture me about this. Not only is this stupid, but it’s also cowardly.
However, I recognize that it turns people off and, perhaps even more importantly, it’s unfair to a lot of people who cannot be accused of that kind of hypocrisy. I would like this blog not to become an echo chamber and I fear that it’s going to happen unless I can somehow restrain myself. To this end, from now on, I will make an effort to use a softer tone. It doesn’t mean that I won’t make fun of liberals anymore, but I’ll try to do it without being hysterical, as I was for instance when I attacked the claim that Trump’s election allegedly unleashed on the US. It doesn’t mean that I will always succeed, but I will try, because I would really like this blog to be a place where liberals can see that not everything they think is obvious actually is obvious and where people everywhere on the political spectrum can have rational discussions.
The only thing I will not tolerate is people who not only criticize my tone without making any substantive point, but also suggest that I’m morally wicked just for defending a view they don’t like. This really drives me crazy and I’m not going to promise that I won’t trash people who do that, because I know that it’s a promise I’m totally incapable of keeping. Of course, it’s okay if you think that a view I’m defending is morally problematic, but don’t attack my character just because I defend it. I understand that if a view is morally problematic and I defend it, then there is a sense in which I’m morally culpable, but there is a difference between arguing for that claim and the holier-than-thou attitude that I so often encounter from people who have no business lecturing me about morality. If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to read my blog, but otherwise you’re welcome even and especially if you disagree.