Some Things that are Trueish…

Reading this thread and following the links has got me to thinking some not terribly original thoughts…

• Yeah, there really is an echo chamber effect. The division of the progressive blogosphere into Clinton and Obama factions seems to have produced an internally reinforcing radicalization that makes preferences more intense than they would be in the general community. Having even weak arguments vetted by an ideologically sympathetic crowd of co-bloggers and commenters seems to detach these chambers from the larger community. Intragroup dynamics, in other words, seem to reward radicalism and limit perspective on empirical evidence. To the Clinton people, Obama and his allies are sexist because hey, everybody you know agrees that they’re sexist. To the Obama folks, the Clintons are racist under the same logic. The medium is central to this effect; in the blogosphere, more than in any other facet of our lives, we associate with those whom we choose to associate, and consequently disassociate with those whom we find unpleasant.
• Yeah, there is a lot of purely team drive bitterness. This isn’t surprising at all from a social science perspective, in which we have robust findings that people will bitterly defend even arbitrary group distinctions, regardless of merit associated with the case. In this case, we see arguments that run, more or less “I will never vote for Candidate X, because his/her supporters are such assholes”. The drive for Team victory has a tendency to overwhelm what we might consider more rationalistic appeals; I think that since the blogosphere is such a participatory medium, there’s an even greater tendency towards team solidarity.
• Yeah, the previous two tendencies mean that there’s a lot of unnecessary vitriol. While I’m sure that some folks on either side would have declared that Clinton or Obama were, respectively, the daughter and son of Satan six months ago, the intra and inter group dynamics have contributed to a situation in which these views are, within the blogosphere, more widely held than they otherwise would be. This is both group driven and medium driven; those who perfect particularly vicious and vitriolic attacks are rewarded within the group by kudos, links, and so forth.
• Fortunately, there’s probably less reason for concern outside the blogosphere than within it. Just because Clinton bloggers hate Obama bloggers and vice versa doesn’t mean that Clinton voters hate Obama voters; identification with one team or another, participation in the activities of that time, and access to the echo chamber contribute strongly to the kind of radicalization that produces very stark division. This is to say that strong blogospheric Clinton partisans may follow through on their promises not to support Obama, but since the general voting public is altogether less invested in the battle itself, we probably shouldn’t worry about a large percentage of Clinton supporters sitting the general out.
• Contributing to this last is the phenomenon of multiple group affiliation; while many of us are Clintonistas or Obamaniacs, this is not the only group affiliation which is meaningful, or the only one that activates the aforementioned intra and inter group dynamics. We are also, of course, leftists; while it’s possible that a McCain supporter visiting TalkLeft will win kudos three months from now for his attack on Obama, it seems more likely to me that the general election will mobilize a new group identity and consequently different group dynamics.
• That said, all of what I’ve listed deserves a certain degree of skepticism; yes, psychology and group dynamics and media matter, but people all have good, real, rational reasons for supporting one candidate or another. For my part, I know that my own preferences are wholly rational, well considered, dependent on evidence, and completely free of animosity towards the other side, even hacks like Jerome Armstrong and Armando. To take tongue slightly out of cheek, I think that most of us are to some degree aware of the tendencies described above, and that we try to correct for all of them, either through weighing evidence with great care and fairness or through trying to avoid identification with one team or another for as long as possible. I know that I want to have fair and good reasons for the vote I expect to cast for Obama on the 20th, and I think that I do, but at the same time I’m aware that there are various forces not entirely within the purview of my own rationality that push me to have a stronger opinion that I otherwise would, or to view evidence differently that would a disinterested observer.
• Finally, we have to accept that there are real limits to the blogosphere as space for political discussion. What’s going on here, either between Clinton and Obama supporters or between the right and the left, isn’t exactly a perfect free speech situation in which the participants carefully consider the arguments made, then weigh judgment. The blogosphere is a wonderful space, and the left blogosphere a particularly wonderful space, but like all media it has its drawbacks and limitations.

In any case, be excellent to one another; I say that having violated the prescription as often and as viciously as anyone.