Conspiracy theorists
A common mistake among political pundits of either the right or the left, authoritarian or libertarian, conservative or liberal, laissez-faire or state corporatist, is to see people who oppose them as members of a group.
The reason for this attitude taking hold is not complicated.
"Clearly I am right", they say to themselves.
"Clearly, therefore, people who oppose me must be part of some conspiracy. There is no way that they could all come to a conclusion different from mine on an independent basis."
And so, with the news today that an ally of Bush has resigned, a common theme has been the "outpouring" of celebration amongst liberal bloggers. Immediately, the whole thing is cast as some kind of controlled organisation, rather than an anarchic collection of individuals, some of whom might class themselves as liberals, some of whom might not.
It's a universal trait. The US government needs there to be "an international terrorist netowrk". The more organized the Al Qaeda system is, the happier it will be. The one thing that organizations cannot abide is opponents who are not organized. Indeed, it goes farther than this. When reference is made to the "cellular" structure of Al Qaeda (something which seasoned observers might takes a "a collection of individuals in lots of different countries, none of whom have the faintest idea what is going on elsewhere") you get the feeling that this kind of organization is unfair. It isn't playing by the rules. You can't fight a war on an opponent that doesn't exist.
The "blogging liberals" are a similar non-existent movement. Finally a collection of Americans (a large collection) decided that it wasn't too happy with the Bush administration. Whether you agree with the various posturings is neither here nor there. The point is that they aren't an organized opposition. They are not all in the pay of the "Hillary for '08" campaign. When you see that one of the opponents of the current Bush "way" is The Economist then you have to admit that the opposition could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as united.
The kind of people who move into organized hierarchies (of which the political system is the most organized and the most hierarchical) cannot cope with anarchic disorganization on the other side. It fries their brains.
I think I am alone in thinking that the end of John Fowles' The Magus is marvellous. After 600 pages or so of conspiracy theory and paranoia, the protagonists discover that there is no-one there after all (at least, that's my momory of the book -- it is more than 25 years since I read it). Just because some people celebrate on their blogs when the Bush administration has a screw-up, stop looking for conspiracies. For many of the bloggers, it's just a laugh. Don't try to defeat them -- it'll be like fighting shadows.
The reason for this attitude taking hold is not complicated.
"Clearly I am right", they say to themselves.
"Clearly, therefore, people who oppose me must be part of some conspiracy. There is no way that they could all come to a conclusion different from mine on an independent basis."
And so, with the news today that an ally of Bush has resigned, a common theme has been the "outpouring" of celebration amongst liberal bloggers. Immediately, the whole thing is cast as some kind of controlled organisation, rather than an anarchic collection of individuals, some of whom might class themselves as liberals, some of whom might not.
It's a universal trait. The US government needs there to be "an international terrorist netowrk". The more organized the Al Qaeda system is, the happier it will be. The one thing that organizations cannot abide is opponents who are not organized. Indeed, it goes farther than this. When reference is made to the "cellular" structure of Al Qaeda (something which seasoned observers might takes a "a collection of individuals in lots of different countries, none of whom have the faintest idea what is going on elsewhere") you get the feeling that this kind of organization is unfair. It isn't playing by the rules. You can't fight a war on an opponent that doesn't exist.
The "blogging liberals" are a similar non-existent movement. Finally a collection of Americans (a large collection) decided that it wasn't too happy with the Bush administration. Whether you agree with the various posturings is neither here nor there. The point is that they aren't an organized opposition. They are not all in the pay of the "Hillary for '08" campaign. When you see that one of the opponents of the current Bush "way" is The Economist then you have to admit that the opposition could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as united.
The kind of people who move into organized hierarchies (of which the political system is the most organized and the most hierarchical) cannot cope with anarchic disorganization on the other side. It fries their brains.
I think I am alone in thinking that the end of John Fowles' The Magus is marvellous. After 600 pages or so of conspiracy theory and paranoia, the protagonists discover that there is no-one there after all (at least, that's my momory of the book -- it is more than 25 years since I read it). Just because some people celebrate on their blogs when the Bush administration has a screw-up, stop looking for conspiracies. For many of the bloggers, it's just a laugh. Don't try to defeat them -- it'll be like fighting shadows.