Debased Speech and Pro-War Bloggers in the Doldrums

I just came across an interesting Toronto Star article from the weekend written by Antonia Zerbisias. She rather gleefully points out the wind appears to have left the sails of many right-wing pro-Iraq War bloggers:

They're either running out of time, or money, or steam Â? or the conviction that Operation Iraqi Freedom was going to be a cakewalk in the sand.

If the above makes no sense to you, then you have not been paying attention to the chest-thumping chaterati of the cybersphere, a post 9/11 class of might-is-right and right-is-might wordsmiths who rode the "War on terror" wave with their warmongering web logs.

But now, with the news getting more dire, the quag more mired and the cost of war ever higher, the warbloggers find themselves on the wrong side of history. And so some of them are putting down their mice and putting up a white flag. (for the full article click here)

While I think Ms. Zerbisias may be somewhat overstating the case, the winds of war can and do shift, it certainly is clear that many pro-Iraq War bloggers have taken to writing less as the war has worsened for the Americans.

I noticed the beginnings of a change with the Sadr led Shia uprisings, and the massacre in Falluja in April. Then of course came Abu Ghraib, and the American military torture of innocent Iraqi civilians, a situation which continues to worsen for the Bush Administration.

I understand Ms. Zerbisias' sense of vindication, particularly given the nasty nature of many of the comments about her, many of which she details in her article. For some reason many bloggers on the right seem to glory in ad hominem attacks. Pro-war bloggers who attack someone's political stance by describing them as "fat" or suffering from "menopause" are at best trying to distract readers from their own poor arguments.

At worst they are trying to dehumanize their political opponents by turning them into sub-human caricatures of real people. Having read some of the vitriol, I tend to think that most of it occurs because the writers have an emotional need to to debase and humiliate their targets. It is, after all, a lot easier on most people's personal sense of morality to destroy something inhuman.

Right-wing talk radio has perfected this kind of debasement. The corporate sponsors of pundits like Rush Limbaugh hide behind free speech, and rationalize their popularity as entertainment. It is little wonder that this well developed practice has been adopted by the bloggers these pundits have inspired.

Limbaugh is a symbol of success. He has a huge following, political influence, and he makes a lot of money with his inane and frequently monstrouss pronouncements on world events. For those who identify with his point of view, it probably makes sense to imitate what appears to be a winning formula.

Part of the problem may be that many people, across the political spectrum, have not been exposed to the argumentative tools that make both reasoned debate possible, and emotional appeals impassioned and fair.

It is likely a mix of all the things I have mentioned, from emotional justification, to imitation, to just plain laziness and a lack of time that forms the problem many political bloggers have with providing reasoned reflection on political events.

I think, or perhaps I hope, that as blogging evolves as a form of media, bloggers themselvess will evolve and adopt a mode of discourse that is both more civilized, yet just as passionate.