Followup to my observation.....

[poltr1]

My previous observation about logic vs. emotion by political parties was based on a very small sampling from several years ago. Since 9/11, things have apparently changed.

I don't read a lot of political blogs. However, if I read a political post by filkertom, I often observe a very visceral reaction without a lot of logic contained. I don't get that emptional charge when I read something by billroper or owlsforodin.

Many of the people I used to work with over the years were engineers and computer/IT types, and they typically skew toward the conservative side. They're even more conservative if they work in the defense industry as active-duty military, retired military, civilians, or contractors.

I am on moveon.org's maliling list, and I occasionally respond to their calls of action. I've noticed that a lot of their posts (besides asking for money) urge their readers to Act Now!

I also tend to avoid political conversations with conservatives, since I'm not good at quickly recalling specific examples to defend my position.

I would like some specific examples to refute my initial observation. I'm a logical kind of guy.

Comments

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

At least when it comes to posting on LJ, I have to confess I'm a vague kind of guy, because I don't have the memory for detail to be able to remember the logical structure of specific arguments, and while I have enough motivation to shoot off my mouth in a comment, I don't have enough to find a bunch of texts and critique them. The most specific I can be is to refer back to the speeches I caught from the conventions. Both sides try to use a logical framework for their speeches, and both sides include emotional appeals to fire up the crowd. On both sides, a good speech is considered one that gets the audience screaming, not one that makes them listen attentively so they catch all the subtleties of the reasoning. Because of the Republican's mastery of the language of the debate, they can make their best emotional appeals -- to judge by where the audience cheers -- by just slipping in a "death tax" here and a "sanctity of marriage" there. The Democrats, on the other hand, have to devote more words of their speeches to undisguised emotional appeals, which leaves less words for the real logic. If they don't do this, they are "dry" and "boring" and "my eyes glaze over", but when they do they "lack substance".

Comments in the blogosphere will often reprise the memorable parts of longer speeches. The memorable parts are generally the parts that had an emotional charge for the listeners. Republican language means their logical arguments include emotional hooks that make them memorable. The take-away from longer Democratic speeches tend to be just the emotional appeals. So I would expect some bias in the blogosphere as a whole toward more logical looking Republican arguments.

A further factor that influences what I see in the blogosphere (admittedly not much) is that I can't stand to read highly emotional Republican appeals because they annoy me too much, but I have a higher tolerance for emotional Democratic appeals. Thus, I actually do see more appeals to logic in the Republican rhetoric I read than in the Democratic rhetoric I read -- but I think that reflects what I'm willing to read, not what's out there. This may apply to you as well. I'm sure there are plenty of folks on LJ who post stuff that's as ardently and emotionally right wing as what filkertom is left, but I don't read them and I doubt you do either. I'm willing to read billroper's opinions, even though I usually disagree with him.

In one final attempt to provide specific examples, consider some Presidential candidates from past races. Like the famous Reagan/Carter debate in 1980, where Carter threw up a complex, though frazzled, argument, and Reagan dismissed it with a smug "There you go again" -- and those four words are considered a high point in the history of Presidential debates. Early speeches by Al Gore are nothing but appeals to logic. Clinton was told by his advisors to keep his answers simple, and he learned to do it.

[athenawindsong.livejournal.com]

I've come to use logic to emotionally distance myself from the Dark Side. ;o)

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Well, one could, for instance, contrast the American Family Association with MoveOn.org, they occupy similar spots in their respective fields (though the AFA might be a little more centrist for conservatives than MoveOn is for liberals). And I know liberals on LJ who present reasoned essays.

I'm not sure things have changed since 9/11, except that 'terrorist' gained more prominence as a watchword and a worthy successor to 'Communist'. I remember as a kid being raised in a fundamentalist church hearing the most hysterical screeds about how LGBT organizations wanted to prey upon me and my fellow children and how Planned Parenthood wanted to kill every American baby, starting with the unborn ones. I've heard a fair amount of arm-wavy rhetoric from both sides (well, all sides, the liberal/conservative distinction collapses a lot of different groups under just two banners, but I diggress).

[patoadam]

if I read a political post by filkertom, I often observe a very visceral reaction without a lot of logic contained.

You might try osewalrus aka "Tales of the Sausage Factory". For example, http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/item/1270.

There is righteous indignation, but it is based on logic and knowledge of the facts.

I should also note that visceral reactions to things like invading foreign countries and torturing people may be entirely appropriate.

[owlsforodin.livejournal.com]

The level of response may be a reaction to how far from the center the speaker is. I tend to find myself reacting strongly to the further reaches of both left and right. In my own statements, over the past few years, I've been trying to be more toward the center. I remember a time when being conservative didn't mean "Head stuck in Bible." Some want to blame Reagan, and he did set the ball rolling, but I don't think he intended for it to go as far as it has. For the record, I've voted Libertarian the past two elections. Obama is more toward the center than either Gore or Kerry were, so he's getting more consideration than his predecessors. My experience is that moderates are more interested in resolving an issue than than they are in expressing their self-righteous indignation, so it would follow that they would prefer rational analysis and logic to emotional ploys. It is worrisome that latter is effective, and it can be genuinely effective while focusing only on a limited range of issues.

Emotion vs Logic

[urban-terrorist.livejournal.com]

This is the way that the Right wants the Left to look. You want logic in someone on the left of center check Brashley46 for a good example.