It's so much easier to find political opinions on the internet these days, compared to the dead tree era. Remember how you could travel from one end of the country to the other and buy newspapers that featured the same six pundits on the editorial page? But even though there are more choices today, dualism gets in the way of enjoying political essays. You're either on my side or the other side, Good versus Evil, left versus right, big government versus small, blue versus red states, etc.
That's why the ideal political essay should try to stay away from this trap. It should reach out to opinions and values that aren't necessarily "political" in the normal sense of the word.
Besides avoiding simplistic and divisive dualisms, we should also avoid excessive consistency and predictability. For instance Eric Peters writes about automobile regulations from a libertarian point of view. At times I agree with him; at other times, he irritates me with his gearhead culture. Libertarian purists don't believe in speed limits, for instance. But what matters is the inconsistency in my reactions to him; it's what makes reading his essays beneficial to me.
Consider the surprising accord between pols on both sides of the pond in hitting Iran with sanctions. What a contrast that is with the disaccord during the buildup to the Iraq War in the early Aughts. Regardless of where you fit on the dualistic spectrum you might look at this surprising accord and think, "Something's fishy. They're probably both up to No Good."
And they probably are. It's not surprising that the USA-Israel Axis is bucking for a new war that will extend or protect Axis domination of the Mideast. What else is new?! But why would Europe ally itself with the Axis this time around?
The likely answer is that this is the price of an insurance policy: a bailout of Europe by the American taxpayers, ministered by their great public servant, Ben Bernanke. It astonishes me to find this explanation so overlooked in the media.
If this speculation is incorrect it is at least the right kind of effort. We need to laugh off official stories. Instead of rehashing the issue du jour we need to back up a step and ask what the assumptions are. Political discussions are likely to be useful only if they try to pull the curtain back from the little man who is operating the controls over the big phony projection of the Wizard of Oz.
That's why the ideal political essay should try to stay away from this trap. It should reach out to opinions and values that aren't necessarily "political" in the normal sense of the word.
Besides avoiding simplistic and divisive dualisms, we should also avoid excessive consistency and predictability. For instance Eric Peters writes about automobile regulations from a libertarian point of view. At times I agree with him; at other times, he irritates me with his gearhead culture. Libertarian purists don't believe in speed limits, for instance. But what matters is the inconsistency in my reactions to him; it's what makes reading his essays beneficial to me.
Consider the surprising accord between pols on both sides of the pond in hitting Iran with sanctions. What a contrast that is with the disaccord during the buildup to the Iraq War in the early Aughts. Regardless of where you fit on the dualistic spectrum you might look at this surprising accord and think, "Something's fishy. They're probably both up to No Good."
And they probably are. It's not surprising that the USA-Israel Axis is bucking for a new war that will extend or protect Axis domination of the Mideast. What else is new?! But why would Europe ally itself with the Axis this time around?
The likely answer is that this is the price of an insurance policy: a bailout of Europe by the American taxpayers, ministered by their great public servant, Ben Bernanke. It astonishes me to find this explanation so overlooked in the media.
If this speculation is incorrect it is at least the right kind of effort. We need to laugh off official stories. Instead of rehashing the issue du jour we need to back up a step and ask what the assumptions are. Political discussions are likely to be useful only if they try to pull the curtain back from the little man who is operating the controls over the big phony projection of the Wizard of Oz.
Comments