Why this blog?

I read an interesting op-ed today that pointed out the narcissism inherent in today’s social media.  Any good writing, however, requires a certain confidence-of-convictions that I, as a professor who is tasked with presenting subject matter “objectively,” sometimes shy away from in the classroom.  Blogging my views online, however, provides me with the opportunity to offer a more pointed analysis of events that I see happening in the political world.

There are instrumental reasons why want to undertake this project, of course.  The “press release” guy on campus always asks me for my two cents when some major international event occurs.  Now there is a web address I can point him toward.  Furthermore, my contributions as a “scholar” are somewhat limited now that, due to my physical disability, I won’t be traveling to academic conferences for the foreseeable future.  While not quite the same experience as debating academic papers, this technology allows me to share my insights and discuss the with an audience without having to leave my couch.

In the weeks to come, I will seek to hold myself to several standards.  More to the point, I hope to largely avoid some of the pathologies I read and hear on a daily basis in other discussions and editorial on politics.

Foremost, I wish to avoid the extreme “cognitive dissonance”  issues that are endemic to much political discourse these days.  That’s a fancy way of saying I want to avoid “knee-jerkism.”  Many bloggers and columnists bend all matter of facts to suit their dominant world view, and then repackage and regurgitate the same conservative or liberal talking points for public consumption.  My goal is to take an open-minded, searching approach to the issues I discuss.

Of course, those who know me, know that the George W. Bush years sent me fleeing into the arms of the Democratic Party, and there is no doubt that my views on foreign and, particularly, domestic policy tend to accord more with the progressive wing of American politics.  Nevertheless, it will never be my goal to “shill” for the Democrat party, and I hope that some of the views I express strike an occasional jarring nerve with my Democrat-minded readers.

The other major goal is to avoid the use of simplistic analogies as a substitute for reasoned, evidence-based arguments.  Phony analogies are the bread-and-butter of policy-makers and talking heads when pushing certain policies or criticizing political opponents.  Beware any commentator or politician who fancies him or herself an “amateur historian” — or, sometimes even worse — someone with a  background in history who believes in hamfistedly applying the lessons of the past to the present and the future.

Don’t get me wrong, I will use historical analogies in my blogs.  Analogies have a place in illustrating arguments, but when used as a basis for drawing conclusions, analogical reason is a recipe for lazy and slipshod arguments.  No two policies, people, or events are alike, and when this fact is neglected, political opponents all-to-often become “Hitlers” or “Marxists” (or both) and all foreign policies are justified based on the  “lessons of Munich” or the “lessons of Vietnam.”

If I can avoid some of the silliest pitfalls of other commentators in the months to come, I’ll have succeeded in some part.  Of course, I also hope to inform and entertain in some measure.   In the end, though, it’s hard to argue that this blog is not, in some ways, an exercise in narcissism.  As such, I also hope to persuade. I hope to persuade my readers to occasionally reconsider their own views, break through their own cognitive dissonance, and maybe, just maybe, to think about the political world a little bit more like me.

Posted on June 13, 2011, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Hi Dr. Woodwell. This is great. I am very interested in reading your next posts. Good luck with you blog!

  2. Looking forward to your commentary and analysis.

  3. I was led to your blog by a mutual friend. I think we share some common points. George W. Bush did a lot to scare me into voting for John Kerry (even as I liked the description of Kerry, I think from Maureen Dowd or someone else in the MSM, “it’s like Lurch went to Choate.”)

    I’ll ask a maybe tricky question. If there is, as you say “no doubt that my views on foreign and, particularly, domestic policy tend to accord more with the progressive wing of American politics” then I think it would take more than one failed Republican to cause you to flee into anybody’s arms.

    If Shrub was a bad Republican mistake then you have to walk him off and work for better.

    If your views accord more with the progressive wing of American politics, where are you fleeing from? Aren’t you already at home, as a progressive?’

    I ask you, because I ask me.

    I went to see Reagan speak (I don’t remember what he said). I went to see William F. Buckley at a Firing Line taping. I have spent some years flying the flag, and mostly in prevailing winds.

    The things that I believe, the ways that I understand the world, have come crashing onto the rocks of the world as it unfolds, and I haven’t figured out how to respond. The party which most closely held my ideals has turned into a carnival of cranks and carnival barkers.

    I do want to find a sane way to be a Republican/conservative mostly because I doubt the power of government. Not in the immeidate sense–it can kill you, as Saddam and Stalin proved–but in the larger sense, as Al Gore, and most Democrats, fail to understand.

    Sometime in the 50’s the Chinese government decided to reduce the damage to the food supply (given that they were responsible for it) by declaring a bounty on rats, those eaters of the grain suppply.

    So, of course, Chinese people started rasing rats, in order to collect the bounty,

    That’s why Al Gore should not have been president, The world is not a thing that you decide and control through your plans and wishes. I am so offended by his laborious, didactic, condescending approach that I am tempted to say that the GWBush presidency was worth it, in spite of Iraq, and that’s a pretty large bill.

    Somewhere recently I read an interview with, I think it was Chistopher Buckley, in which he said that his father had said that he had spent his whole life trying to separate the right wing from the nuts.

    So now, do we want to continue Buckley’s mssion, or do we want to join the [other] nuts?

    • Wow — I’m am really surprised that someone other than friends and students found this quickly. I really appreciate your response, jkilian.

      I think what is really lost in the demagoguery of both sides of the aisle are some of the essential philosophical differences between the parties. Sure, the basics are pretty clear-cut: Republicans-want-less-government, Democrats want more; Republicans want a more unilateral foreign policy, Democrats want more cooperation, etc. But why? What understandings underlie these positions? It’s an issue I’ve thought a lot about and hope to take up in a couple weeks.

  4. Hi Doug! I’m happy to see your analysis on current events. There aren’t enough people who take enough effort to explain/consider the motivations and foundations for current events. I hope that your students will read this blog, take their own initiative to cut through the political muck, and never settle at reading the news.
    Take care –

    April Devine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: