> Presumably, though, "the establishment progressive media," as well as
> writers who publish their ideas in them and advertisers who take out
> ads in them, hope to have an influence on the minds of their audience,
> a small audience as they are. So, it is reasonable to hypothesize
> that "the establishment progressive media" make a marginal difference,
> e.g. on "1 in 10 Nader voters [who] say they wish they could change
> their vote after knowing how close the election was" ("Minor Parties
> in the 2000 Presidential Election," p. 4,
> <http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/
> burdosu.pdf>). Of course, it is possible that "the establishment
> progressive media" don't have even such a tiny impact and change
> anyone's minds, and those who write for them and advertise in them may
> be simply wasting their time or money. It may be even the case that a
> large minority or even the majority of their audience are those who
> really enjoy getting outraged by "the establishment progressive
> media," rather than those whose opinions are close to their editorial
> lines :->
Sure, these media (I guess you mean The Nation in particular) want to influence their readers' thinking, but you don't get my point (not the first time). I was interested in your use of the term "browbeating," i.e.,"'to bear down, discourage, or oppose with stern, arrogant or insolent looks or words, to snub, to bully," to quote the OED. Also, your insinuation that people who voted for Nader and then changed their mind were cowards who were intimidated by this alleged bullying.
I am noticing more and more that much political discourse -- not only on the left, of course -- adopts the following assumption: anyone who disagrees with the speaker, or takes a position or performs a political act the speaker disapproves of, must be either a) ignorant or less intelligent than said speaker (consider the term "Dumbocrats" which frequently appears in posts on this list); b) perhaps ordinarily of at least average intelligence, but under the sinister influence of some mind-bending alien force which is robbing them of their ability to think; or c) just crazy. In other words, the speaker is able to think clearly and intelligently, but her or his opponent is not. The effect of making this assumption is to relieve the speaker of the necessity for engaging in a proper rational argument with an interlocutor who is on an intellectual par with herself or himself. A further effect is to contribute to a general pollution of the political atmosphere which makes it harder and harder for any intelligent political discussion to take place. This list is one of the few forums I have found anywhere these days where such intelligent discussion is at all possible, and it is a shame that even its atmosphere is as poisoned by this kind of trash-talk as it is.
By saying that media like The Nation are just engaged in "browbeating," and that people who you disagree with are "fainthearted," i.e., cowards, you are implying that the writers who appear in such media have no actual arguments worth taking seriously -- they are just bullies. I would be interested in seeing if you have any actual arguments of your own which would support such a claim.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.