Speaking Your Mind vs. Manipulation

(because the crazy fool gave me a set of keys – promoted by pyrrho)

A few days ago at Talk Left Big Tent Democrat wrote a piece on his take on Matt Stoller’s and Glen Greenwald’s position on the Iraq war. In short he characterizes the position if not as defeatist, then somehow improperly resigned pessimism.  Big Tando Dem quotes their willingness to cede the issue to a post-Bush world optimistically also known as “2009”. I agree with him on various things here: that Stoller is an ineffective activist and pundit both, except to be fair, I’m not paying attention, he could be brilliant and I wouldn’t know, I do not follow him at all except as he arises from time to time regarding things like Townhouse List or the “More $$$ for Bloggers! Movement”™.

Glen defends himself with this reply that leads to the point here:

Feel free to cheer for the war’s end.  I do the same.  But that doesn’t make it likely to happen. 

And if Democrats are failing to stop the war – as they are – why should anyone refrain from being honest and saying so?

To which BigTentDemocrat replies:

But the question is why? To pressure them to react and do the right thing? OR to just say so?

We all have eyes. The question is what we want them to do and how to make them do it, if we can.

This is where nearly where I disagree with BigTentDemocrat. You see, I agree we should still speak against the war, and I agree with this update to this essay:

Update [2007-9-5 13:58:39 by Big Tent Democrat]: Apparently NOT just a “network of fairly well trafficked blogs” when it suits them:

  So, the progressive blogosphere just played a huge role in winning a Democratic primary for US House. this is a major accomplishment. Well done and thank you to everyone who participated in the fundraiser.

I wish Stoller and Bowers and the NETROOTS could make up their minds as to whether they just “folks with blogs” or playing “huge roles.”

So do I BigTendoDem, I wish that. But where I disagree with, you, BigTentArmando (is the moratorium on “Armando” over or what?) and always have, is where to side on this dichotomy within the blogosphere between “say what you will” vs. “use your power for good”. My take is based on a view of the blogosphere as a peer to peer phenomenon, or, really The Peer to Peer Phenomenon which is itself a storm of energy that fires up wherever it is able to. This storm could be seen on the net, and still can, everywhere, it rages through and leaves structure in its wake.

It just a few years ago now stormed onto the political landscape, where it promises to be a lasting factor of some kind.  The factor it ought to have, and I think ultimately will, is that of the people expressing themselves. If the people have inane interests (Spears) then that’ll be there… if they believe conspiracy, it’ll be there, and so on.  If you don’t like it, well, at least you get to see there is a problem there, you get to have your say to it, and thus, many people like to go to the forums of those they disagree with and correct them.  It can actually be productive, though I find you will never convince that person, you may convince a passing reader.
From that view it is clear the point of blogs is to “JUST SAY IT!”, whatever it is you want to say.  Make sure you really want to say it then go. If blogs get more controlled than that (note to self, use past tense) then that peer to peer energy will be diverted and go somewhere else.

People will experess themselves. The purpose of the public conversation on the net is for people to be able to be heard. The part where people find someone to listen is fine, but it’s the same old part, fame and attention, the new part is the expression, and the fact that there is attention and engagement without fame as well. Feedback.

You have something strong willed to say…? You are in doubt, but just say it, and then we’ll sort it out. To do anything else is manipulation… or worse, merely attempt at manipulation.

Are we here to advocate manipulation? I think we as liberals and progressives alike have ALL lamented at some time or other the manipulation of population.

Is it just that it wasn’t us doing the manipulating? Really?!? Given the chance it’s our responsibility to manipulate? Instead of relate, express, be straight?

I don’t.

I may influence people by saying what I believe if they then arrive not at what I said, but at their own idea informed by the fact that I talked to them on the subject. That’s the only way it really works out anyway. People change themselves. When they pretend to have wholly changed to a totally newly discovered idea they are just playing with a toy, one easily picked up, easily dropped. You can manipulate people with their biases and fears but they will simply revert on their own or be manipulated by some other emotional player. That might be an effective way to sell cola but I don’t think there is long term progress for culture in that. That is just manipulating the easily swayed and cyclic swing voters of life.

When people speak their mind they refuse to let their tongues be tied, so to speak, they spit it out and speak. Now that is inspiring to others and is the source of genuine “influence” on the net. That inspiration is something wholly fantastic compared to carefully spoken “influences”.

Speaking freely, against the perceived if not actual mainstream grain often works to create popular movements. But also often, what works to dilute and defeat these same movements is the great feelings of responsibility that then well up. And by “great” I mean more like “narcissistic”.

The responsibility of someone that has gotten the attention of an audience for speaking their mind is naturally “keep speaking your mind”. Isn’t that logical? You can change if as an individual your life changes, or even career, but not because of the simple fact that people are listening. People are listening to honesty, and want to hear that.

To start speaking something else more careful is to try to turn a reputation for honesty to dishonest means.

This blogosphere is full of all sorts of people and any individual that likes to can claim outlier status and declare themselves personally exempt from my point. I mean, if Bush started blogging, yes, as President of the United States I would want him to speak responsibly. And if some blogger “breaks through” and becomes a journalist… fine, they ought to speak with reference to journalistic ethics. But the question is what do bloggers qua bloggers need to do, in general, as bloggers. If they have other roles in life I am not surprised and know those other roles give them other responsibilities and purposes… of course. But as bloggers their role is that of “peer” in a network of peers sharing real, valid, information about their state of mind. They should ideally post as citizens speaking their true minds without regard to popularity. They should be speaking or not only with regard to the importance they attach to expressing themselves on the issue in question. If it’s not a big deal to you, don’t pretend it is, if it is a big deal to you, don’t pretend it’s not.

So which are bloggers: Pundits or Activists? They can be either, or, even, both, but in all cases if they are “blogger” pundits, or “blogger” activists, they should speak their own mind freely, that is the purpose, from the point of view of our national needs, in my opinion, of blogging. Their purpose as bloggers does not lie in categories that apply to them as individuals, roles like “pundit” or “activist”. Their purpose lies in the shape of the network, in the grammar of the network and their place in that grammar. This peer to peer network on the internet should rightfully be a place for all citizens to take part in the national and international public debates now finally brought, almost, to the people.

The internet din of political conversation must, absolutely, represent what people are really thinking.

We should be able to use the internet to find out what other people are thinking, specifically people we don’t have access to in our closed groups of friends and like minded compatriots. We ought to get a glimpse into real thoughts, not just what people front to those around them to stay working or get laid… or to attempt the losing gambit of tricking a politician into a given behavior. We don’t need the internet to convey and perpetuate the type of b.s. surface layer of “things you can admit to on TV”. We don’t need it for the type of realism you get in a “gritty sitcom” that can have just as much reality as does not offend its advertiser. There is no value in transferring to teh network the type of “truth” a poor journalist conveys out of stuff an insider pulled out of their personally self-serving optimistic imagination.
(**cough** Chalabi **cough** Miller **cough**).

Politicians are hard to trick, much easier to scare them than trick them, and seeing real ideas online scares them, or … did, for a bit, until it got very solemn and, “wait, don’t rock the boat”-ish.

Bloggers at “relatively high trafficked” blogs owe it to their readers to be straight forward… and the very likely fact that they won’t be is why the peer to peer magic will move on to whomever is. People right now want to know what everyone is thinking. The topics they want to hear those thoughts on vary, but more and more, whatever the topic, they are less impressed with only expert opinions. They know experts are trained to manipulate them, and further, that each expert has some opposing expert willing and able to argue the opposite and manipulate in the counter direction. They prefer more and more to know what other people really think. Experts make better advocates than judges leaving people as the judges, our fellow people. We are interested in sharing some of their judgment without being told to accept it because of it’s higher quality.

They want to see the thinking of these fellow humans with the filters off. They are brave. They are ready to hear the thoughts of others after a long and apprehensive wait.

They don’t seek some elite from which to adopt thinking. They are not on a quest to find yet another meritocracy able to identify their betters. Even when people do really seek just such a meritocracy, they are certainly not likely to think aptitude at blogging qualifies candidates for that meritocracy! Have some humility. “I’m a blogger” is not a status increasing statement in general society. I wager even among those that read blogs it’s not. Most people are listening to you because they are interested in what other people like them have to say, possibly that people like them can do neat things, but also including people stupider than themselves.

People seek to get what’s really going on in the heads of their fellow citizens, and you should just give it to them.

A progressive future needs to involve much less manipulation than the past has. Instead of manipulation we need education, public conversation, and personal responsibility. We must all learn to take responsibility for our opinions rather than put the value off to some expert. The notion that bloggers are some new expert, that the old system does work if just we have this newly chosen expert to rely on, to get an opinion from, is, frankly, laughable… not just laughable but pathetic.

Bloggers are only experts about their own opinions.

BUT THAT’S ENOUGH. Just share that.