Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 27, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

DEMOCRATS AND BLOGS....Here's an interesting tidbit. The Diageo/Hotline poll recently surveyed registered Democrats, and one of the questions they asked was about blog readership, something I'm not sure I've seen before in a mainstream poll.

According to the survey, 17% of the respondents read a political blog several times a week or more. In other words, there are roughly 10 million registered Democrats who read blogs on a regular basis. That's a lot.

Kevin Drum 2:07 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Would be nice to know the percentage of registered Republicans.

Posted by: BigRiver on April 27, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

We'll have to wait for them to do a poll of registered Republicans to learn that.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on April 27, 2006 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you're so sexy when you're snarky!

Posted by: craigie on April 27, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK


CRAIGIE: Kevin, you're so sexy when you're snarky!

I don't know about sexy, but I'm pretty sure I saw a drop of saliva at the corner of his mouth when he mentioned his potential market of 10 million Democrats.


Posted by: jayarbee on April 27, 2006 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

There are four categories where Democrats can self-label: Liberal, Progressive, Moderate, and Conservative? That aspect is as interesting to me as the blog reading part. What are the issue and idealogical differences between the four, I wonder?
--
HRlaughed

Posted by: HRlaughed on April 27, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote:

We'll have to wait for them to do a poll of registered Republicans to learn that.

Diageo/Hotline asked Republicans last month:
http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/06_Mar_Data.pdf

They came up with 17%, too.

Posted by: Robert on April 27, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

How does that jive with internet statistics?

Interesting to see the breakdown. The progressives are not afraid of appearing intense and self-described moderates claim to enjoy their blogs in moderation. It looks like a large number of conservative democrats don't want to admit that they don't know what a blog is.

I remember a similarly worded drug survey in middle school. I remember marking that I smoked crack once or twice a year because "never" sounded a bit extreme to a kid sensitive to fitting in. Anyway, some caution is warranted with type of survey. A knowledge test might be more valuable.

Posted by: toast on April 27, 2006 at 3:39 AM | PERMALINK

Note that the blog-reading percentage was much higher among self-labeled "progressives". This is effect, not cause; the liberal blogosphere is enamored of the "progressive" tag and frequent blog readers are more likely to adopt it.

Posted by: sammler on April 27, 2006 at 3:43 AM | PERMALINK

Group with most "Never Read" - Liberals @ 70%

Posted by: wren on April 27, 2006 at 7:38 AM | PERMALINK

I believe this number. In fact most progressive liberals spend most of their time on the computer, or on the phone rather than working in a campaign. Since the Republicans are busy running the government they do not have the free time on their hands that democrats do.

Posted by: mycampaign on April 27, 2006 at 8:27 AM | PERMALINK

And that number is only going to go up - just in the last year both my parents (in their '60's, one Democratic/one Independent) have started reading blogs. Now I can't get them to shut up about them.

Posted by: shingles on April 27, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Who the hell designed this poll? You have a choice between "liberal" and "non-White"? I never knew that "liberal" was an ethnic group? . . . or that "non-white" was a political position.

Posted by: Dicksknee on April 27, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINK

I'm like HRLaughed, intrigued by the labels. I read thru the poll and found many places where Liberals and Conservatives lined up and contrasted with the Progressives and Moderates who lined up opposite. Then there were other places where the split was in pollsters apparent left-right orientation.

It started to seem to me that the labels are strictly aesthetic preference and don't define anything in particular. However, the demographic data at the end said something about who they were and why the labels might mean something afterall.

Posted by: dennisS on April 27, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

So much for the influence of the "blogosphere." Can we retire that hideous word?

Posted by: Ace Franze on April 27, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

I want to join the Non White ideology!

How do I qualify? By listening to hip hop? Watching Telemundo? Eating unusual vegetables?

Posted by: skimble on April 27, 2006 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

The Unusual Vegetables. Now there's a great name for a rock band ...

I haven't perused the stats, but as a longtime Howard Dean blogger, it's pretty obvious that progs would be more heavily represented because they're the sorts who have both strong ideas and like to engage them.

Likewise, it would make perfect sense that conservative Democrats read less often, because they're both older (just getting into computers to email pictures of the grandkids and suchlike) and don't wear their political ideas on their sleeves ....

What this leads to is a terrible skewing of Democratic representation on blogs. We're *not* the core of the party. We enjoy defending our ideas (that's, in fact, why we blog). We're not exactly typical party activists, either; many of us aren't as engaged in the gruntwork of electoral politics as you might think. Very few of the folks I worked with in the Corzine campaign last year blogged, in fact. They'd look at me funny when I'd tell blog stories.

The Revolution will not be blogged. We have to get off our ergonomic office furniture and start licking envelopes and knocking on doors if we want that to happen.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

mycampaign: I believe this number. In fact most progressive liberals spend most of their time on the computer, or on the phone rather than working in a campaign. Since the Republicans are busy running the government they do not have the free time on their hands that democrats do.

Look! Dumbyo's back! And he's already confused about what he just read--go figure.

Posted by: shortstop on April 27, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Do you all really still believe polls? good god. I am regularly polled, as apparently I've ended up on some "list", which is fine by me. I never give out ANY correct info to the pollsters. I am a totally different person in the polls, meaning that demographically, they think that I represent something, when i do not. i'm sure I'm not the only one who does this. Suprisingly, no one seems to bat an eye at the idea of a 20 year old high school dropout girl making 120,000 and voting republican. none of which is true, in my case.

Posted by: Chris on April 27, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

mycampaign:

Well, I think that statement might be less dumbass than it is merely ideological (although it's plenty dumbass to be sure). I haven't seen the stats, but dollars to donuts there are more conservative bloggers than liberal bloggers and the right-wing blogosphere is a little louder and more influential (owing to deep connections to Drudge, Fox News, ClearChannel right-wing talk radio, attempts to subsidize blogging like the so-called pajamahadeen, etc.).

I mean, all things being equal, conservative Republicans often have an easier time finagling the ability to goof off during the day at white-collar jobs. I'd bet there are many more hard liberals who aren't blogging because of the constraints of their occupations than hard consservatives.

This of course being only an intuitive generalization, but I'd be willing to put money on it.

Then there's some even more snarky, anecdotal stuff. Like I can't tell you how many times canvassing for Corzine last year I'd run into middle-aged guys in condos who'd answer the door in the middle of the day in their undershirts 'n' sox, full of cranky conservative opinion. Doubtless these sorts have some investment income goin' on -- speaking of, you know, excess time on their hands to do stuff like blogging.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

I love me some good back slapping crazy.

Posted by: Birkel on April 27, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Why does Diageo sponsor a poll? Maybe every time poll results come out, everyone in DC either orders drinks to celebrate, or to drown their sorrows...

Posted by: tom on April 27, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Just proves my point that most Americans don't pay attention to blogs. If only 17% of registered Democrats visit blogs with any degree of frequency, that's probably means about 5 million people out of a population of around 170,000 million voting age Americans. As I've said before, the NYT probably still has more daily subscribers than all blogs have individual visitors.

So take that Duncan and "Kos."

Posted by: JeffII on April 27, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Jeff II:

Nobody exemplifed the error of mistaking the netroots for genuine, watered and fertilized grassroots more than Joe Trippi and his absymally spendthrift, egomaniacal stewardship of Howard Dean's primary campaign.

And I say this as a Howard Dean man.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

I appreciate the segregation of white and non-white responses (finally a poll that can be compared to ones conducted 50 years ago) but I don't believe the results. Conservatives having twice the number of illiterates as the colored people?

Posted by: chuck on April 27, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting how Mod and Conservative Dems make up close to the same amount of weekly traffice as Libs/progressive Dems. So at most, the liberal/progressive blogosphere makes up say $6 million of the weekly readers. Not so impressive when you consider the 55+ million who voted Dem over the last cycles. It bothers me that they try to claim they are the only "base" that matters and they whine when they don't get immediate access to Senators or their staff (you can see the whining over at FDL every now and then--decent blog otherwise, though exceptionally verbose and redundant).

Being a keyboard/fax junkie does not, in and of itself, make you a real party activist. I hate it when people claim to be "the base" when it's clear they don't bother working at the local level.

Posted by: gq on April 27, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK
Nobody exemplifed the error of mistaking the netroots for genuine, watered and fertilized grassroots more than Joe Trippi and his absymally spendthrift, egomaniacal stewardship of Howard Dean's primary campaign.

And I say this as a Howard Dean man.

But, that's what all Howard Dean men say.

(Now, the Joe Trippi men, they say different things...)

Posted by: cmdicely on April 27, 2006 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that Democrats read blogs and that blogs have at least a heckuva lot (if not a helluva lot) to do with the resurgence since 2004, only makes the treason of the pinstriped scum in D.C. who bent over and spread for AT&T and the rest of the bank robbers more odious than it already is.

I think that regardless of how many Democratic votes we need in Congress, we don't need those scum, and we ought to "take them out." At least replacing them with Republicans, you'd know who The Enemy is.

Posted by: TCinLA on April 27, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

I was in NYC during the Republican convention in 2004 (I was on vacation, staying at a tourist class hotel in the Bowery - I am not a fucking Republican), and while riding the bus late one night my wife and I struck up a conversation with an older woman (older than my middle age) who described herself as a Political Animal. Although I had been reading this blog for over a year by then, I did not recognize her self description and the name of this comment section together until later. The NYC woman was a progressive Democrat, and I think she might be the kind of person to read this blog. Too bad, like me she wasted her vote on the milquetoast Kerry.

I see no category for radical libertarian socialists in the survey.

Posted by: Hostile on April 27, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

But there *are* no Joe Trippi men. Although I hope his dog Casey is still around ...

Sadly enough for everybody -- Trippi's career as a campaign manager ended in total disgrace.

Now Howard, OTOH, is running the DNC.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile:

A radical libertarian socialist is a political philosophy that simply does not parse.

You can be libertarian -- or you can be a socialist. It's impossible to be ardently both.

Liberty and equality tend to occur at the expense of each other.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

gg:

Tend to agree with that.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Trippi owes me $50.

Posted by: Hostile on April 27, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile:

Was that a personal loan, or are you asking for your contribution back? :)

I gave DFA money I really couldn't afford to part with, and truthfully despite the abortion of Iowa "Perfect Storm" -- I don't regret it one bit.

We had to run the model and see what we could see. Failures are often more instructive than quick success.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

I think Mr. Trippi pocketed $40 of my $50 contribution, which I could not afford to give either, as I was laid off in April 2003. As soon as I gave it, as I had pledged to do by 12/31/2003, Dean's campaign imploded.

I think the incongruence of personal liberty and economic regulation of capital can be worked out. If I described myself as a radical anarcho-syndicalist, few would understand what I am taking about.

Posted by: Hostile on April 27, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK
Liberty and equality tend to occur at the expense of each other.

I don't think they really do. A "perfect" dictatorship in which one person has all the political power is both the minimum of a democracy, and of equality.

The difference between democratic socialist ideology and libertarian ideology isn't that one seeks liberty and the other seeks equality and that one comes at the expense of the other. Libertarians focus on maximizing formal equality equality and liberty, whereas the democratic socialist is more oriented toward practical equality and liberty.

Now, there is an important kind of tension there, to be sure, but its not a conflict between equality and liberty, but between (legitimate) suspicion of coercive government action justified, notionally, by enhancing practical freedom, on one hand, and the (also legitimate) recognition that the use of government to enforce a particular arrangement of power coupled with the private leverage of economic power within that system can also be a coercive action contrary to liberty.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 27, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile:

Nahh, I don't think Mr. Trippi was personally corrupt that way.
It probably went to buy a box of those creepy-ass orange hats ...

Anarcho-syndicalism (correct me if I'm wrong) is a form
of government conceived for agragrian communities, with
a premium put on autarky (self-sufficiency). While it's
a great model for a commune, I don't see how these ideas
can be integrated into a mass-scale interdependent economy.

I have a good friend, btw, who's into permaculture and establishing
organic farms, and has lived in places like this where the goal is
to get entirely off the grid and create models of places to go after
global warming and peak oil eviscerate American social infrastructure.

cmdicely:

> "Liberty and equality tend to occur at the expense of each other."

> I don't think they really do. A "perfect" dictatorship
> in which one person has all the political power is
> both the minimum of a democracy, and of equality.

Benign dictatorship, sure. Democracy? -- I don't see how.

> The difference between democratic socialist ideology and
> libertarian ideology isn't that one seeks liberty and the
> other seeks equality and that one comes at the expense of
> the other. Libertarians focus on maximizing formal equality
> and liberty, whereas the democratic socialist is more
> oriented toward practical equality and liberty.

Honestly, while I see what you're getting at, I don't really
think the fundamental distinction is between formal and practical.
Obviously, all social thinkers of any stripe would want to make
provisions for both, and the distinction has no ideological content.

I think the distinction has to do with conceptions of human nature.
Libertarians -- certainly every one I've ever conversed with who
self-identified as such and who were cogent -- as a pretty firm
rule make almost a fetish of a very jaundiced view of human nature.
They're always the quickest to chuckle at the Darwin Awards.
Humans are fools, sheep, easily led -- that's why they think they
need a strong government, but a strong government is really a form
of weakness, etc. Certainly this is the essence of Ayn Randism.

So to the extent this is true, a deemphasis on equality is inevitable.

Democratic socialists tend to be much more sentimental about human
nature. And I'd break them down into two camps. There's a crypto-
Leninist variety who isn't all that much more positive about human
nature than libertarians, but who believe that *they* know what's
best for most people, or how to enhance society to minimize the
effects of a greedy and rapacious human nature. These folks are
the strident leftists of historical infamy and right-wing caracature.

Then there are the folks who really *do* believe in equality as a
fundamental cornerstone of their ideology, and who will build society
around it. What appears unequal is socially constructed and can be
changed. Even if some things can't (like, say, ability), they have
a *moral* imperative to transcend it in the name of an abstract human
equality. What both camps have in common is their need to rein in a
group of individuals who feel more objectively meritorious and wish
to act in ways to agglomerate their own power -- which they call
exercising liberty. Thus this confrontation is inevitable.

> Now, there is an important kind of tension there, to be sure,
> but its not a conflict between equality and liberty, but between
> (legitimate) suspicion of coercive government action justified,
> notionally, by enhancing practical freedom, on one hand, and
> the (also legitimate) recognition that the use of government
> to enforce a particular arrangement of power coupled with the
> private leverage of economic power within that system can
> also be a coercive action contrary to liberty.

Well, again I see what you're getting at, despite your ... esoteric
syntax (had to re-read a couple times). I'd put it as the classic
formulation of Freedom To vs Freedom From. Freedom To (positive
liberty) is classic liberty commonly understood. Freedom From is
a bit more subtle, and it involves levelling the playing field so
that everyone has a chance to use their abilities. This kind of
freedom conceives of human equality as something that is more or
less contingent on social conditions. Freeom To is simply the
freedom of action, and doesn't worry about equality, which is
judged by outcome, tautologically (Panglossianly, if you will).

Therefore, I think it's fair to say that the Freedom From folks
(freedom from want, e.g.) are much more concerned about bringing
out a latent equality inherent in human nature but by no means
readily apparent, than the Freedom To folks, who merely want the
opportunity to act. Thus Freedom From is in reality a concern
founded on equality, while Freedom To is liberty, straight no chaser.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Blogs are to Democrats as talk radio was to Republicans in the late 90s.

Posted by: Andy on April 27, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Mmmm, I dunno, Andy. The mediums are really, really different.

There's an element of passivity in talk radio (especially drivetime) that is going to, by nature, draw in a lot more people than blogs. In a certain sense, though, right wing opinion did coalesce around late 90s talk radio the way left wing opinion is now coalescing around blogs, and the process of emergence might be similar once adjusted for the timeframes ...

But the right wing has both an active and influential blogosphere, and most of talk radio. We need more Air America stations (and others like them) pretty desperately if we want our ideas to become as knee-jerk hegemonic in as many people ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, I think anarcho-syndicalism comes from the micro-economic theory of lowest average cost. Small independent producers, whether industrial or agricultural, have been shown to produce commodities at a lower average cost than large producers. This led to the political ideology of creating such an economy. Although I do not want to be a slave to any ideology, I think there is sufficient documentation to warrant regulating markets to favor small producers over large, which has the added benefit of preventing the accumulation of capital to just a small portion of society. I think that added benefit is perhaps even more important than providing the lowest average cost, because it is the accumulation of so much capital in the hands of a few that has caused so many of our political problems in America.

How to integrate this idea into our society? Business/market regulation. I like to use the example of radio stations. It used to be most communities had several radio stations, each with managers, engineers, announcers and support staff. Then came deregulation and market consolidation, which ended the era of local radio, and all of the jobs that came with it. The monopolists will argue they are producing the same product at a lower cost, but the data does not support that position. Advertising costs are higher due to monopoly market power and the community is less served. Before deregulation we had more and it cost less. I think airline deregulation had a similar effect on that market.

I have a picture of me shaking Dr. Dean's hand in early 2003, but it will not copy to the comments section. Darn.

Posted by: Hostile on April 27, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile:

That's okay; I'm too much of a Luddite to be able to see it. Speaking of small-is-beautiful, as a firm supporter of appropriate technology, I refuse to upgrade my ancient box and software and run a pure-text interface on the web :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 27, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

there's a really interestring counter-intuitive on the last page: the faction with the second-highest concentration in the South was progressives. that's hard to fathom - unless, of course, the survey counts DC & its suburbs as part of the south?

Posted by: TW on April 27, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK
> I don't think they really do. A "perfect" > dictatorship in which one person has all the > political power is both the minimum of a > democracy, and of equality.

Benign dictatorship, sure. Democracy? -- I don't see how.

Ooof. I meant "...is both the minimum of liberty, and of equality."

That came out really wrong.

Honestly, while I see what you're getting at, I don't really think the fundamental distinction is between formal and practical. Obviously, all social thinkers of any stripe would want to make provisions for both, and the distinction has no ideological content.

I disagree rather strongly; plenty of social thinkers, I think, see formal rules as instrumental only and of no independent ideological concern on their own.

That said, "formal" and "practical" is imperfect, but "freedom to/freedom from" is misleading for the distinction I'm making; one way of looking at it is that the libertarian tends to focus on freedom and equality with the focus sharply on the immediate subjects of direct government action, while the democratic socialist removes that focus.

I think the distinction has to do with conceptions of human nature.

I don't think it does. Most of the democratic socialists I've known don't have any different view of human nature than the libertarians. The difference primarily is that the libertarians see oppression only in the actions of a body that wears the label "state", whereas democratic socialists tend to see it coming from individual actors, with the state potentially as an intermediary or enabling agency.

Really, I think the fundamental difference is in analytical framework, not view of nature. Libertarians view of how to proceed stems from viewing the state/non-state dichotomy as fundamental, whereas the socialist view comes from viewing class divide as fundamental.

Each seeks to mitigate the oppression of the side of the fundamental divide they see as less powerful by tightly limited the power of the side they see as powerful.

A synthesis could be built on the recognition that, in practice, the capital/labor class divide and the state/non-state divide are important divides which affect liberty, but neither is absolute and exclusive.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 27, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Where elese am I to get my news? BBC?

Posted by: roo roo on April 28, 2006 at 7:05 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

As usual, Chris, a really interesting and thought-provoking
exchange of posts. I'm not going to point-by-point this,
because it's a much bigger and more ambiguous discussion where
nobody's "wrong" or "right." I'd just like to flesh out a
few key ideas about the differences between left and right
bearing on the polarities of liberty and equality.

First of all, if John Stuart Mill's famous dictum "my rights
end at the beginning of your nose" is true, I *do* believe
that liberty and equality are inevitably dichotomous. The
most egalitarian societies notoriously lack liberty (e.g. Cuba),
and the most libertarian societies tend to frame equality
as a function of liberty (e.g. equality of opportunity, not
equality of results). Even hardcore libertarian doctrine
recognizes the human tendency of the few to force their will
on the many, and provides for the protection against "force
and fraud" as a legitimate function of limited government.

I don't think a class-based analysis is very useful anymore in
postindustrial societies with gobs of cross-cutting solidarity
and great social mobility (in both directions). That being said,
I think it's entirely possible to import the tenets of democratic
socialist ideals into a non-marxian analysis. You might not call
yourself a socialist, but you'd be in favor of big government
as a guarantor of fairness. You'd surely support limiting the
economic liberty of some to assure the social equality of many.

Also, I think a conception of human nature does impact on a
person's political philosophy -- especially regarding violence.

So with that said, here's a typology of four salient dichotomies
and how I believe each would play in the difference between two
superficially similar but critically different philosophies which
both ardently champion liberty: libertarianism and anarchism.

1) Methododical individualism / Methodological communitarianism:

Does one view political problems through one's own eyes exclusively?
Is "society" only personal exchanges writ large? Do social facts
have meaning in themselves? Or are societies composed of individuals
so disparate and their motives so occluded, interacting in ways so
complex, that you need to step out of your own shoes to understand
them? Libertarians are staunch methodological individualists, less
concerned about the general social order than convinced that their
vision of it would be the ideal one for themselves and those like
them. Anarchists, while championing individual liberty as the highest
ideal, have a communitarian vision of social justice for all, upon
which they base a critique of power, which inevitably serves the few.

2) Private sphere / Public sphere

Libertarians, as methodological individualists, have trouble
recognizing the distinction. Anarchists and civil libertarians
hold personal liberty to be of an entirely different order than
the liberty of a few with power which impinges on the many. And
while civ libbers are content to regulate through the government,
anarchists wish to abolish the structures of power altogether.
Anarchists are as anti-corporate as they are anti-governmeent.

3) Human nature = mostly good / Human nature = mostly flawed

Libertarians, as I've argued, have a generally jaundiced view of
human nature and don't hold out much hope that they can turn America
into a society founded on their ideals (although the Free State
Project, a libertarian commune in New Hampshire, suggests that
they're willing to try with like-minded individuals on a local
level). Anarchists are schizophrenic about human nature;
on the one hand, they aren't any more hopeful about positive
social change than Libertarians, on the other, they hold it
as a transcendent moral duty to liberate as many individuals as
they can by alerting them to the structures that enslave them.

4) Critique of violence / Acceptance of violence

Libertarians believe that self-defense is a personal duty and love
few things more than their right to bear arms. Anarchists, even
the most violent protesters at trade summits, take great care not
to harm people while trashing property. A jaundiced view of human
nature accepts violence as part of life. Anarchists are deeply
critical of the culture of violence and believe that levels of
violence in any society are socially determined, thus mutable,
though this is less out of a belief in human perfectability than
a moral imperative which requires action in the face of despair.

I dunno how much of this relates to our original discussion, but
the ideas sort of possessed me and I thought I'd toss them out there.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on April 28, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly