I protest.

The incoherent right.

Why is it that so much of what I see from the average person on the right is incoherent? As an example, here are a couple of recent comments on my "The Bush Psyche" article:

george rocks, you just can't handle the thought of a man who acts on his convictions and forms policy based on what's good for america instead of what pleases the rest of the world

And

This site must be the long-lost-home of the unknown super achievers. "I suspect" permeates, what does that mean?. It appears that the primary posting and comments come from those who oppose action on any level and revile those who are able to recognize a problem and "my God" do something about it! The humor in the post and the comments is pervasive (perversive?) but the joke is beyond your understanding and I don't have the time or inclination to explain it to you.

When I respond to an article, I try to make certain that my response is clear and articulate. I avoid personal insults and I don't often use sarcasm, unless the context begs for it. I know that my written word is the face I present to the world, at least online. My reputation is based on how well I present myself. I believe that this is true for everyone else, as well. Certainly I think better of those who write clearly, who use proper grammar and spelling and who avoid sarcasm and insults. In general, I see many more on the left writing clear, reasoned, well-thought-out articles and comments, though. From the right by and large I see stuff like the above. Why is this?

Neither of the comments actually address what I said in the article. Rather, they are directed at me. Both ignore what I said and try to attribute some kind of negative thinking to me, in the first case with "you handle the thought ..." and in the second with the assertion that I "oppose action on any level," that I "revile" someone (Bush, I assume) and that some kind of claimed "humor" is "beyond my understanding." What are the commenters trying to accomplish, here? If it was to show themselves as ignorant and intolerant of other viewpoints, they have both succeeded admirably. On the other hand, if it was to intimidate me into silence, they failed miserably.

All I really want to know, though, is what these people think they are doing. They aren't engaged in debate, they are just throwing insults. Why do they bother? Do they really think that such insults can make a difference? Even those who are much more well-know for their insults, such as Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, are inconsequential in the larger scheme of things. They have nothing to contribute except noise; if we ignore that noise, they become irrelevant.

The other question is, why are so many of those noisemakers on the right? I know that there are idiots on the left, no one has a monopoly on stupidity, but the right seems to be trying to corner the market. Not only people like O'Reilly and Michael Savage, but the little ones as well, such as the commenters above, or some really marvelous examples in the comments over at the Daily KOS or TalkLeft. These people make wild, sweeping assertions with not even an attempt at proof; they personally insult those who may have the temerity to disagree and they become more and more strident as people argue with them. Of course, the best tactic is to simply ignore them, since without attention they will go away, but I want to know why they bother in the first place? Is that it, that these people seek attention? I guess that it's possible, although there are much better ways to go about it. (Starting a blog springs to mind.) But this begs the question of why most of these people are on the right rather than being evenly spread across the spectrum. Is it a selection effect, that I see them because I lean more to the left?

I don't know. I just wish that these people would realize that they are defeating themselves. If they were to take the time to think about the issues and to learn how to express themselves clearly, they would be much more effective. And maybe, with a little thought, they might change their opinions, instead of merely regurgitating those fed them by the Limbaughs, Savages and O'Reillys.

One thing is certain about the left, they are by no means monolithic. They are a contentious bunch indeed. This is probably why I like them, since they do at least seem, by and large, to think about what they believe.