I protest.

A proto-"pundit?"

A few days ago, Ogged at Unfogged.com wrote about one Kyle Williams, a fourteen-year-old so-called "conservative pundit." Ogged is freaked out by Kyle; as she asks,

What does it mean for a 14 year-old to have deeply held political convictions? What can his words mean? How am I supposed to read them? If a computer program could produce coherent pieces of political rhetoric, would we take them seriously?

With a sample of Kyle's writing, Ogged proved to herself that the text is, basically, empty. While it makes sense syntactically, there's nothing behind it, no depth to it.

I agree. In fact, I said as much in a comment there. As I said, it isn't difficult for a reasonably well-educated and intelligent person to put words in the proper order and have coherent sentences pop out. As you note, though, those sentences could come in almost any order and make as little sense. As I read your quoted paragraph, it struck me that it doesn't really make any sense. Yeah, the words are in the proper order, but as you say, there isn't any coherent message behind the words.

To me, experience is what gives a person depth. One can be intelligent but still almost two-dimensional in outlook. It is experience that gives one the background against which to measure the world around one. Facts in isolation are meaningless, and it is only facts that Kyle Williams has. My gut reaction is that the kid is parrotting the viewpoints of one or more of the adults around him. Sure, he can spew facts to support his argument, but his opinions have no depth.

As I was thinking about this article I went to Kyle's archive of articles and discovered the following gem in Kyle's discussion of the book by Eric Alterman, What Liberal Media?:

Eventually, I did buy this book, I did read it, but my opinion of the bias of the news media hasn't changed.

That's the way I have always looked at politics: I approach both sides of the argument, conduct my own research, and arrive at my own conclusions. Sometimes I change my stances on issues, other times I don't. From a very early age, I have always had a hard time accepting what people say as truth. The arena of politics is filled with rhetoric, backstabbing, spin and boldfaced lying. Therefore, I have always questioned politicians on both sides of the aisle and anywhere in between.

"That is the way I have always …." "From a very early age …." "I have always …."

Eh? What does this mean, from a fourteen-year-old? He has "always" done so-and-so since when? He was thirteen? Twelve? Ten? He has done such-and-such "from a very early age?" How early? Six? Eight? I don't think so. These statements, which he used to lend himself an air of authority, are utterly meaningless. When an adult says "I have always …," they mean "since I have been an adult." "From a very early age," in the context that Kyle uses it, may mean "since childhood" but when used by an adult it means "and carried into adulthood." For me, at 43, "I have always been skeptical of superlative claims by child prodigies" means "since I learned what childhood means from a developmental standpoint." And I learned that as an adult.

The problem is that Kyle still has a lot of growing up to do. He has barely entered adolescence, which appears simple only to someone who has yet to experience it. Neurological connections are still being made in his brain, he is only now really beginning to have the capability to think as an adult. From a developmental perspective, that he would cast himself as "conservative" is no surprise, since he is most certainly still in the "conventional morality" stage of moral development, where right is right, wrong is wrong and there are no gray areas. He has a lot of shaking up and perspective-changing ahead of him. He's only now encountering the wonderful, heady mix of hormones that can make adult life so damned interesting.

Can a fourteen-year-old have "deeply held political convictions?" Well, they can think they do, but no, they really can't. I'm not sure that a fourteen-year-old can be said to have convictions at all in the sense that an adult does, and it is certain that those convictions have not been tested by experience. Deeply-held political convictions are, almost by definition, those that one holds for a significant portion of ones lifetime, those around which one shapes ones life and those which have been tested by experience. Kyle established his political opinions perhaps a year or two ago, at most. He has no experience.

I tend to pity Kyle more than I am "freaked out" by him. For one thing, it takes maturity to write in this medium without succumbing to narcissism and many adults can't manage it. How should an ego-centered boy be able to? He has no such maturity, nor should he. He should be busy being a boy, doing boy things, not wasting his time writing for the "World Net Daily." I am speaking as one who was not able to have that kind of boyhood himself, unfortunately. Kyle should be thinking about school and girls, not getting his ego inflated by people who should know better.

I'm not freaked out by Kyle. I'm saddened.

And I'm disgusted by those who would hold him up as some kind of paragon. They are taking advantage of a child.