Voice Critique

As this blog is a class assignment first and foremost, there's going to be a certain amount of exercises on here; as eager as I am to jump into the crazy world of 'triggers' and co-ops, today is for analyzing the voice of another blog.

A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally stinging. With an often sarcastic and condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:

As for those deeply concerned about the politicization of America's classrooms, I'm sure the right-wing critics of the president's stay-in-school message will be quick to denounce the conservative efforts in Texas. Any minute now.

I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:

The crazies have a political party, a cable news network, and a loud, activist base. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take their medications anymore.

Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,

About one in three Georgians lack health care coverage. Some state representatives want to make sure it stays that way.

While I agree that some representatives don't seem to have their heads screwed on entirely right, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to assert that they actually wanted people to stay uninsured. I mean, maybe to the Georgia rep it's less important than bringing down the deficit or standing up for free-market values, but to assert that he is trying to perpetuate a dirth of coverage in its own right hinders discourse.

This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.

His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.

Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He has taken the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and point to the precise people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.