Like a lot of people, after November I resolved to try to break out of my political bubble more. I tend to inhabit what I’ll call the Matthew Yglesias sphere: socially liberal non-religious pro-capitalist technocratic left-centrism. Adjacent satellites to that sphere are libertarians like Tyler Cowen or Eugene Volokh. Relatively far away from that sphere are, on the left, Jill Stein supporters and DSA types, and on the right, social conservatives (folks like Rod Dreher come to mind).
One big lesson I’ve learned is that there’s little to be gained in consuming the opinions of someone who is the polar opposite of your views, even if they are very articulate and reasonable and not just trolling for entertainment purposes. You just don’t share enough common assumptions and common ground for their views, as ordinarily expressed to their consumers, to be mind-opening. You end up souring on them more because it all seems alien and wrong without any bridge between you.
So I’ve tried to focus on people who I share something (or a lot) with but who disagree with me on something important–maybe they are socially liberal but think religion should play a larger role in public life, or they think social justice is really important but they oppose legalization of marijuana, or they think a much higher federal minimum wage is a great idea but also understand the economics.
I’ve found that approach to be more successful, as measured by how much it has affected my own political opinions and how much I find myself less hostile to people who hold those views. But it’s a lot more work! It’s easy to just flip on right-wing radio and pretend I’m being exposed to how the other half lives. But if I’m honest with myself, the experience isn’t making me more open. It’s harder to do this kind of fine-grained expansion, because you can’t just Google for “highly educated person who isn’t a racist but who thinks legal immigration is bad.”
So, to that end, I solicit suggestions for additions to my media/reading diet of people who you think are just far enough away from me politically (but not so far) that I’ll learn something from them. Maybe I can do the same for you.
Why not make a better effort to seek out those people on this very MB who fit the bill? I have personally found that to be very helpful, and I’ve changed my mind about a few things based on discussions I’ve had with folks here. You’re closer to the MB orthodoxy than I am, but I still think there are some good folks here with whom you could engage for the purpose you are interested in.
I tend to read more moderate stuff in Twitter (and I come across it incidentally) and more extreme stuff on websites, so I don’t have a lot to offer.
Craig Garthwaite, a very moderate (at least what I’ve seen of him) Republican economist who tweets a lot about health policy in a smart way @C_Garthwaite
For things that are probably among the ones you think are too far afield but I find rather interesting:
I enjoy reading at RedState. It’s nice to see the diversity of opinions within the Republicans/conservatives. I disagree with almost everyone there, but there is some sanity on occasion, especially Susan Wright (who really hates Trump).
Sure. This is not mutually exclusive. I just also want people to follow on Twitter, long-form edited content is often more persuasive than MB posts, etc.
jsgoddess: Thanks! I especially like economists with different views, because they tend to argue in ways that work well for my brain.
I almost always wildly disagree (though he’s a non-interventionist, which covers the rare agreement). Sometimes he’s incredibly bigoted. And yet I still frequently check his blog, because he writes well and because he can lay out his ideas coherently, even if they’re often batshit.
RedState.com, to see what the never-Trump-but-still-very-conservative folks are thinking. If you can stomach it, FreeRepublic.com to see what the Trumpers are thinking.
Rod Dreher (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/), though less and less as he seems to be increasingly terrified and bigoted against LGBTQ people. He’s a rare social-conservative fiscal-liberal, and he’s very, very religious. He hates Trump and the modern trend of religious conservatism. A good writer even if he’s often bigoted.
I don’t endorse any of these views, but check them to see how others are thinking.
Yeah, I mention Rod Dreher in my OP. More like that would be good.
My experience with Pat Buchanan and RedState is that I just come away thinking they are the fools I went in thinking they were. I’m hoping to avoid that. My goal is less to understand what’s going on the mind of the average Republican, and more to actually push my beliefs around.
Personally I haven’t found much consistent conservative writing. Volokh is the only source that I read daily in that sphere. But not just from him, all the contributors as well. I am particular to lawyers, so I also like overlawyered and abovethelaw.
I used to read Andrew Sullivan before he stopped blogging regularly, and before he went pretty far afield (IMO). Yglesias was great, but for a while he blogged very infrequently which meant I didn’t visit his site much. I used to love Randy Balko before he went to the dark side (huffpost), actually, looking just now I guesshe’s now at WaPo so maybe I’ll pick him back up.
I find Reason and Cato articles interesting, 'natch.
You’ve pretty much described my current (and former) sphere, Bone, which I guess explains why we get along so well even though we disagree about a lot.
Though I could probably stand to spend more time on Cato. Thanks for the reminder.
I forgot James Wallner. I discovered him on Twitter and find his writing very solid. He’s a conservative political scientist who does really good writing on Congressional history and process for a couple of think tanks (he used to be at Heritage).
Finally, a similarly minded person! I place myself nearly at the same point as you politically, Richard Parker. I have to agree sometimes its difficult to wade through the masses to find a “highly educated person who isn’t a racist but who thinks legal immigration is bad.” But here you are. If you ever open a blog, let me know. I’ll read anything you have to say. I too have noticed it is quite a stretch to debate anything with someone so far from your political placement/hemisphere. It just does not work, I’ve really tried. Too far left or too far right and its too far gone to try. I appreciate this post and will be reading the suggestions everyone leaves here.
Here’s something I recommend as a first step: After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection by James West Davidson and Mark Lytle. It’s a great book. The subject is reviewing evidence for historical research but the principles are broadly applicable. The book raises topics like “Why does this particular piece of evidence exist?” “What was this person’s motive when he said this?” and “What evidence is missing and what does that imply?”
Read this book and start applying its ideas to what people say about political issues.
Not an American, so I probably have no idea what I am talking about, but you may find the blog Slate Star Codex interesting.
At first sight, it may not be what you are asking for since the author, Scott Alexander (a pseudonym) self-identifies as a liberal. But he’s a liberal who doesn’t blindly drink the kool-aid, and he is often very good at explaining conservative viewpoints to a leftist audience and vice-versa. Unsurprisingly, he often gets accused of being a crypto-conservative.
Some examples:
[ul]
[li]You are still crying wolf – about how, while Donald Trump is a bad president for many reasons, he is not a white nationalist and the mainstream media are shooting themselves in the foot, and giving lots of free advertising to actual white nationalists, by portraying him as such. (Written long before the recent events in Charlottesville, but still valid.)[/li][li]Abortion and the Principle of Charity – explaining how a reasonable person may arrive at a pro-life position, and how that does not make them misogynists. The author is pro-choice himself, but I found this more convincing than anything I’ve ever read from an actual pro-life writer.[/li][li]Race and Justice – stating the case, backed up with lots of statistics and research citations, that the criminal justice system in the US is not as biased against minorities as it is commonly believed to be. This followup is worth reading afterwards.[/li][li]Guns and States – ditto for the question of whether America’s anomalously high murder rates are caused by the easy availability of firearms.[/li][/ul]
One of the pillars of his philosophy is that when a whole lot of intelligent, reasonable people believe something which appears self-evidently absurd to you, it probably means that haven’t tried to truly understand their side of the issue. If you care about making an attempt to “get out of your bubble” then this essay should speak right to your heart.
(Why yes, I do have a huge nerd-crush on the guy, despite never having met him in real life, why do you ask?)
