Little Whip wrote an article here that makes the argument that JoeUser.com has become a kind of "Democratic Underground". To back up her assertion, she points out that many long-time left-wing bloggers have slowly left JU and that many right-wing bloggers get a free pass on some pretty iffy left-wing bashing.

I do agree with her on part of her argument - that right wingers tend to look the other way when "one of their own" starts preaching to the choir. But I don't think that's a right-wing issue as much as it is a human issue, people will tend to give more latitude to those they tend to agree with on most issues.

I also don't agree with her with regards to the core of her argument -- JU being like DU.  There's a big difference: Democratic Underground does not allow conservatives to post or express themselves. It is against the rules there to post "non progressive" posts.  On JoeUser, anyone can post anything they want as long as they aren't personally attacking other individuals (who are not public figures).  We don't discriminate against left wing or right wing bloggers.

What I see instead is something that I think many suspect - that when left-wing ideology is confronted by those who disagree with them, the left-wingers will tend to flee the field because many of their core ideals do not hold up under intellectual scrutiny. That is, when pressed to actually back up their..feelings with facts and logic the left of center debater will eventually leave -- but not usually before going off on a hate-filled rant against the "racist, nazi, greedy scum that is the right."  

I believe that many left-of center debaters simply feel utter loathing towards those who disagree with them. At best, their opponents are ignorant, brainwashed or misguided. At worst they are vile, evil scum who should be exterminated like the vermine they are. At least, that seems to be the attitude they express (And I say this having observed this on many blog sites over the years).

That isn't to say that there aren't plenty of nasty, intolerant right-wing jerks on JoeUser or elsewhere. There certainly are. It's a difference between what is typical behavior and what is atypical behavior.  Whether the subject is taxes, the war in Iraq, welfare, poverty, the environment, you name it, I will normally see the right-winger at least attempt to argue their position with the left-winger just sitting there savaging public figures and eventually their opponents.  I have seen enough lengthy essays arguing for a right-of center point of view only to be followed by a left winger saying "Fuck you." or something to that effect. 

The pattern I see is that left of center people end up fleeing the field because their arguments and behavior alienate lurkers enough for them to jump in as well.  This happens to right-of-center people as well from time to time (a religious debate on JU and elsewhere can get pretty rough too). But it is much more common on left of center.

The other day I went back and looked to see if there was so sort of "bias".  Since I tend to be conservative on some issues (but very liberal on others -- which is another beef I have with many left of center people -- you are either 100% left or you are a right wing nut, I can be pro-choice, pro-environmental regulation, pro-civil unions for gays, and liberal on many other issues but if I support the war in Iraq or US foreign policy or lower taxes then pow, I'm a right wing nut) I wanted to see if there's a bias in what I feature.

And there is -- in favor of left of center people. Bloggers who write left of center blogs are far more likely than bloggers who are right of center to get their articles featured. It is just that right of center bloggers tend to outnumber left of center bloggers by 2 to 1 and more recently 4 to 1 to the point where I am forced to feature stuff like Col Gene's latest "Bush is the devil" blogs in order to get any left-wing points of view on the home page.  I think any reasonable person can observe that it's hard to deny that I'm really really having to reach out there to make sure the JU front page is somewhat balanced.

So what does this mean? My argument is that most left-of-center positions -- their ideology -- is based on feelings rather than logic and that writing, especially written debates, lends itself to conveying logic more so than feelings.  Written debate favors the person using facts, logic, and reason to bolster their position. It is anathema to the person who is relying on feelings, passion, and desire as their tools for social change.

Which isn't to say that all left-wing points of view are based on feeling and all right-wing points of view are based on logic. It only requires that one ideology have more positions based on logic for it to have a significant advantage.  Moreover, if the adherents to a particular ideology tend to be more inclined to use logic in their day to day lives (engineers, scientists, mathematicians, etc.) than using empathy (teachers, artists, etc.) then even if the issue is soemthign that both sides have facts to support their position, the person who is more used to making use of facts to form a position is going to have an advantage.

Do I wish there were more left-of-center people on JU? I do.  Do I get tired of "thatta-boy" type blog responses from right wingers? Definitely.  But I'm not sure what the soluton is other than for left-of-center people to become more tolerant of other points of view and become better at articulating and discussing their points of view rather than simply demonizing, ranting, and "feeling".  There are left of center people on JU who can do this, we need more.