Now I'm one of those people who can see many sides to an argument, maybe less so then than now, but still, I was, at the time, aware of the valid parts of most of the other side's arguments. It was just that I saw my side's as being more valid than the other's. I saw the other side's arguments as being emotional and irrational: trying to do the right thing emotionally, while doing the wrong thing rationally, and I still do to some extent.
So the question is: How have I been moved towards the left? Well, I've always thought "Ad hominem" arguments to be more valid than the standard argument model allows (with caveats of course). You see, the validity of most real arguments is not trivial to determine. There are endless combinations of assumptions and presumptions hidden in most complex issues in our national political stage. And so knowing someone's background and motives is at the very least a very useful tool when trying to determine the validity of their argument, and maybe where to look for strengths and weaknesses, tricks and truth.
To put it simply, I have come to have little faith in the arguments I have seen come out of the conservative movement. They seem to be glib, shallow, and conspicuously un-critical. And I have seen what seems to be (more)honest and conscientious arguments coming from the left. While the republicans seem to be working on Machiavellian coercion; appeal to nationalism, religion, and alarmism, the left seems to be doing less of that, and more intellectual attempt at persuasion, at least to the extent that I have seen on the internet.
So the result is that I'm being persuaded. I read. I have an information addiction. I am not afraid of intellectualism. And so the constant barrage of conscientious, mostly honest editorials has over time had an effect on me. I can see the weakness in some of these arguments, but each at least has it's portion of truth. Meanwhile, the right has been so busy with it's populist bullshit afraid of being seen as elitist or intellectual that they have forfeit their chance to offer a counter argument. (Or perhaps they just haven't figured out this series of tubes well enough to get their arguments in front of me.) In the end the effect is a trial argued without defense.
Should that cause me to question the foundation of my shift? I'm not sure. I think it should cause me to resist a bit, but overall I think not. Every movement needs a significant coalition to bring it into effect. I am not willing to put the responsibility of power into the hands of those who can't even be effective and honest with their arguments. The validity of their tenants is moot if they cant convince the public while maintaining enough fidelity to bring those tenants into reality without massive amounts of corruption, dis-honesty, and special interest power/baggage that they use to make up for what they lack. (I'm not saying the left has none of this, but perhaps that it hasn't passed the same unfortunate threshold)
I don't want a government who campaigns on small government, gets elected, then does the opposite, all while we get no benefit of that spending. If I'm going to have a big spending government, I might as well vote in those whose excessive spending will at least offer some benefit to the country.
So, conservative movement, if you want young people like me back, listen up: Stop hiding behind the cheap tricks and invest in all the things you complained about in Obama. All of those aspects that you stupidly derided as intellectualism and elitism, I've come to see as one of the most important things to see in a government or leader: conscientiousness.
