Keeping my promise to you…
I am not a journalist. I am an academic. And I am under no ethical restrictions whatsoever in regard to exercising my political rights.
Okay, what was that all about?
As long-time readers of Rhetorica know, I lean left. I call it “center-left,” but what does that really mean? I suppose you can get a clue from my Political Compass score that I post at the bottom of the right-hand sidebar.
Economic left/right: -.62
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.46
I am not asserting this scale as an unproblematic measure of a person’s politics. But it is useful as far as it goes. I think my score accurately reflects the political label I adopt for myself. I’m decidedly centrist in my economic views. And I am decidedly liberal in my social views.
I still haven’t answered the question: What was that all about?
Okay, I’m fixin’ to tell ya.
Today and Friday I’m going to spend some time working the phones at the local Kerry headquarters.
I’m lucky. The majority of Rhetorica readers–including many who disagree with me and pay me the great respect of offering cogent challenge–understand that I try to put my academic ideology ahead of my political ideology. The lines among ideologies are never neat and clear. But something like lines do exist, and I try to be aware of where I stand in any given entry on this blog.
I am volunteering today because I want to do my part–beyond merely voting–to help John Kerry win this election. This does not mean that I will change anything that I’ve been doing on Rhetorica. I promised when I began this blog more than two years ago to deal openly with my own biases. Please consider this entry a part of keeping that promise.
Another promise: I will not say anything on the phone today (there’s a script) that I do not believe fully conforms to a reasonable and contextually accurate understanding of the facts. For example, unlike Kerry, I will not claim that 1.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost. That’s a fact, but he wields it out of context (the net loss is half that). That’s a distortion, so I wish he’d stop saying it.
Plus, this dabbling in political action might be somewhat amusing. I hope to come back today with a few stories to tell.
– An amusing aside: I’ll be spending my time this morning finishing my essay for Word Politics about George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language.” Hmmmmm…I wonder how that might affect my state of mind going into this phone politicking thing? 
Thanks for the explanation. I’m proud (as a reader) of your political activity, and proud as well of your ability to discuss the world as best you can perceive it without undue political bias.
I do think that, and often do, share political perceptions and analysis without agreeing on interpretations or even on basic political philosophy. But then, I “believe that solutions emerge from … judicious study of discernible reality” so what do I know?
,
-V.
Hey Andy, I’m going out to canvass this Saturday. Have fun working the phones!
At least you aren’t Glenn Reynolds and have your objectivity questioned by Howard Kurtz: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/ Jeez! Since when are blogs “fair and balanced”? It’s a plus IMO for the bias of bloggers to be up front.
RH… I feel the need to be explicit because I posit the notion that the bias that counts in my case is an academic bias. That doesn’t exclude any political bias, rather I’m asserting that the former is more important to understanding what it is I do.
As long as people understand and respect the idea that other people disagree with them, a little bias never hurt anyone. What bothers me are people that cannot conceive that anyone with any intelligence could disagree with them. Of course, I live in Washington, DC where pretty much everyone thinks that way.