Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards--

When I look over the many comments that accumulate on my various postings about immigration policy, what puzzles me most has nothing to do with people's thoughts about immigration policy. Reasonable people can/will disagree, it's fun and enlightening to compare notes with civil and intelligent acquaintances, etc etc. No, what puzzles me far more than the question "How can anyone fail to succumb to the brilliance of my arguments?" is another question entirely: "Why are so many Americans so very shy about expressing their preferences?"

Preferences are important. Preferences help us decide how to live our lives. Without preferences, how would we prioritize? We need to connect with our preferences to help us answer important questions. What do we want our lives to be like? What are we hoping to get out of our lives? Perhaps preferences don't determine anything in an absolute sense -- but surely they deserve to be taken as respectfully into account as, say, predictions about the future. Predictions are nothing but predictions, after all. Where immigration policy is concerned: An infusion of tens (if not hundreds) of millions of Latinos might mean a glorious rebirth of American prosperity and optimism (Glen's view, I take it), or it might bring "Blade Runner"-esque crowding, pressure on lower-income natives, and lots of ugly ethnic horse-trading (my view). But both these points of view are finally nothing but predictions -- and who has ever proven to be any good at forecasting the future?

Unlike predictions, which are almost always uncertain, personal preferences can be known. Yet when I throw out the question "What would you like your country to be like?," only a few visitors volunteer a response. Very quickly, most people turn back to the apparently more-fun game of dueling ideals and warring predictions.

I've been so puzzled by the reluctance of many people to volunteer their preferences that I've put some thought into how I present these postings. With my last one, I thought I finally had it nailed. I would ask visitors what population they would be happiest for the country to be at. How to wiggle out from under that one? After all, where border policy is concerned, the one thing that we can be certain about is that a more-open regime will result in a larger population than a more-controlled regime will. So, "How big a population do you want your country to have?" I asked. Yet only a few visitors volunteered a preference where population totals are concerned.

I know that I rely on France far too often for the sake of comparisons, but since it's the only other culture I know (or once knew) well, I'm going to turn to it once again. French people are anything but shy about expressing preference. They're tiresomely opinionated, really. Ask a room of Frenchies about their opinions and tastes, and they'll still be jabbering enthusiastically six hours later. As a friend who lives in Paris likes to point out, Frenchies often begin sentences with the words "Moi, je ... " Rough translation: "Here's what I -- such a unique and fascinating creature -- have to say on this matter ..."

What's odd about this is that these opinion-spouting Frenchies inhabit a far more closed and stodgy culture than we do. Given the relative openness of America, you might think that Americans would really let fly with their opinions and preferences. But we don't. We certainly do whine on and on about our feelings and our troubles. (Not the classy visitors to this blog, though.) No reason to be as peacock-arrogant as the French, of course. But, where opinions, taste, and preferences are concerned, why be meek? Many of us carry on as though the only people whose opinions deserve public respect are experts. Earth to deferential person: Where your own life and your own preferences are concerned, you're already an expert. You're the expert, in fact.

I don't think this is entirely a function of this particular red-hot issue, let alone of the wonderfully rip-snorting visitors to this particular blog. I noticed, for example, something similar happening at Rod Dreher's blog recently. Rod wrote a posting entitled "Why Have Kids?" The conversation in the commentsthread turned into a war between breeders and nonbreeders -- mildly interesting in its own right, I suppose, yawn.

What fascinated me far more than the overt firefight was how seldom the participants used the argument, "This is the way I choose to live my life, because this is the way I want to live my life." Instead, nearly everyone relied on outside factors. The world has enough people already ... The world needs more people ... God wants us to breed ... It's cruel to animals ... People were reaching for cosmic -- political, ecological -- reasons to support their positions. I don't mind this; there's no reason such factors shouldn't play a role in decision-making. But isn't personal preference an important factor too? It didn't seem to occur to many of these commenters that "This is how I want to lead my life, and how I choose to lead my life" might be a legitimate, and perhaps even the clinching, argument.

Bizarre. Do Americans suffer from an excess of niceness? Are we reluctant to assert personal preferences simply because we're hesitant and respectful -- because no one has asked us to? If so, whose interest and attention are we waiting for? (Our stabbing-us-in-the-back elites? I hope not.) Perhaps we're shy about asserting personal preference because we're anxious about being left behind. I remember being struck by that suspicion during a long-ago visit to Vegas. The city was bursting with attractive dames in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and configurations. Yet nearly all of them had got themselves up in the same way. As wonderfully various as these gals were, nearly all of them were doing their best to look like the same expensive blonde callgirl.

Why should we dream up social pressures (and then cave in to them) when there are none? A Brit friend who has spent some time in the U.S. took note of the same phenomenon. While he loved our freedom, he was amazed by the way so many of us choose to chase the same goals, and in the same ways. His own theory was this: Americans have so much freedom that we get scared. We can't handle it, so we band together in herds. I think he may be onto something. Americans often seem to be semi-convinced that if we play along we'll wind up with a big piece of the pie -- and that, if we don't, we're going cut ourselves off entirely from the wonders of the American mainstream.

Perhaps I'm being ungenerous. Still ... Perhaps wide-open freedom does make many people nervous; perhaps it leaves them wanting to seek shelter. Religion (which offers life-guidance, whether good or bad) has been by and large discredited, and the secular versions that function as religion-surrogates (self-help, science, liberalism, feminism) often offer super-bad life-advice. So people look outside themselves for hard-and-fast, factual-seeming justifications for the lives they're in fact choosing to live.

Deep down, I have a hunch that many of us simply haven't developed the confidence it takes to express (and stand by) our preferences. After all, it takes skill, effort, and flair to do so. Many people haven't cultivated the skill of communing with their insides -- their tastes, reactions, and preferences. We haven't given ourselves the chance to sift, sort, and compare notes with people we respect. And we haven't taken the trouble to introduce our tastes and preferences into the public discussion.

Grrr. Hey, America: It's OK to prefer butter to margarine. It's OK to prefer one wine to another, and OK to prefer a neighborhood that offers opportunities for walking to one that's purely drive-through. It's also OK to prefer a future for America that involves a population of 300 million instead of 600 million. (Vice versa too, of course.) I think, in fact, that it's tragic that we're so tentative. Imagining that we're being polite and respectful, we wind up letting ourselves be steam-rollered and taken advantage of. Hey, America: Your elites are screwing you over -- don't just lie there and take it! One of the greatest things about the advent of the blogsophere is that it isn't just giving us opportunities to sound off; it's giving many of us opportunities to discover how we feel in the first place. I for one always come away from a blogchat thinking fresh thoughts and examining questions from new angles.

If anyone should choose to leave a comment on this posting, let's -- please please please -- dodge the immigration issue and at least start off by focusing on the topic at hand. Any hunches about what has made so many bright and informed Americans so hesitant about expressing their personal preferences, and about according their personal preferences some weight?

Best,

Michael

It isn't just that, Michael. It's the fear of being considered politically incorrect and having people label you as elitist or racist or just a person who doesn't care about his fellow man. Because instead of looking out for ourselves and our family, friends, acquaintances and country, we have to put the world populace above that in our minds. While it's a noble thought, I think we should start out by being nicer to everyone we're in contact with; help them if we can. I've known people who will pass a beggar on the street while screaming about how we're (the U.S. government and its people) aren't helping some tribe that lives halfway across the planet.

What kind of country would I like to see? One where we first reach out to those we can help. How productive and caring is it to be arguing vehemently with hatred towards your neighbor about how to treat people one can never hope to meet.

Posted by: susan on June 23, 2006 4:54 PM

I would say that Vegas probably tends to attract the kind of people who value the sleek, expensive blonde hooker look. It's an ideal inspired by the spangly, showgirly, very artificial nature of the city itself. New York is also full of attractive women, who self-present in very different and delicious ways--reflecting the heterogeneity of the city itself.

But I'm not sure I buy your larger argument. The people who surround me in suburban Southern California do express strong preferences for the material things that surround them -- their style of house, their gated communities, their SUV, where they shop, what they eat, and even the church they attend -- and don't really feel the need to defend these preferences cosmologically. (Religion has *not* been discredited down here BTW.) In fact, from my personal experience, people here get quite irritable when I ask them *why* they like these things. They just like them, that's all!

Perhaps you're listening to a lot of defensive urban New Yorkers?

PS, it's true that, even in a border city like mine, opinions on the level of immigration people want can be hard to come by. I think people are geniunely confused and conflicted by the issue. However, we generally agree on heavier border enforcement and regulation of employers.

Posted by: Steve on June 23, 2006 5:14 PM

I disagree that France is more closed and stodgy than we are. I think it's *institutionally* more hidebound but less conformist in private life. I think Americans have traditionally relied on social pressures toward conformism in private life to do some of the work that Europeans did with formalized class hierarchies and state authority. Tocqueville writes about this. So you get European countries that look more rule-bound on the outside but are significantly more tolerant of private eccentricity.

Posted by: MQ on June 23, 2006 5:19 PM

We are a culture in which people feel free to dismiss personal preferences that cannot be backed up with logic (or "logic"). Advocating a policy based on one's personal preference is considered somewhat tawdry and selfish, and this attitude tends to color our willingness to express any sort of opinion that could affect others.

Just a simple social convention that is easily rectified by the simple expedient of inventing whatever logic is necessary to support your preference. Witness the Internet.

Posted by: Tom West on June 23, 2006 5:53 PM

Michael – Great topic. Although I suppose that everyone’s preferences should at least be acknowledged, the plain fact is that preferences are often ignorant, irrational, lazy, and the result of habit, the way you were brought up, the influence of family and friends, and a desire for what is familiar and comfortable. People don’t often talk about preferences because they can’t defend them rationally. People always make the foolish leap that if their preferences ruled, then the world would be better for everyone. Wasn’t this behind the insanity of the Taliban or the madness of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge? One of the paradoxical strengths of America is that permitting the greatest degree of heterodoxy, experimentation and freedom has resulted in one of the most dynamic societies that has ever existed.

Absolutely true story: a friend who is a genuinely nice guy once said that the worst vacation he ever had was a trip to Italy because he could never get good food. He insisted that the only good food was American food, and the beast American food was meatloaf and mashed potatoes.

Another true story: another friend has some stubborn prejudices against some ethnic groups. And yet had he and his wife listened to their parents and grandparents, they would never have gotten married since he is Italian and Catholic, and his wife Norwegian and Lutheran, and both sides strongly wanted their own ethnic and religious traditions to continue.

Here in Southern California, I know many women who would strongly prefer that no man ever date or marry an Asian woman.

It’s also fun that this topic pops up as I have been listening to people on a sports radio show blow hard over why soccer is an inferior sport to American football, again confusing their preference with “the way it is supposed to be” or what is natural or … most stupidly, what is American. You know, like ketchup (Chinese origin), hot dogs and hamburgers (German) and pizza (Italian). But then again, I have won bar bets when I pull out the fact that Japanese tempura originated with the Portuguese traders to 16th century Japan.

You prefer an America with a population of 300 million? Why not 150 million or 60 million? Why don’t we, say, make room for immigrants by euthanizing everyone over age 60 (which would lop off at least 40 million from the population)? I have a preference for young people.

If you look back at people’s predictions or wishes for what America might be, you consistently find that many predictors had a limited vision and that the reality has often exceeded the rosiest utopian fantasies (though always with a little sting 'cause we are not talking about attaining Nirvana). Who would have predicted a world in which smallpox no longer exists or one in which polio is an ever diminishing nuisance? Who would have predicted iPods? Who would have predicted cellphones (OK, Star Trek on this last one).

Thomas Jefferson strongly preferred an America which would consist largely of yeoman farmers, working small plots of land. Who the hell today would want this?

Oh yeah, a “Blade Runner-esque crowding, pressure on lower-income natives, and lots of ugly ethnic horse-trading…” This was Chicago in the late 19th century (check out the recent PBS series on the city and all the ugly, poor, stratified ethnic enclaves). We have been there before and we got over it.

By the way, I think that illegal immigration is a serious problem, but the vast majority of what I read about it from the blogosphere reeks of fear and flopsweat and a sad lack of imagination.

Hugh Hefner left “Esquire Magazine” after being denied a $5 raise, and being told by those in-the-know that “Esquire” had a monopoly on sophisticated male readers. Bill Gates was told by the herd to sit in a corner and not try to compete with IBM because mainframes were the present and future of computing.

So here’s another little secret to the success of the United States (and one which your Brit friend might not understand): while some sit back and worry that they might not get a piece of the pie, there is ALWAYS someone in the cultural kitchen cooking up an entirely new pastry.

By the way, I love being uncomfortable. Keeps me supple.

Viva America!

Posted by: Alec on June 23, 2006 6:01 PM

There are two basic types of immigration enthusiasts:

1) The Posturers. People who want to be seen as cosmopolitan, untethered by being mere Americans... but above all, as people who are insulated from the hobbesian realities of third world immigration by their status and education. But of course, they do not "celebrate diversity" when buying a house, and their children do not go to "diverse" schools. Diversity's, you know, for other white people.

2) The Unserious. They seem unaware of all kinds of news here, in Canada, or in Europe, of big and small brutalities that accompany third world immigration. They think that the immigrant "other" wants to be just like them -- a liberal, in a big one-world dance. They have no grasp of how profundly racially concious many non-whites are, what grudges, fed by official PC, they carry, and how they don't bother to distinguish between the "liberal" and the "bigoted" whitey.

Posted by: hugh on June 23, 2006 6:05 PM

Tweet! -- All very well and fine, but back to the "Why are Americans so shy about expressing their preferences" question, please. I'll put up further immigration postings, you can count on that.

Susan -- That's a great point. Like you, I don't see how it automatically follows from "let's be humane" that we have to care more about (and do more for) people we don't know than people we do know.

Steve -- Interesting bulletin, tks. It's funny how *much* people can care about the make of their SUV, isn't it? Something I do lose track of in NYC, god knows ...

MQ -- That's a nice evocation of the Franco-Europe way! Which raises the old paradox: can greater structure (ie., Europe) result in more freedom? And can greater fluidity (ie., the US) result in more monotony?

Tom -- Good to see you again. You write, "We are a culture in which people feel free to dismiss personal preferences that cannot be backed up with logic (or "logic")." That pretty much seems to sum it up. Why should this be the case, though? Because we're so ... empirical? Clueless?

Alec -- Viva America indeed. Gotta love the spectacle of it, even when I'm feeling a bit more exasperated-than-usual with it. And it's another good point: to what extent are real preferences being expressed if/when all someone's doing is rejecting something new or different? On the one hand, I'm all in favor of prejudices, sounding off, etc. On the other hand, it tends to descend instantly into rube-itude and blowhard-ness if it isn't informed (or at least semi-informed) and ruminated-over. On the third hand,why shouldn't people lead their own lives undistubed. On the fourth, are they really doing so if all they're doing is taking what the culture is handing to them and reflexively rejecting everything else? I'm not sure I have it in me to answer any of those questions ...Care to take a flyer at 'em?

Hugh -- That's a nice distinction. Hold that thought and let's get back to it the next time I put up some immigration links and thoughts.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 23, 2006 6:32 PM

But Americans are Puritans. They view themselves, and their preferences (which are just the self saying what it likes and doesn't like), as inherently sinful, incapable of any redemption that is derived from purposeful, personal, preference-driven, desirous or aversive facts about themselves at all. They are redeemed 'sola fide', by surrendering to an outside, higher authority, something inherently not-self. Like experts. Like rationalizations, explanations, justifications. Just liking or not liking something is kinda, well, French.

Posted by: PatrickH on June 23, 2006 6:33 PM

Well, I'm shy because I'm an immigrant (legal) and very invested emotionally in the idea of the US as a melting pot and an immigrant nation. I love those old stories about how the West was settled and stories about turn-of-the-century New York and neighborhoods full of immigrants and the pushing and yearning and pulling and becoming. I love America. I love being an American. I'm afraid to say anything, because, well, it's just too close to the bone for me. I'm afraid I'll take any criticisms personally, instead of the question of policy it is. I am, in short, afraid. No idea why other than the ones circulated above.

Posted by: MD on June 23, 2006 6:42 PM

I blame Kant. :-)

I think we've all somehow unconsciously absorbed his silly ethical rule into our thinking process. You know the one I mean: "Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law." How many times have we all heard this criticism used to smother debate: "well, what if everyone thought like that?" Hey, what if everyone didn't recycle? What if everyone didn't vote? What if every poor immigrant moved here? That's Kant.

Suppose the question is "should I walk on the grass?" Applying Kant's universal law we discover that if everybody walked on the grass, the grass would die. And that would be ugly. Therefore I shouldn't walk on the grass.

What's wrong with the reasoning? Well, in practice, everybody isn't going to walk on the grass. I'm not really deciding for everyone, just for me. In fact, the best outcome here is that some people walk on the grass, in some places, some of the time. In that world we can simultaneously have pretty green grass and the occasional lovely feeling of grass between our toes.

People who try to universalize their ethics can't express a personal preference separate from what's best for "everyone". So personal beliefs only get expressed hidden behind a deep thicket of generalities about what's best for the country, the state, the nation, the world, or "nature".

Posted by: Glen Raphael on June 23, 2006 6:44 PM

I think Patrick H's comment above is rather brilliant.

Posted by: MQ on June 23, 2006 7:47 PM

I suspect it's more because we are a young and over-earnest nation than that we are a nation of shy, retiring sheeple who don't actually have an opinion/preference.

Posted by: communicatrix on June 23, 2006 8:39 PM

I don't express myself strongly on a number of issues because I have social phobia. (Long story.) The end result is a strong tendency to avoid stressful situations. It also means I hate bullies and those who empower bullies.

I am of the opinion that we could teach our children how to communicate with others. How to talk with others. Not only are we not doing that, we're actively discouraging it. All part of a program dedicated to making Americans dependent on our duly ordained leadership. (Which is anybody who follows the "right" intellectual/moral paradigm and agrees with the current imperialist generation.)

Oh, and Susan? I was once homeless. I got on SSI (disability) and got off the street. I have met hardcore able homeless. The hardcore able homeless despise you, thank you are a fool, and will do whatever they can to take advantage of you. Their actions can range from bullshitting you out of your money; up to rape, murder, and mutilation of your body. They are cowards, frauds, and liars. The only way you're going to get them off the street is by making the street the worst place to be. No handouts, make assistance contigent on taking active steps to get off the streets.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on June 23, 2006 9:10 PM

Immigration is a common topic on the various forums I frequent, yet I've seldom said anything about it. And not because of political correctness. Chalk it up to simple lack of interest. Yes, I know immigration is an important issue, with consquences for America's future and all that, but I just can't muster up anything more than the most superficial interest. Maybe it's a reaction to all the hysteria that immigration has provoked throuough the blogosphere, maybe it's something else, but for whatever reason it just doesn't matter to me.

Posted by: Peter on June 23, 2006 9:15 PM

I think the reason is mostly social conditioning, and it tends to be stronger the more educated and "refined" the person is. As Susan pointed out in the first comment, people are afraid of being thought badly of, and a strongly expressed preference has a good chance of offending someone within earshot.

I have no shortage of strong opinions, but my acquaintances would be alarmed if they knew how many more I held back out of feelings of propriety. And there's a practical reason, too - sometimes vigorously expressing your preferences is the least effective way to see them realized. That doesn't apply so much to public policy debates, but it sure does in interpersonal relations.

Posted by: Derek Lowe on June 23, 2006 9:19 PM

In groups, I am always outspoken. It's why I have a reputation for being, at best, blunt -- and at worst, rude. I try to couch my opinions politely -- but I rarely refrain from letting them be known.

The behavior of so many others who seem so reluctant to speak out always makes me think of a line by those great philosophers, Devo:
Freedom OF choice
is what you've got
Freedom FROM choice
is what you want

Most will argue that of course on the "big issues" they demand to speak out or at least to vote -- but we all know that so much of our society is not influenced by our own choices in the least little bit -- and yet we do nothing about that...

The Digg board last week had quite a lot of discussion over some articles outlining how the entire school system is designed to cause just that: make generation after generation of factory workers and fad followers -- stifling the independent thinkers we are by nature meant to be.

Posted by: Paul Worthington on June 23, 2006 9:31 PM

Michael, I think you're making a very broad generalization of which there will always be exceptions. I'm rarely shy about stating my preferences about most any topic you could bring into a discussion. At the office I tend to be circumspect with people I don't know well due to the ever present danger of making career limiting statements. I also loathe and despise political correctness to the point that some of my preferences have transformed to the point of deliberately wanting to offend "Euro-weenies", "Enviro-weenies", and most despicable of all, "liberal-weenies!" I had to renew my truck registration the other day for my 3/4 ton Dodge 4x4 pickup truck (take that you miserable enviro-weenies!) and I wanted to purchase the license plate option that had the U.S. flag and an eagle head on it with the phrase "God Bless America" in my sincere hope of offending some "sheet-head muslim" who happened to end up driving behind me. And I don't particularly consider myself a Christian. Unfortunately I couldn't get the plate via the Internet renewal process and so I sacrificed the one preference for the other of not having to go into a Texas DMV office. Preferences, why I'll talk your ear off about all the preferences I have, yet only if there's no potential consequence to my livelihood. Big overpowered trucks, guns in a caliber that start with '4', thick steaks, dogs, tall leggy gorgeous redheads, music that has a melody, movies from the 1940's, and dancing cheek to cheek with that gorgeous redhead are just a few of the things I prefer. I'll keep a closer watch for when you ask for your readers preferences as I'm not at all shy about telling you mine. And any of you above mentioned weenies offended by my post, just go crawl back into your hole and whine to someone else.

Posted by: Joachim Klehe on June 23, 2006 10:01 PM

While he loved our freedom, he was amazed by the way so many of us choose to chase the same goals, and in the same ways. His own theory was this: Americans have so much freedom that we get scared....Americans often seem to be semi-convinced that if we play along we'll wind up with a big piece of the pie -- and that, if we don't, we're going cut ourselves off entirely from the wonders of the American mainstream.

A lot of this has to do with the amount of debt people are required to get into at the very beginning of their working careers (i.e. while they get an education, they also develop debt, which prevents them from taking risks).

Michael, I think you're making a very broad generalization of which there will always be exceptions. I'm rarely shy about stating my preferences about most any topic you could bring into a discussion. At the office I tend to be circumspect with people I don't know well due to the ever present danger of making career limiting statements. I also loathe and despise political correctness to the point that some of my preferences have transformed to the point of deliberately wanting to offend "Euro-weenies", "Enviro-weenies", and most despicable of all, "liberal-weenies!" I had to renew my truck registration the other day for my 3/4 ton Dodge 4x4 pickup truck (take that you miserable enviro-weenies!) and I wanted to purchase the license plate option that had the U.S. flag and an eagle head on it with the phrase "God Bless America" in my sincere hope of offending some "sheet-head muslim" who happened to end up driving behind me. And I don't particularly consider myself a Christian. Unfortunately I couldn't get the plate via the Internet renewal process and so I sacrificed the one preference for the other of not having to go into a Texas DMV office. Preferences, why I'll talk your ear off about all the preferences I have, yet only if there's no potential consequence to my livelihood. Big overpowered trucks, guns in a caliber that start with '4', thick steaks, dogs, tall leggy gorgeous redheads, music that has a melody, movies from the 1940's, and dancing cheek to cheek with that gorgeous redhead are just a few of the things I prefer. I'll keep a closer watch for when you ask for your readers preferences as I'm not at all shy about telling you mine. And any of you above mentioned weenies offended by my post, just go crawl back into your hole and whine to someone else.

Wow. I can't even begin to list the ways that this approaches self-parody. You sound like the most unpleasant person who ever lived.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on June 23, 2006 11:23 PM

Why are we Americans so hesitant about expressing our preferences?

Because we prefer not to.

Duh.

Posted by: Brent on June 23, 2006 11:23 PM

Dear The Michael Blowhard and Fellow Readers,

Preference, and the failure to declaring it is the subject. I regret neglecting Mr. Blowhard’s site so as to weigh in on the preference idea. Americans, including maybe Michael Blowhard, are liberals. Liberals have a well-defined view. Liberals, fundamentally, believe one inherits a preference for one’s parents and close relatives. There is no doubt about this. It is biologically inescapable. However, liberals cling to the contradictory idea of intellectual communism: the idea that one day the proletariat (you and I) will intuit (by argument or force if necessary) our parents are no more worthy to us than anyone else. It thoroughly infects their thought. It is based on another idea, absolute equality. (See Jim Kalb and Lawrence Auster; their Sites are readily accessible with a search engine.)

To cut it short, I hereby declare my preference for the European races as long as Christianity is accepted by them. Evil? Let’s see. As Mr. Jim Kalb has pointed out, a preference does not require the preferred do something TO the unperferred. Birds of a feather flock together. There will always be interbreeding, if there is a biological imperative, but one need not feel guilty about not engaging in it. We are no longer a part of a biological imperative; we have free will. The liberal would have us believe biology trumpts free will unless it contradicts liberalism.

Liberal guilt can be exposed as a result of the ideal of equality.

So I also encourage others to get out here and express your preferences. Now if your preference has political effects such as calling out the National Guard to control the appalling crime by Blacks and Hispanics, do not shy away. Otherwise you are a wimp, who will always be afraid of bullies.

All the Best to The Michael Blowhard,

Paul Henri

Posted by: Paul Henri on June 24, 2006 12:52 AM

Are you kidding Michael? Seriously, it's a matter of where and how they express their convictions.

In person, Americans are polite to a fault compared with Europeans, for example. I agree that the probable cause is the nation's ethnic/religious diversity (no one wants to inadvertently offend anyone).

Think about it. I bet most of us are very comfortable expressing stron opinions when we're with our (ethnic/social) peers. in a more diverse setting, we clam up.

Yet, we shouldn't confuse politeness with vacuity. Look at the blogosphere. With just a bit of anonimity, people become very opinionated. Which, BTW, is usually NOT a good thing.

Cheers,

Posted by: Andrew on June 24, 2006 12:56 AM

One other point. Informed people often keep quiet during discussions. When one presents a logical, evidence-based argument to an audience that doesn't know much about the topic, it's very easy to sound like an annoying, pedantic clod. In other words, people hate smart-asses. The tragic consequence is that often the loudest, most opinionated person --regardless of their knowledge--dominates the debate.

Posted by: Andrew on June 24, 2006 1:04 AM

often the loudest, most opinionated person --regardless of their knowledge--dominates the debate.

I think this actually happens 100% of the time. Sometimes that's also a knowledgeable person, though. But having knowledge doesn't give one the confidence to tell people one's knowledge.

Posted by: Cryptic Ned on June 24, 2006 9:56 AM

I'm late to this party and too lazy right now to read the rest of the comments (maybe later) but here are a few possible reasons:

We want to be liked.
We want to be good.
We don't want to offend anyone.
We often don't know why we prefer one thing over another and are afraid that we might be called on defend our preferences.

Posted by: Lynn S on June 24, 2006 11:03 AM

DeTocqueville (I'm sure that's the wrong spelling) described America as the nation furthest down the road to egalitarianism. It was true in his time and it's still true today. In such a nation outward conformity is prized, nay demanded. And there is little appetite or even tolerance for speech that is not utilitarian in nature.

The love, on the other hand, of strong opinion elegantly delivered, often for its own sake, was and is characteristic of aristocratic nations, or at least nations with a significant aristocratic element in their pasts.
Ergo the European love of combative talk, at least to American ears; and the American aversion to confrontation.

Posted by: ricpic on June 24, 2006 11:47 AM

"Why are so many Americans so very shy about expressing their preferences?"

How odd! I've lived -- observantly, I thought -- for 74 years now, and I never noticed this sort of shyness. Some people are shy about everything, of course, and some are the opposite, but most of the Americans I've known have been quite willing to "let fly with their opinions and preferences." Only it depends on who you're talking to.
Most of us don't like to listen to lectures, and all of us have run into opinionated ideologists who will take off for a long ride on their favorite intellectual hobby-horse if you give them the slightest opening.
Is it possible that some of the commentators on this site are opinionated ideologists and that many people prefer not to discuss their preferences with you for fear that you will talk all night and bore them half to death?

Posted by: Notary on June 24, 2006 12:08 PM

Tons of smart and shrewd ideas and theories, tks. One distinction that might be useful, it seems to me, is between opinions and preferences. Rush Limbaugh has a zillion opinions -- that's one thing. But how does he actually prefer to live his life? (and what kind of life does he prefer to live?) -- that's another. Often a person's opinions and preferences are at odds: there's the true story of the famous architect who builds spikey modernist buildings (his opinion), but who chooses (ie., prefers) to live in an old rambling traditional house. Opinions are semi-interesting, yawn; but aren't preferences usually more substantial and more interesting? They usually go to the quick of who a person is. And that's what puzzles me. Americans are free and loose about their opinions often. But it seems surprisingly rare (given how free life in the US is) for people to make strong life-choices just because that's how they prefer to do things and live their lives. Many Americans seem to let outside elements -- price, square footage, convenience -- do the preference-choosing for them. They kinda take what the culture hands out, and confine their preference/choosing activities to deciding between breakfast cereals. The idea of making the system serve them (rather than playing along with the system) seems foreign to a lot of them.I know a case can be made that they're choosing/preferring to do this -- but does that really ring true for many of them?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on June 24, 2006 12:41 PM

So many great points to ponder and chew with this post, Michael. Touche.

Someone has previously enlightened that Americans need to be "liked", to be "accepted". Hence, we allow ourselves to be led and not always by the best lead dog. Leftover grade school logic, where it was not cool to be the odd man out. Of course you prefer chocolate ice cream, doesn't everyone?

What are my preferences? Hmm, better question; what are my REAL preferences, those choices not influenced by television, commerical ads, employers, BLOGS, and keeping up with the Joneses.

Maybe Americans just do not take the time anymore to ruminate properly. Our lives and our minds are constantly busy, and that little inner self voice gets drowned out. We spout out with the newest and greatest theory, never stopping to figure out whether we truly agree or disagree; adopting someone else's posture 'cause it seems cool and it's just too much work to sort out our own beliefs.

Socrates knew it all along...

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie on June 24, 2006 1:07 PM

I prefer to live in a small town -- here I am.
I prefer to live near the Blackfeet since that's where most of my best friends are and because they tend to be tolerant and funny. Thus my location.
I've always chosen interesting jobs over high-pay jobs, so I am poor except in stories to tell.
I like little old houses -- that's what this is.
Books are more important to me than furniture and I have books that cost more than my sofa.
I prefer to live with a couple of cats, so I do.

This arouses high suspicion among others, even others right here, because they feel it is some kind of criticism of them. It IS a criticism of the social system as it exists today. The irony is that the lower profile I try to keep, the more they worry about what I might be up to -- some kind of subversion.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on June 24, 2006 1:10 PM

Woo hoo! I'm with Prairie Mary!

I will let her be my lead dog anytime! Lead cat?

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie on June 24, 2006 1:24 PM

I'm with Mary too!

Well, in my own odd way. Small town, old house, remote, full of books, old guns & art , hawks and pigeons and hounds. A big garden of flowers fruits and vegetables. We raised one great kid who is now living a life with a kindred spirit and who lives very much like us. Have been to Mongolia and Kazakhstan and Turkish Kurdestan; Libby has guided in Nepal and other places. Don't have a cent, often very broke, usually pretty satisfied.

OTOH I often find myself very quiet in discussions. Most intellectuals even out here (rural NM) think they are "liberal" but are herd- conformist, going on the simplest of received opinion. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't KNOW much-- about politics, history, anthropology, science, LIFE. They tnd to be insulated by money and innocence, and are suspicious of our long- term allegiances with the town's less- educated old- timers. It is sometimes simpler just to listen.

The blogosphere, where many sites are hard to characterize in a "polarized" manner, is more to my liking.

Or, to simplify, I express my preferences in my life. If you want to know more, read my blog or ask!

Posted by: Steve Bodio on June 24, 2006 3:07 PM

"Wow. I can't even begin to list the ways that this approaches self-parody. You sound like the most unpleasant person who ever lived."

Heh. I wanted to buy him a beer!

Posted by: Brian on June 24, 2006 4:23 PM

Steve, and how do I access your blog?

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie on June 24, 2006 5:16 PM

Our society has latched onto the idea that if there is an issue, its resolution must be a technical one. This leads to the cult of the expert. The answer to the population question you proposed, for instance, is presumed to be in the realm of the ecologist, economist, demographer, or some combination of specialists.

When we turn by default to technical experts, it follows that there is one correct answer and a lot of incorrect answers. Scientists and technicians disagree over theories, but arriving at conclusions in their field by preferences would be considered ridiculous and quite likely dangerous to a rational world.

Mostly unconsciously, we adopt the same principle; we take our cue from the expert we respect most or from what seems to be the consensus of experts. That is what being a sensible person and good citizen has come to mean.

But there are many areas where the experts, no matter how smart, can't tell us the right answer because there isn't a "right" answer. We have to choose from various alternatives that are equally correct based on somebody's assumptions, and the choice boils down to how we want to live. There we're on our own, and for a lot of people a lot of the time, that's pretty scary.

I was once -- by chance, not because I fit in -- at a gathering that included many rich socialites. People with serious money, f--- you money, independent incomes. And I noticed something similar to what you experienced at Las Vegas: how astonishingly conformist they were, the men wearing the same kind of clothes, the women with similar hairstyles. This lot, almost all of whom could have been as individual or eccentric as they liked without risk, looked to each other for their ideas about how to live. It was as if all their privileges didn't include the right to express preferences in the personal realm.

Posted by: Rick Darby on June 24, 2006 6:01 PM

"Wow. I can't even begin to list the ways that this approaches self-parody. You sound like the most unpleasant person who ever lived."

What is so unpleasant about liking trucks, guns, steaks, redheads and old movies, and wanting to piss anti-americans off with patriotic decorations? Who would be offended by that??

Posted by: JasonM on June 24, 2006 7:21 PM

I prefer to live in a big city, so that's where I live.

I prefer to live downtown, so that's where I live.

I don't like cars, so I use public transit.

I like books, so I have a lot of them.

I like RPGs, so most of my books are RPG books.

I like science fiction and fantasy. Guess what most of the rest of my books are ? :)

Other preferences include:

Rice over potatoes.

Chili over stew.

Abortion rights over pro life.

Evolution over creationism.

Self defense over waiting for the cops.

Gun ownership over gun control.

Free speech over political correctness.

Corn over asparagus.

Democracy over tyranny.

WordPress over Movable Type.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on June 24, 2006 10:40 PM

I am fluent in both English and Swedish. In general, I find the English language much richer, but in one case, the English language is sadly lacking, and it causes us no end of headaches.

Swedish has a pair of verbs, "tro" and "tycka", both of which can be translated into English as "believe". But the words are *not* synonyms: they indicate two distinct types of beliefs, and the distinction is clear and obvious and natural to any native Swedish speaker; any five year old would understand the difference, and never mix them up.

"Tro" is used when the truth is independent of your belief. If you say, "I believe the square root of 81 is 7", the truth of that statement depends on something that is independent of your belief. 7 times 7 is not 81, and believing it does not make it so.

"Tycka" is used when the truth depends on your belief. If you say, "I believe Mary is beautiful", whether or not that statement is true or not depends on whether you really feel that Mary is beautiful or not. As Rick Darby says above, there are many areas where there isn't a "right" answer: your belief *is* the right answer. In such cases, "tycka" is used.

In the Swedish language, the line between opinion and fact is solid--your statement is either in one camp or the other, the language won't allow it to be in both.

In English, the line is blurred. I find that English speakers have a much harder time distinguishing whether someone is stating an opinion or a fact. One person will state an opinion/preference, and a second person will think they are trying to state a fact, and a long, unnecessary argument ensues. I see it all the time on the blogs that I run.

If the English language forced us to declare "tycka" or "tro" before we stated a belief, I think a lot of people would be less hesitant to state their opinions. I could say that I "tycker" X, and I wouldn't be pressed to prove my facts; you'd know I'm just stating *my* preference, that's all.

Posted by: Ken Arneson on June 25, 2006 2:31 AM

So, this post is not about preferences - I might prefer rice over potatoes, and nobody will flatter a lash. It's when I, say, purchase a gun or five for self-defense and refuse to delegate this duty to the local police department, with consequences of not paying their salaries in form of municipal taxes - that's when my preferences will cost me dearly; but then - nobody will call them "preferences", would they?

I guess, MB, this post is more about "practicing what you preach" (your example with Rush L was a pointer); then - why the disguise? Call it as it is.

Also:
choosing to live with cats in a small town near Indian reservation spending your modest earnings on books rather than furniture is NOT what makes you suspicious to other people, Mary Scriver. It's calling your lifestyle an intended "criticism of existing social system".

And I don't blame them.

Posted by: Tat on June 25, 2006 10:53 AM

But, Tat, if I criticize the existing social system by living my own way, do you blame me?

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on June 25, 2006 11:44 AM

If you're living the life you want to, is there a point to expressing your preference? Unless you're trying to convince people to live the same way you do (which many Americans do not seem shy at all about doing) or a preference you hold dear is being threatened/taken from you, expressing the preference does not seem that important to me.

I think there's also a matter of scale here to be considered. I suppose that's where empiricism comes into play. Not all preferences a person has may be immediately clear to her.

"What color is your parachute?" has this exercize for helping you figure out the type of place you would like to live. You list all the things you've hated about anywhere you've ever lived and then rewrite those characteristics as their opposites. Those turn out to be the things that are most important to you.

When it comes to immigration, I think people have trouble grasping or expressing themselves in those numbers, in that scale.

Posted by: claire on June 25, 2006 2:43 PM

There can be more protective niches in stodgier societies, allowing protected people to express their opinions freely. In America, relatively speaking, we're all in the same pool, and we're all on the block. In some ways the marker liberates you, in some ways it dominates you. Tradition sometimes constricts, and sometimes enables.

I always have strong opinions, and I get two kinds of negative response at times: "Who are you to have that opinion? (You nobody!)" and "Educated people are so arrogant". I'm an educated nobody, so I get it from both sides.

Posted by: John Emerson on June 25, 2006 4:55 PM

After my now 8 month experiment of exploring the internet, blogs, e-zines, and all kinds of other kinds of stuff, I have a new preference--to live in the real world. The internet is like so many other media, a 90% time waster. The reason we have so many problems today is that we spend too much time with media instead of governing ourselves, participating in our local communities, etc. I'll probably check back from time to time, but why read and post? Nobody on any of the blogs I have seen ever concedes a point. It seems to be a mindless ranting match, most times. Good luck to all!

Posted by: S on June 25, 2006 5:30 PM

Mary, I think to live your life by making some sort of citicism-of-social-system' symbol out of it is wasteful and unpleasant; why live under that sort of burden? there are so many easier ways to protest/express your political and other opinions.

Who did you punish by earning peanuts or living in a small house? I don't think the "social system" cares one fig if you demonstrate your contempt by sharing your house with cats.
It would make sense to me if, to give reason for a particular lifestyle you'd simply say - I love it, it gives me pleasure; I had a choice and means to pursue career/make more money/continue living in Seattle/etc - but I prefer my current life because it makes me more satisfied. I'm a free person - my life is an expression of my free will.

But of course, you can choose your reasons as you wish.

Posted by: Tat on June 25, 2006 7:53 PM

This thing was posted on Friday or Saturday and there are 43 comments already! How is it possible? One wonders whether it is worth leaving a comment, if anybody is still reading, but...

I dunno. I'm going to ask a basic question. Do you think child-rearing in America encourages people to look at their own preferences, or even begin to figure out what they are? Maybe the younger generation, I don't know. But I certainly know its been an issue in my life. So many, many people in my life have such know-it-alls---telling me, not asking, starting with my parents. But not just parents. Shrinks, Oprah, advice columnists (not that I listen to Oprah--hey, I am expressing a preference!---but lots of people do). Oprah tells you which books to read, which foods to eat, which emotions to feel. When does Oprah ask her viewers to express their preferences, and they behave nonjudgmentally if their answer differs from her recipe for good living? When do most parents (who all want to belong to the same country club and drive the same car) encourage their children to explore their own preferences and be tolerant of others' preferences? No they tell their kids--"do this, and you'll get to belong to this country club, too." I mean think about it---the American Dream can be defined---home ownership, kids, enough money for vacation every year, etc. Once you've already defined which dream is "good"--how much have you encouraged people to dream up their own version of "good"? Where do you begin? I don't think most people have the basic skills to do it.

Posted by: annette on June 26, 2006 11:00 AM

"After my now 8 month experiment of exploring the internet, blogs, e-zines, and all kinds of other kinds of stuff, I have a new preference--to live in the real world. The internet is like so many other media, a 90% time waster."

I recently had the same insight but it took me three years. (Damn my sluggish OODA loop!) I was reading a political blog, the usual witless bickering was going back and forth, and I happened to look up at my book shelf. My eye landed on Theory And History by Ludwig von Mises, a book I've been meaning to read for ages. I ran a quick calculation: "How is my reading time better spent, by reading that book or by reading these dorks?" The question of course answered itself, and it was goodbye blogs, goodbye Usenet, goodbye IMDB forums, and hello Mises. (The book rocks and rocks hard BTW.)

So now except for 2Blowhards and Achewood and a few other essentials, I'm net-free and loving it. My IQ has skyrocketed.

Posted by: Brian on June 26, 2006 2:23 PM

My first reaction was "I don't give a damn what number of people live in the US". My second was "well...that's not _totally_ true...but _within reason_...". But neither of those really get at the point you're raising.

I don't _know_ what the hard boundaries are on the number of people living in the kind of United States I want to live in. Reductio ad absurdum tells me that such limits exist, but my sense is that they're pretty broad.

I know what I definitely do _not_ want. I do not, under any circumstances, want to live in the kind of United States that would necessarily be created as an integral part of any really serious "throw the spics out, and keep 'em out" campaign. And while I do regard such a notion as intolerably racist, that's not even the primary reason I have a problem with it.

I don't want to live in a United States where citizenship is defined by ethnicity. I like the whole 14th Amendment "born or naturalized" rule just fine, thanks...especially the fact that being able to prove I was born in California means I can immediately settle any argument about whether I have a right to live in Chicago. I don't want to live in a United States where those of my friends who (unlike me) are sometimes able to suntan, are subject to regular police harassment whenever they do. I don't want to live in a United States where all inhabitants are required to carry documentation of their identity, birth, and ancestry at all times, and to present these documents upon the demand of any person who wishes to inspect them. I do not want to live in a United States where legal visitors from foreign countries are required to wear location-tracking ankle bracelets like paroled criminals.

If we were to get truly serious about throwing all the Latinos out, that's the United States we'd all have to live in, forever more, to make it happen.

And if the only way to avoid that turns out to be accepting the complete relocation of every single solitary last man, woman, and child from Mexico, Central and South America, into the borders of the United States...well, despite the fact that I'm pretty sure that would be way too much immigration to absorb without negative consequences, then it's still a price that I would theoretically be willing to pay.

If you want me to describe what kind of country I _do_ want to live in...well, maybe I'll reopen my own blog and do it there, because the answer would be way longer than your post, and I think it's rude to leave a comment on somebody's blog that's longer than the post you're commenting on. (Gee...maybe the open-endedness of your solicitation of preferences might have something to do with people's reluctance to give meaningful answers...)

Posted by: Matt on June 27, 2006 6:42 AM

Matt,

Back up the big talk. Go live in a black neighborhood. Or better yet, an all illegal alien mexican neighborhood. Go find out what they think of YOUR "spice". Nobody gives a crap about theory. Go live there buddy, and unless or until you do, its all empty words, and you're not convincing anybody. Go live your multi-culti dream. Then check back in with us. My guess is that it will take one year, tops, before you change your mind, and run back out to be with people of the same "ethnicity" as you. Then you'll be the one calling for closed borders. I guarantee it.

Posted by: s on June 27, 2006 11:14 AM

Matt,

I doubt that you bothered to read more than a line or two into Michael's original posting, which was about why people are reluctant to bring up their preferences in discussing an issue. He also mentioned, as an example, the question of population. However, since you had your political correctness button pushed to the extent of imagining that the post was all about illegal immigrants and race, let's take up a few of your points.

I don't _know_ what the hard boundaries are on the number of people living in the kind of United States I want to live in. Reductio ad absurdum tells me that such limits exist, but my sense is that they're pretty broad.

So, the objective is to stuff as many people as possible into the country until we reach some unknown but "pretty broad" limit? Apparently you do not believe that we have a right to any preference in the matter, thereby illustrating Michael's point; only "hard boundaries" should set any stopping point as far as you're concerned.

I don't want to live in a United States where all inhabitants are required to carry documentation of their identity, birth, and ancestry at all times, and to present these documents upon the demand of any person who wishes to inspect them. I do not want to live in a United States where legal visitors from foreign countries are required to wear location-tracking ankle bracelets like paroled criminals. If we were to get truly serious about throwing all the Latinos out, that's the United States we'd all have to live in, forever more, to make it happen.

So, setting any limits to who can emigrate here, like every other country in the world does, means we are a police state, right? Got it. Maybe we shouldn't have any laws at all — as soon as we pass a law, we're on the slippery downward slope to fascism. If you can be jailed for murder, next thing you'll be jailed for swatting a mosquito.

And if the only way to avoid that turns out to be accepting the complete relocation of every single solitary last man, woman, and child from Mexico, Central and South America, into the borders of the United States...well, despite the fact that I'm pretty sure that would be way too much immigration to absorb without negative consequences, then it's still a price that I would theoretically be willing to pay.

What do you mean, "theoretically" willing to pay? You are asking us to pay, not theoretically, but actually. You want us to accept the destruction of civilized and functional life in this country, making the United States a Third World country to satisfy your ideology. Here's an idea: why don't you move to Zimbabwe or Nigeria? Conditions there would be much more to your taste.

Posted by: Rick Darby on June 27, 2006 4:07 PM

For the record, I did read the entire post. And I do already live in a neighborhood where my fiancee and I are the only white residents for several miles in any direction...although I'm pretty sure most of the hispanic residents are Puerto Ricans, and thus already American citizens. Been here two years now, and I'd be staying longer if we didn't need more space.

So, setting any limits to who can emigrate here, like every other country in the world does, means we are a police state, right?

No, kicking everyone who doesn't have our preferred-ancestry-du-jour out of the country and keeping anyone from ever entering it again requires us to turn into a police state. Setting limits does no such thing...and if they're limits that are enforceable _at the border_, rather than heaping a huge burden on law-abiding citizens and legitimate visitors, I'd even be in favor of them. But as it is, we have a policy that flies in the face of reality, causing a huge population of undocumented immigrants whose presence is desired by enough people that they've been able to build insular communities of their own here...where all sorts of criminals and anti-American elements can hide out with impunity.

Want to know my preference? (Well, I think Rick and "S" don't, but the original post _was_ asking for it.) In one sentence? Fine.

I'd prefer an America where any person of good character who wants to come in for some legitimate purpose (including productive labor) was able to do so through legal and official channels, and where immigration officers, thus freed from the necessity of chasing down all the folks who want what we want but were unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place, could concentrate their attention fully on those who are here for _illegitimate_ purposes, such as violent and property crime or undermining our system of government.

If my neighbors want to work for a living, I don't care what color their skin is. If they'd prefer to support themselves by stealing my stuff, however, I don't want the cops to be too busy checking working folks' papers to chase the crooks.

Posted by: Matt on June 28, 2006 12:51 AM

Matt,

I don't believe a word you're saying about where you live. Nice try though. The rule of law is not a police state. Enforce the goddamn existing law. That's what we (ninety percent of America, the other ten percent being illegal aliens) want. No country in the history of the world has ever had an open border, because when it does, it ceases to be a country. It simply gets overrun.

I also can't wait until people like you get it shoved right back at ya'. The regular folks are rising up now. Also, if we enter a recession, things will only ratchet up as american citizens lose jobs. Sad, but true. Nice talking to you. I hope you enjoy life with your fiancee in the mostly white/somewhat non-white neighborhood you really live in. Remember it fondly when you move up and on into whiter and whiter neigborhoods as you raise your family. Young, romantic liberalism. Yes, I remember it well.

Posted by: s on June 29, 2006 11:59 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?