You can’t force a point of view. You can only guide it from the clarity of your perspective. The Do Good Gauge describes a formula to give citizens a better chance of being heard. Coherency and respect are instrumental to the formula. The freedom of speech does not provide a freedom to be heard. Screaming or the threat of violence does not provide motivation for anyone to listen.

Like it or not, everyone has a point of view. Some points of view are just plain bad. I’m not ashamed to admit that my own erroneous perspective has been swayed by respectful individuals with more knowledge than myself. When a point of view is foggy, it is up to an individual to change a direction or clarify his or her position.

One of many premises of the Do Good Gauge is to allow an argument to be developed by an individual or like thinking group. The continuous refinement and feedback of an argument provides the means of clarify a point of view and/or steer the argument in a more optimal direction.

I worry about our country when hate, fear, ignorance, and chaos becomes the
preferred avenue for political change. Respect, coherency, and community involvement is a more optimal path.

Based on the tangency of my post, I seek help clarifying my point of view.

Apologies for the insinuation. That was unfair and uncalled for on my part. I’ve been focusing on the lack-of-balance between the competing blogging communities with enough intensity that I imparted conservative bias on your part, when my actual critique is that you’re making the very same methodological choice as pretty much everyone else who conducts research on the topic (not constructing a left-right comparative design that lets us make size comparisons). That’s a reasonable and defensible choice on your part, albeit one which I’m (clearly and strongly) critical of. I have no basis for the ad hominem, and will edit the entry to remove it and include a note admitting that the attack was silly, sloppy, and retracted.

Thanks for reading the post,
-Dave

I’m glad that you read my book with interest and a critical eye. My main objection to your critique is the insinuation of a certain political agenda. You suggest I read certain blogs and hold certain political beliefs that govern my approach to my research. That is offensive to me because I strive to approach my research agenda with the highest level of objectivity.

It would be helpful if you would provide some evidence of that bias before asserting it. (Teaching at BYU does not count as evidence since BYU, like the vast majority of other higher education institutions, does not mandate a particular personal ideological position in order to join the faculty.)

If you have evidence of my personal bias, please state it. If you don’t, please avoid making such assertions.

I’d be happy to take a look at your MPSA paper. I’d be interested in reviewing your work and learning from it. I’m also glad that blog research is acquiring more interest among political scientists.

Richard Davis