Sunday, March 13, 2005

Anatomy of a Political Post

The Title

Your Title should be memorable and humorous, and by "humorous" I mean contain a simplistic, humorless pun. For example, if you were discussing Canadian anti-trust reform, you'd want to "liven things up" by titling your post, "A Hole Lot of Trouble for Tim Horton's". You might even italicize hole, since you can never drive your point home too firmly! Notice how this Title fulfills the dictionary definition of a "joke" without the formal quality of funniness. Funniness, you see, might distract from your Vital Points.

The Body

The Body of your post is where you'll bring up those Vital Points, but first we need to introduce the reader to our subject. Your Opening Paragraph should not only give the reader the facts about the issue, but also establish the "slant" of your blog. The "slant" is the political perspective from which you address all issues. All issues. Without fail. "Slant" is why people come to your blog, so if you're blogging about how great kittens are, and you're a conservative, be sure to add something about how liberals hate kittens because they hate freedom. Otherwise you will lose your audience.

Now, the Opening Paragraph. Insofar as the aforementioned ("insofar" and "aforementioned" are what we call "six-dollar words". Use them lots; it doesn't matter where) Canadian anti-trust reform has been in the news, the National Fitz-Spielbergo has run a brief article quoting Sen. David Ivannajob (D-South Dakota) as saying, "If this will help us get more delicious donuts, I'm all for it." A conservative blogger's Opening Paragraph might read like the following:

"So the Demoncrats are finally admitting what we all knew anyway. They're trying to turn the U. S. of A. into red Canada. They want to take away our guns, and give us what in exchange? Donuts. Donuts won't protect you and your loved ones from crack-head atheist earthshoe-wearing plant-eating PETA terrorists when they break into your home at three in the morning to steal our values, like freedom, which they hate."
See? You've given the reader all the information contained in the article, as well as political commentary!

The great advantage of the blogosphere is the number of voices that address each issue, as opposed to the monolithic structure of "Old Media". As the body of your post continues, your Vital Points should reflect your own, unique views and experiences. Steal most of them from newspapers, and the rest from bigger bloggers. Don't forget a "hat-tip"!

The other advantage of the blogosphere is links. Make sure that your article has lots of them, making it seem as though you researched the issue thoroughly. The links can be to any d-mn thing, as no one follows them. Ever. At least one should be "real", however, in case someone does call you on it, so that you can "*sigh*" and point them to it, as though that answered all their objections.

Wrong:
"Naturally, rBST must be banned from all planets and satellites in the inner solar system. Trans-Jovian space should have heavy restrictions on this deadliest of chemicals, far more potent than heroin or depleted uranium when mainlined."
Right:
"Naturally, rBST must be banned from all planets and satellites in the inner solar system. Trans-Jovian space should have heavy restrictions on this deadliest of chemicals, far more potent than heroin or depleted uranium when mainlined."
As you continue writing, you'll find that you have some ideas that just don't fit into this post. No problem! One sentence paragraphs make even the dumbest, more irrelevant nonsense seem profound:
"...thus demonstrating the inherent flaws in the free-market system. The evidence is simply too weighty to ignore.

Everyone should have to wear see-through pants, so we can check if they're wearing underwear or not.

Socialists, marginalized in our classist, anti-transgressive society, have no choice but to invade Iceland and establish..."
Note how, after the one sentence paragraph (or "OSP"), the main argument was picked up as though nothing had happened. This is the blogging equivalent of picking your nose while talking to someone, and has the same distrating effect, confounding your opponent! For extra points, follow an "OSP" with several others, and get a reputation as a deep, heart-felt writer. Once again, the "OSPs" don't need to connect to each other or anything else.

"...a neo-Trotskyite utopia. Freedom can only bloom when watered by the blood of a thousand capitalist blondes.

I like Ikea.

Why can't people see? Why?

Sometimes I think discussing politics online is better than smelling pretty.

I could really go for a handful of Splenda packets right now.

Why? WHY?"
When you've run out of ad hominem attacks and slurs, you'll want to wrap this post up. You haven't got all day, after all! Unless, like many bloggers, you do, in which case, hey, go for it. For those of us with lives, it's time for our Conclusion, beginning with the Concluding Paragraph.

The Conclusion

The Concluding Paragraph is actually mis-named, and we'll get to why in a moment. Meanwhile, know that the Concluding Paragraph should summarize your argument as succinctly as possible, so that lazy people can skip to the end for their political affirmation.

"In conclusion, donuts are good, but Celine Dion should go back where she came from."
Or:

"To sum up, the obvious solution is to have all home-schooled children watched twenty-four hours a day by FBI agents through cameras hooked up to the Inter Nets. Only this way will there truly be No Child Left Behind."
With your Concluding Paragraph done, it's time for the real Concluding Paragraph. Just when everybody thought you were done, you get in one last zinger!

"...back where she came from.

They can send all the bacon they want, though."
Zing! Or:

"... will there truly be No Child Left Behind.

But I guess low taxes are more important to some people than the lives of our children."
Ka-POW, baby! Or:

"...radical opposition to bio-technological advances is inherently self-defeating.

Heh."
FLAWLESS VICTORY!

A nice touch is to add an "Additional Reading" section at the end of you post. This is a list of links purporting to pertain (that's twelve dollars right there!) to the matter of your post. As with links within the post proper, these links need have no connection to anything at all. Why not start with Homestar Runner?

In conclusion, good luck.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

You forgot an important tactic: criticising the enemy's POV don't bother building coherent argument; instead, mock the way the enemy looks, his/her gender, ethnicity, accent, locale of residence or weight.
[examples galore...]

Tatyana

Anonymous said...

One of the examples, from this morning' "Metro" newspaper/My view column by Cathy Seipp:
..."Michael Kinsley"s response: "If Susan [Estrich] wants to boicott media institutions that don't adequately reflect her progressive feminist values, may be she should start by resigning from Fox news". Estrich than suggested that Kinsley's Parkinson's desease may have affected his judgment..."

Odious said...

The use of the ad hominem comes so naturally to most people that I didn't feel I had to give instruction on it. Perhaps I should note that such attacks should, sportingly, be telegraphed well in advance. The comments Roald Dahl received as a boy on his writing and boxing should suffice: "punches slow and easily seen coming."

Odious said...

Madame Semicolon:

and time-saving is only one of the many advantages of irrelevant linkage! There's also the puzzlement of opponents as they try to figure out what, if anything, the site has to do with your main point. Reluctant to ignore it completely, they may well concede that section of the argument to you out of sheer confusion.

It would be a shame if you were to link as suggested, however, since your linkage has heretofore shown only good accent and good discretion.

I say this without even the faintest of ulterior motives.