I don't like to be too personal on this blog out of respect for my own privacy and generally because it is not really meant to be that sort of effort. A primary point of this blog is to discuss my views on various public issues. I am not sure how far using personal examples would advance this. It opens up questions of bias and personal sentiments vs. general arguments. This is a bit of a cheat, obviously, since personal experiences surely affect how one views the world. Likewise, I use individual examples now and again. So, I guess privacy is an important factor, and a disfavoring of using personal experiences -- however relevant and useful -- too much.
Still, bias it might be, I am somewhat suspicious about personal accounts that lead to arguments that seem a bit slanted, as if only a heartless bastard would not see it their way. This is so even if they are right. Of course, on some level, this blog is deeply personal. It is the personal musings of its author. And, though it is open to the public, it is largely for his own enjoyment. This leads me to write somewhat differently here than I might on say the Slate fray, for which I am in effect writing for a broader audience. There are shades and degrees of "personal."
Though at least one person has charged me with just submitting philosophical musings, I have been directly affected by many of the hot button issues discussed in these entries. These issues are in fact not simply important to me because of some general view of how things should work, but because they directly affect the lives of you and me. This influences my views on equal protection. My general sentiment is that in some fashion someone close or relatively close to me (if not me) fits into any number of groupings. Thus, what right do I (or anyone, really) have to illegitimately favor one of them over the other. This includes those who in some fashion I do not like too much in some fashion, including certain political and religious viewpoints.
I referenced a book on the animal movement recently, which included rules of proper advocacy. One rule, which was reaffirmed in another book on writing to change the world, is that one should respect your audience. In some fashion, you need to try to form a bridge, and not be disrespectful even to those with whom you totally disagree, who you might even actively dislike. I generally try to do that though one has one's slip-ups. I understand but at some point dislike the vitriol out there. It is emotionally satisfying, but one on one, scriptural spitting is rather lame after awhile. Also, I find using one's opponents’ arguments in some fashion against them -- tricky common ground -- can be quite useful.
The term "the personal is the political" has a lot of truth to it. Any number of public issues directly affects the lives of millions of Americans. Such is the case with health care. Thus, a tale of woe led me to be sympathetic, but also quite honestly say "this is why we need universal health care." In fact, the problem with broader -- an example of disrespect for the health needs of the general public overall, and one can assume (as shown in some countries) a national health care system that would lead to similar problems.
Still, simply put, when one cannot obtain a crucial test -- even if you wanted to pay for it ($1500, not cheap, but affordable for this person) -- something is wrong. Again, the irony -- the person (who was not properly counseled about her plan) is part of a HMO.* The lie is that it is universal health care which will lead to people not being able to get the care for which they are willing pay.
So, yes, sometimes personal experience can be used to advance one's cause. I am supportive of the anything that works approach, seeing many things as a complex whole that cannot be fully understood by looking only at one strand. The sum of their parts. I find it counterproductive to look at things only in one particular way, closing out others that might attract more people to your side. So, the personal would be part of it, sure enough.
Still, we all have our favored techniques. It's a personal thing.
---
* The person was further upset since this seemed so petty and purposeless. My guess was that it is a liability issue of some kind.