I get older, and with that comes life experience. It's humorous to me that others refuse to recognize the opposition to their beliefs as an opportunity to test them. It's as if the validity of your perspective is irrelevant because it is what defines you. You are a valued conservative. Perhaps, an open-minded progressive? Either way, with that, there's a label that is hard to shake. No matter how much you try, that is who you are in the other's eyes. Then there are the fair-minded. Usually the ones that claim to be fair-minded don't know that they are nor are they so inclined to tell you. In most cases, it's an apathy that exists. This can both be a forced apathy out of distaste for either side, or just a prevailing aloofness. That's the three types of people. In a paragraph I just generalized a whole population of Americans. Not a very easy, nor a sharp venture. Although, I believe that I have nailed it.
I've tried, more often than not, to watch Fox News. I listen to conservative talk radio like a moth to the flame. Rare is it that I find their ideas stimulating versus irritating. I do not like to be yelled at as a form of proselytizing. So much of it is name calling and the spinning of "news" to create the story. This is especially true when there is a pressing issue. What I've found is that the dialogue is filled with vicious rhetoric and hysterics. It's hard to look at Glen Beck, beyond listening to him. He yells at you and preaches to you as if you were in first grade. I can't imagine, and then again I see it in the news every day, what power he has on the less educated. The ill-equipped to understand the histrionics and theatrical nature of his program are liable to implode with emotion. He plays into the predisposed prejudices of his viewers. Their innate xenophobia, and sense of fear about losing their way of life causes them to yell back at the television as if it were some form of rally versus an informative program or commentary. He depicts a world devoid of grey area, and superficial examinations of issues that only peal back layers of crazy to substantiate his world view.
The question has been raised about the genesis of this outrage against President Barack Obama and the underlying racial implications. I don't think that it can be denied that there is a racial component. When you look at the criticism of how the president reacted to the Havard-Gate situation in which the esteemed African American scholar Professor Gates was arrested in his own house with a "figures" kind of sentiment. It is obvious that there is some grey area, and one would hope the officer exercised his best judgment in the situation. However, no matter what the officer's intentions were it became a racial issue and fodder for those spinster-media types to make this an "us against them" argument. I do not believe that all of the criticism, like the president says, is racially motivated. Meanwhile, the reality is that the tactics of right have harnessed that very emotional energy with tacit incendiary remarks to inflame the evils of their psyche. The strategist on the right is very aware that this sentiment exists. In the 2008 election, during exit polling voters were actually willing to share that they weren't ready to vote for a black president. Race was part of the story in 2008 and will continue to be a component that cuts both ways.
I really believe that the "townhalls" and "tea-baggers" and all of this outrage that is portrayed as patriotic free-speech on Fox news is the result of Karl Rove politics. These are, by and large, the same opponents to gay marriage and abortion. These are emotionally charged situations where Rove took the polarizing issues of our time such as ten commandments in the class room, "In God we Trust" on our dollars, confederate flags in South Carolina, and gays adopting kids and exploded that to fan the flames of violent opposition against even a discussion about the alternatives. A conversation is diminished as an affront on their faith, and encroachment on their freedom. All nuance or complexity is watered down as politics.
What's more, is the dangers of for profit news sources that have taken this demographic and built programming around their perspectives. The people that spew this filth, the Becks, and Sean Hannitys are the first to admit that off the record they are entertainers. They say this with an air of smugness and condescension, and this is true on both sides. Yet they forgo the responsibility that comes with gossip. They play loose with the facts, and take editorial privilege often to wrap the stories of the day around their ideology. They know who watches their programs. Just like any good business man, "know thy customer" as Peter Drucker said. Unfortunately, the collateral damage is the truth. These shows don't present themselves as anything other than the news. They lack the honesty of Jon Stewart. At least, his show is on Comedy Central. It's a dangerous game.
As a passionate proponent of free speech, it's hard for me to side on the argument against the existence of their voices. My ambivalence is torturing because of the three types of people, only the informed will be heard. Then it's whoever has the loudest voice, or money to get their loud voice broadcast. So the misinformed are dominating the debate over substance. If the republicans continue to pick at the scabs of their constituency to emote support by ad hominem attacks on the issues, and propagating mistruths about the intentions of opposition--the end result will be the weakening of our republic. When the discussion has devolved to the lowest common denominator then we all lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment