Friday, June 6, 2014

"Man is by nature a political animal." Aristotle


I’m going to try not to be partisan in this post but to examine the nature of political discourse. You’ll have to be the judge as to whether or not I succeed, but my intentions are pure.

I don’t remember political acrimony 50 years ago, but I can’t help but wonder if the reason I don’t remember is that I was not interested in politics at that time and just ignored it. When I read history, the acrimony seems to be there and - in some cases – worse than now. Duels were fought. Physical fights happened on the Senate floor. President Jackson’s wife was labeled a “whore.”

If, indeed, political discourse has never been rational then we shouldn’t be alarmed by the current state of affairs. Business as usual.

If, however, our modern technology – e.g., 24 hour cable news cycle – has spurred an increase in virulence, what can we voters on all sides do to bring about a rational discourse of the issues? Is it even possible?

One view is that the “news” programs on cable TV aren’t meant to be news. They’re entertainment – disguised as news 
– subject to viewer rating and advertising revenue, so the more outrageous they are the more profitable. Their only constrain is the need to maintain a sliver of credibility so the disguise as news is not totally destroyed.

Another trap which destroys rationality – and one I’ve fallen into – is the perception that the “other side” has overstepped a boundary and exaggerated a bit too much to make their point. So I say to myself, “They started it but I’ll show that two can play at this game.” So I write a letter-to-the-editor where I purposefully overstep a boundary and exaggerate a bit too much. This, of course, prompts a more extreme answer and we follow the path back and forth to ridiculousness. “But, they started it.” At the root of this dilemma, I believe, is that the perception of “exaggeration about an issue” may depend on which side of the issue you’re on.

The political divide in this country I do believe is as wide as it ever has been. I hope I am wrong. I believe our country is suffering from it and I’m pessimistic about any quick solution. I don’t know how it will end.


2014 Lester C. Welch

8 comments:

  1. You succeeded in being non-partisan! I have found Al-Jazeera as a good source for unbiased news (both on-line and on TV).

    To me, the constant "talking (shouting) heads" are depressing to watch. Comments are often mean spirited. I find it hard to watch for very long. My theory is that too much exposure to this kind of negativity will effect your mood; at least it does for me. Why expose yourself to so much negativity when there are so many other wonderful things to think and talk about? Politics of hatred is a losing game. No one wins.

    I have very strong political views, but I almost never talk politics with friends or family, with the exception of my husband with whom I share a similar outlook. I find that for the most part we are surrounded by folks with very conservative political beliefs.

    There are code words that people use that often identify their political beliefs. The other day my dental hygienist started talking about the "takers" in this country who are driving the economy in the ground. Her instruments were in my mouth so I was not able to respond! If I had, I would have told her about my disabled brother who "falls between the cracks". Desperately wants to work, has physical and mental limitations, and without the financial and emotional support from his family, would be homeless. So is he one of the takers she is talking about?

    People who get their news from only one source, be it Fox news or MSNBC, will have a bias. It's hard to fairly evaluate issues when you only hear one side. I think too, that sometimes scare tactics are used. People become fearful and distrustful of those with different views or ideas.

    I can't even imagine the next presidential election. I think it will get down and dirty pretty quickly. A real discussion of the issues? With valid points from both sides? No, let's play gotcha politics. Let's see who can slander, name call and vilify with the most effectiveness.

    Great post! If only we could have a rational, national discussion about these issues!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Carole. I'll confess here that my politics is liberal. I have retired into South Carolina - a very conservative state. Fun!

      Do you remember William Buckley? He was a very intelligent and intellectual conservative and one of my idols. I could listen to him for hours - but not necessarily agree. I'm thankful that the "extreme right" today doesn't have someone of his caliber to promote their agenda.

      I try to listen to FOX news as much as MSNBC. I feel the need to understand where each side is coming from. I find very few on the "extreme right" who will listen to MSNBC.

      In spite of vigorous denial, I do believe politics of today has a large component of (perhaps unrecognized) racism,

      Delete
  2. I am an Independent - conservative on some issues, liberal on others. My husband is very conservative and I live in Georgia so I keep many of my opinions to myself. I see it as conservative are stuck in a rut and liberals have gone off the deep end. So the divide is getting bigger and bigger and each side refuses to listen to the other... whereas some decent ideas come from each direction. I blame it on the media, including talk radio. I also blame it on universities. There is no more political bias in the world than in universities... the very place where you should learn to look at all sides of an issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are universities (and Hollywood, for that matter) liberal? That's where the most educated and creative people are.

      Delete
  3. Hi Lester,

    I am a fan of your writing, and appreciate that you took the high road on this issue. I am conservative on most issues, but have a mind that is subject to change when presented with a good argument. I don't rely on "talking heads" to help me form opinions and generally believe that people need to take responsibility for themselves if they are capable. My tax $$ should take care of people like Carol's brother, the elderly and other individuals in situations that are not of their own doing. The folks I don't want to take care of are the drug addicts, illegal aliens and freeloaders who are able to work but choose not to.

    In addition to the "code word" takers, there is also another one emerging of late - "haters," I have heard it often in relation to folks who have the ironic notion to want to enjoy and pass on what they have earned instead of giving it to the government for their misuse and abuse.

    Personally, I think most people are closer together in our thinking than politicians and pundits would have us believe. Think about it. The talking heads would be out of business and Congress would actually make progress if we stopped listening to and buying into their rhetoric. I am all for turning off Fox, MSNBC, and CNN and holding our elected officials accountable to do the business of the people. Can I get an Amen!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that we;re all closer together than is recognized - and that we're more empathic to the other side when we do disagree than portrayed.

      Oh,....AMEN/

      Delete
  4. Amen!! Very well said, Suzanne.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amen! I think we are closer in our thinking. We're more muddled in the middle but we're not hearing anyone from that location.

    ReplyDelete