Here is the basis for my postings.
It is my belief that the American political system is pretty
dysfunctional at the moment. While the British Parliamentary melds the
Executive and Legislative branches together, the American system does not.
Therefore, we have a “competitive system” based upon two sides tugging over
issues.
Popular media today, and the political parties, have learned
that if they can divide, or appear to divide (Fiorina) the American electorate,
they can distract already busy voters with false arguments such as Voter ID, the
vapid debate over immigration, or the “threat” that China presents.
IOW’s, by serving up and encouraging arguments, (selling fear) which intentionally devolve into divisions based upon class, race, gender and sexuality, both parties are able to form blocs of voter which are based upon “group membership.” (Theiss-Morse)
IOW’s, by serving up and encouraging arguments, (selling fear) which intentionally devolve into divisions based upon class, race, gender and sexuality, both parties are able to form blocs of voter which are based upon “group membership.” (Theiss-Morse)
It is my impression that folks want to engage in political
discussions but the models we get for that engagement in the media is one of
acrimony, character assassination and permission to objectify those we disagree
with and those who are elected. Whether its Fox News, MSNBC, talk radio or
nearly any form of online social media, it’s not about truth but about profits
– selling advertising. It’s good that people want to engage in political
discussions including presenting what they believe. It’s bad that we are being
taught how to yell past one another.
As a white, middle aged male, I should desire membership in
the white, middle-aged male party. As a member of that political party, I
should use the rhetoric of membership to signal I belong. By affirming my
membership, I exclude non-members. At least this is how the party system in
America works. The use of rhetoric allows non-members to assume the argument,
respond using the rhetoric of “their team” and thus signal membership in their
party: thus reaffirming the assumed beliefs of their team.
Marshall McLuhan (The Medium is the Message) and George
Orwell (1984) both discussed how rhetoric devolves into ‘mental shortcuts’
which assume arguments whereby we no longer need to interact intellectually
with each other. We can simply label, assume and then objectify the opposition.
This means that the very necessary role of intellectual discourse, or debate,
ends and the basis of the American system of governance can be manipulated by
those in power: including the media, the parties, and those that fund the
system. (Diana Mutz)
I suggest that's all bullshit.
A political party exists for one reason only: electing
members of its team. The (party) platform of the team is NOT about better
government but about coagulating loosely formed special interest groups into a
bloc of voters of sufficient size to win elections. This is why, for example,
rural employers in Iowa hire illegal immigrants but vote for the most
bombastic, anti-immigrant member of the Congress again and again. A similar
argument was made by Thomas Frank in his book, ‘What the Matter with Kansas?’
Going back to school, and reading a great deal about
politics does not mean I am any smarter. It simply means I am constantly being
exposed to a wide variety of arguments – which often are in disagreement with
each other. How does one know what the truth is? We don’t. According to most
great philosophical minds, we are unable to know what the right answer (or
truth) is. Thus the call for the necessary role of debate over complicated
issues.
As H.L. Menken said, there is always an easy solution to
every complicated problem, and it is always wrong. (I may have gotten the quote
wrong but you get the point). Political party's and media are asking us to
pursue the simple answer. Again, I think that's bunk.
From my current program of study, being exposed to all these ideas is great. I love it. And what one realizes quickly is that the topical political debates that we are invited to engage in, are trumped up distractions. The media talking heads, Limbaugh, Maddow, Stewart or O'Reilly are spoon-feeding their audience rhetorical talking points.
We are being asked to apply political Band-Aids when there are structural problems to American government at the moment. For example, we have a war on drugs, a war on poverty, a war on illiteracy and a war on crime. But what have been the fruit, the benefit, and the “win” on these wars?
Debt,
Voting blocs,
Stagnant political agendas (that do not really address the
issues that need to be addresses),
Social division,
Objectification of non-group members,
Ultimately, hate.
Instead, if I can create constructive discussions on
facebook that caters to busy but interested folks regarding issues that I
believe are based upon the structural issues our society faces – not by
acrimony but by “killing the dogma within,” I think there’s value to that. No
one has to read any of these posts. If one doesn’t like’em - don’t read’em.
In the Academia of Political Science there are discussions
over complex but interesting and important ideas. We could keep these
discussions locked away in “ivy towers” or we could present them in a format
that some will elect to engage in.
Said differently, I think we can steer the desire of those
that want to engage in political discussions from vitriolic arguments to
engaging, and SAFE, respectful discussions where we learn that the divisions
that the media and parties reinforce are mythical. Ultimately, America looks
exactly like us. It is a perfect mirror reflection of who we are. There are no
victims: only victimizers. There are no sages – only those that continue to
pursue the truth by identifying false truths and then choosing to reject them
(Falsification: Popper).
The middle class, whether leaning left or right, generally,
shares the similar values and concerns. We live, we die, we do the best the we
can to raise our families, and we pay taxes. We are not so different, you and I.
Do I know the truth? Hell no. Do I have some leanings and
inclinations? Of course. But, and you will notice this, I never tell anyone
what they need to believe. I never, ever, castigate anyone for disagreeing with
me. And I never personalize political candidates (since I know how taxing and
difficult that row is to hoe).
I suppose I could sit on the couch and watch ‘Dancing with
the Stars…’ But I think that taking the things I am learning, and trying to
share them, is more interesting and, as we can see from some of the
discussions, some folks seem to like engaging in discussions where their
intelligence and parentage are not threatened.
Finally, the only person our arguments are ever going to
change is that lying bastard in the mirror and that is done by challenging
one’s own paradigms of truth.
Anyway, that’s why I make some of the posts I make. I hope
that seems a bit more enlightened than simply being a poser among friends. So,
come along if you want, great. Or not: that’s fine too.
"There is no political solution
To our troubled evolutionHave no faith in constitution
There is no bloody revolution
We are spirits in the material world
(Are spirits in the material world
Our socalled leaders speak
With words they try to jail you
The subjugate the meek
But it's the rhetoric of failure." Sting, The Police