Make me believe
I want to begin this post with a comment. I want to say that I truly respect MeanOnSunday and Neil for posting comments here, your viewpoints are completely different than mine on a good many issues, but I respect you for coming here to discuss what you feel.
Recently, I had an idea to start up a new website dedicated to politics. Before you stop reading the post, I need you know where I'm coming from here because it won't be what you're thinking of.
Over the last few years, I've become increasingly despondent in the way that the political system works in this country. This isn't a shocking concept. I defy any of you to tell me that the system is running as well as it should.
My belief is that we're all being decieved... and it comes from all directions. The media fails almost absolutely in it's job to act as a watchdog for the public. I believe, and I think that people would have a hard time disagreeing with me, that due to the fact that media organizations are owned by massive corporations with their own interests at heart, that they exist only to keep everyone split and angry. They want everyone to believe that this country is red and blue. That there is no 'purple' and that everyone needs to take a side. Simply put, I believe that they want us to all hate each other.
The drive for them is not to strive for the truth... they are driven to keep us from it. When I saw a quote from from the Sunday talk shows this week that stopped a discussion by saying, "I’m just going to call time here and let people make up their own minds on this," I knew I had had enough. They don't care. They don't want to present the facts or check to see that the things that they are being told are lies or distortions. They don't want to bring us together... they want to spin the stories to make us take sides and keep us divided... and that makes me sick inside.
Politicians seem to exist, with few exceptions, to make us feel the same way.
The presidential elections have become contests, with issues manufactured by the media, to keep things close. Is your life really made worse if George Takai marries his boyfriend? Seriously, do you care who Reverend Wright is? Do you want days of media attention spent on a comment about 'lipstick on a pig?'
I'll be the first to admit that I was falling for this. I was drinking the kool-aid and getting more and more angry. Then I realized why I was starting to get so upset. I wasn't getting angry because of what the people were saying, I was getting angry because they weren't saying ANYTHING.
There were two things that really got me to this point in the last few days. The first of which was McCain's ad about Obama wanting to teach sex education to kindergartners... and to hear it defended. The ad is visually presented to make Obama look like he's a pedophile. They don't want you to know anything about the bill that it's based on. They don't want you to know that they removed the phrase 'age-appropriate' before sexual education. They want you to think that Obama wants to come to your kids school and start talking to your 5 year old about sex. They want you to see a 30 second spot on TV and be appauled that a good percentage of the country might want this monster to be the next president of our country. It was bush-league(no pun intended) politics... and when Karl Rove says you've gone too far... you know you're not on the high ground.
The second ad was Obama's ad about the fact that John McCain doesn't know how to use email. Frankly, I don't care if he knows how to use email. The ads purpose is to make Senator McCain look like he's out of touch and can't be trusted because he doesn't know about 'the internets.' It's insulting to our intelligence and it makes me mad.
Why is it that all people want to do is tear down these two men who haven't done anything but to serve their country in the best way that they know how?
Why is it that a man who was raised by a single mother, put himself through school with scholarships and student loans, and worked to help his community before being a politician is being mocked for being a community activist?
Why is it that a man who has spent the majority of his life serving and defending his country is being mocked because he may not be savy enough to use a computer? (Hell, I do the job for a living... I'd venture that 90% of the people I deal with are probably behind him as far as computer knowledge is concerned.)
Why? Why do we put up with this year after year? Why do we let the media tell us what we should believe about these people? Why are we forced to believe that there are two America's? What ever happened to Conservative Democrats and Liberal or (ok... that's too far) Moderate Republicans?
To quote High Fidelity, "Hey, I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I'm certainly not the dumbest." I just want the game to be played right. We're all sports fans here. The games that we watch and play all have rules and if the rules are broken... people pay the price for it. Why can't we have it that way in politics?
Why can't we have a law that states that an ad must be proven to be true before it goes on the air? (Well, money is the answer there,) but why can't we have a law on the books that says just that? No grey areas... no ellipses... just facts. Why do we continue to allow borderline slander to be presented as if it was the truth?
I know I'm talking about pie-in-the-sky concepts, but why can't we demand more?
I believe that Senator Obama's most crucial moment in his speech was when he uttered the single word, "ENOUGH!"
The sad thing is, that I think I've had that same thought... but that it applies to both of them.
That's why I thought about creating a political site, not to drive us further apart, but to try and make us all see the things that we do have in common. We want this country to be a better place. We want this country to be a safer place.
The simple fact of the matter is that those things cannot happen they way that they are right now. They can't happen until we decide to stop bickering about the petty nonsense and work together to make real change happen in this country.
Right now, we're looking at 4 more years of the same... no matter who we choose and that makes me want to do something. I'm not a man that could possibly participate in the political process... but I would like to try and change the way things are.. or at the very least, get people to talk... and be honest.
I just can't imagine that I'm alone where I'm at right now... because if I am... then as a country... we are truly lost.
...and that is a vision of America that I don't want to believe can ever become true.
Contact Us
Riding the Pines Podcast
Search Amazon.com
What We’re Playing
Dan:
September 15th, 2008 - 23:54
It was more “Enough! It’s my turn now!”
I think there are a few factors that contribute to the low-brow nature of political contests. The biggest, in my opinion, is that the majority of voters refuse to educate themselves enough about their choices, either because it’s not a high priority for them or because they have short attention spans. Groupthink is also a big problem. People don’t want their beliefs to be challenged, and people often take positions based on how it makes them feel than through a more rational process. This leads to intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, which politicians are happy to exploit.
The relative ignorance of American voters, combined with their influence over the election outcome, is what makes the force-feeding of opinions–short, shallow political ads and endless repetition of slogans and talking points–effective in persuading voters and winning elections.
If rational, balanced examination of issues was what the majority of people wanted, the media would give it to them. Instead, shows like Firing Line are largely extinct, and the political process has more of a game show or reality show feel to it, where the media simply tries to embarrass the candidates as much as possible.
Still, a lot of the time, even knowledgeable, level-headed voters come to the realization that they simply disagree with their opponent, that there’s no more discussion to be hand, and that the only thing left is to fight for power.
September 16th, 2008 - 00:20
Politics are about one thing only, Money. And thats why I don’t want anything to do with politics.
September 16th, 2008 - 03:17
Really nice post Glen. I actually came to the site from my newsreader so I could read the comments. At 39 yesterday, my predominant thought is “it will never work” which actually makes me kind of sad. I don’t believe I have the capability to be a true believer anymore. I’d gladly make a political contribution to an organization (not party) that could deliver on your premise. And I’d encourage you to try and be part of a dialogue that is working to achieve that.
For my sanity I look for sources that have civil conversations. The best 12 minutes of podcast I listen to each week is Shields and Brooks on the Macneil-Lehrer newscast. Mark is a liberal’s liberal and David is a moderate Republican but they NEVER interupt each other and for the most part they will agree or be civil with each other and discuss the political angle.
One sign of hope is that something might be coming to a head here. I came to a similar conclusion today while listening to their commentary on the Lipstcik on a Pig comments “Stupidity on stilts” (<–love this comment from Brooks) and the commentary on McCain and e-mail. They enjoy their own lies, they get furious at the other. Maybe others feels this way too?
I’ll finish with this. If you ever think politics is cynical look how the parties are finding religion on news sides of an issue. Democrats are coming after Palin for saying “why isn’t she home with her baby” and Republicans are embracing feminism. To see both parties take up the others argument would be humorous if it were not so…depressing.
So good luck! I’m just a little too beat down to actually try with anything other than a contribution and about 300 words above at this point. But I think some time playing Rock Band 2 might help.
Steve
September 16th, 2008 - 08:34
Your ideas are stupid to me, and I don’t want to subscribe to your newsletter.
Less unseriously, though, I often tell my Republican friends that we actually agree on virtually every issue (and I’m a raging lefty). It’s all about how we word things. Are you for clubbing newborn babies in the head? No? Well neither am I! Do you think a 14 year old girl who was raped by her father and is 1 week pregnant should be forced by the government to use her body as an incubator for 9 months? No? Well me either! Instead of wording things in such a way that we can both agree on them, Republicans have mastered the art of manipulating people’s emotions via careful phrasing of things. “Liberal media”, “pro-life”, “partial-birth abortion”, “the blame America first crowd”, “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here”, “libtard commie bastard”, etc. About the only “lefty” phrase that I can think of is “trickle down economics”. The difference is that every one of the Republican phrases is not even based in reality.
Republicans have mastered the art of negative campaigning, and the Dems have been forced to follow suit in order to stay competitive. It’s a “tragedy of the commons”, started by the Republicans.
So while I agree with your sentiments, don’t lose sight of the fact that both parties aren’t the same. One party is by far worse than the other.
And in the words of little kids everywhere, “They started it!”
September 16th, 2008 - 09:34
Actually, the problem is not “negative campaigning.” That’s been around for as long as we’ve had elections.
What’s new is the politics of being offended, satirized by the Onion here: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/number_of_acceptable_things
Nowadays, it’s not punch and counter-punch, it’s punch and counter-cry.
I disagree with raging lefties on pretty much every issue except on civil liberties. For example, I was discussing Denmark’s tax system with one, and they consider 65% tax rates on incomes over $70k “progressive” while I consider it “slavery”.
It’s all fine and good to talk about civility in politics and whatnot, but when someone wants to forcibly take thousands of dollars from you and spend it on their pet causes, getting a little riled up seems quite understandable.
September 16th, 2008 - 09:55
Getting riled up is completely understandable, however one can express a disagreement with another person without calling their patriotism into question, or try to frame every discussion as an attempt at fear mongering.
I hate all of the negative ads, on both sides, and don’t understand why they can’t be as simple as “This is what he wants to do, and I don’t like it, so this is what I’m going to do.” Don’t tell me how much the other guy sucks, tell me why you’re not going to suck. Hell, I can tell you why the current administration blows, but that doesn’t mean I’m qualified to hold office.
Personally, I hate this whole notion of not trusting someone simply because they’re smarter than you, or making your only qualifying point for the presidency being whether or not you’d like to have a beer with someone. I’m an idiot. Why the hell do I want someone like me running the country? I can’t run my house. This, quite possibly, the most important job in the whole world. Shouldn’t we want the smartest person we can get in the job? Why are we so afraid of smart people? The American public needs to get over whatever inferiority complex they have about smart people or things are just going to keep getting worse and worse.
September 16th, 2008 - 11:54
It’s a copout to say that negative campaigning has been around forever and both parties do it. Cite me something (not freerepublic.com) that shows Dems run more negative ads than Republicans over the last 20 years and I’ll buy you a house.
Even the best Glen can do to look balanced is to list “Obama wants to teach 5 year olds about penile penetration” vs. “McCain doesn’t know how to use email”.
Both sides do NOT play the game the same way. One side is obviously “worse”. I put worse in quotes because the GOP tactics, although reprehensible and despicable, are evidently effective.
Watch Idiocracy if you want to see where our media is taking us. We can’t have an effective democracy without an informed populous, and anyone getting their news from Fox News (or even CNN) is NOT informed.
September 16th, 2008 - 12:30
Oh, come on. For the last 7 years, with about a 6 month reprieve for 9/11, the Democrats have been blaming every single thing wrong in the world on Bush and working the words “incompetent” and “failure” into any statement they give to the press. Even when the economy was going great, they did everything they could to try to make people think it was bad. They talked about how the “surge” was a (Republican) failure even when all the hard evidence showed otherwise, only capitulating when their allies in the media stopped providing them cover.
If you read any of the DNC emails they send out to get the base riled up, you can find lies and baseless attacks as loathsome as any that come out of the Republican camp.
Anyway, I liked Perot’s campaigning style – take a decent amount of time on TV and actually explain things instead of going for sound bites and 30 second ads. Maybe having the candidates doing periodic 30-60 minute presentations/addresses on network TV would make for a better overall campaign, although I am sure there would be difficulty in getting the networks to provide them that kind of time, as they aren’t all billionaires who can buy as much TV time as they need like Perot.
September 16th, 2008 - 12:45
Oh, so you’re saying that Bush is not an incompetent failure.
Wait, what?
September 16th, 2008 - 18:48
Whenever someone talks abut taxes and calls it slavery, I’m done with them. It’s intellectually dishonest.
September 16th, 2008 - 19:58
Glen, good luck with the new website. Everyone seems to be lining up behind their respective positions as we speak.
Throw out a straw man here, a little name calling there, some back and forth and all common ground is lost.
That lasted….what…7 hours maybe?
Sigh…let me get back to the band.
September 16th, 2008 - 20:21
Yeah, I really wanted to see what kind of reaction I would see when I tried to post my heartfelt feelings about politics as usual.
It’s just unfortunate that things are the way that they are… but it appears that change will not be easy to achieve.
September 17th, 2008 - 03:46
How about “indentured servitude” instead of slavery? You’re taking other people’s work and talent and using it for your own ends without their consent.
Speaking of dishonesty, I’m no fan of Bush, but Democrats have been absolutely dishonest in blaming him for any and every problem they can. And they have done it in a way that is intentionally insulting and divisive.
September 17th, 2008 - 09:33
“You’re taking other people’s work and talent and using it for your own ends without their consent.”: Kind of like when Bush used my tax dollars to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Bush ran as a uniter and not a divider… so even if it’s true that the Dems have been divisive, just add that to the massive pile of Bush’s failures.
So what kind of Republican are you, Neil? Are you a billionaire? Bible thumper? Anti-environment? Anti-science? Anti-stem cell research? Assault weapon collector? Jingoistic simpleton?
Glen, you’ve got no hope of making people like me look for the good in Republicans. I sat by apathetically for 8 years while Republicans did everything under the sun to destroy Bill Clinton, and then when they applied their filthy tactics to steal the 2000 election and appoint another in a long line of simpletons (from Dan Quayle to Sarah Palin) to power, I just couldn’t take it any more. Bush is to thank for my political awakening. And over the last 8 years of first ignoring the issue of terrorism (well, at least until 9/11), closeted gay Republicans who vote anti-gay agendas, turning war hero John Kerry into the bad guy and draft-dodging/National Guard duty-shirking Bush into the military expert (fake purple heart bandaids show such class), bungling the national disaster response of Katrina, etc., Bush has turned me to the point where I wouldn’t vote Republican for Dog Catcher if there was only one person running.
I’m not necessarily pro-Democratic party, but I am 100% anti-Republican. And there’s your obstacle, Glen: At this point I’m not motivated by anything but cynicism. Neil will whine about it, but for me that cynicism starts and ends with Bush and his hypocritical party.
I’ll finish with one last bit of venom: The Republicans stand for one thing and one thing only: Make the filthy rich richer. There aren’t enough filthy rich people to win elections, so the Republicans have manipulated a large group of Americans who have already shown their ability to easily blindly follow something without logical reason: the religious right. Yes, they’ve twisted Jesus Christ’s teachings, which were all about love and hippie stuff like that, into voting Republican. All in the name of homosexers and blastocysts. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
September 17th, 2008 - 20:50
I’m not even a Republican, I’m a libertarian. I have never voted for a Republican for President, as a matter of fact, in the 3 elections I voted in.
And I think it’s apparent from the above post that one of the problems we have is that rational debate requires two rational people, rather than one rational person and one who flies off the handle with insults, exaggerations, bitterness, and hypocritical and illogical accusations at the slightest indication of disagreement.
The term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is a term the right wing has used to describe it. It’s a phenomenon that started when Bush was awarded the election by the Supreme Court and hasn’t abated since.
If you want to get into Biblical teachings about helping others, look at the story of the “rich young ruler”. Jesus told this guy not to go raise taxes to feed the poor, but to go sell his own stuff to do so.
Libertarians believe that helping people is an individual responsibility, not something that people should be forced to do. What happens to our spirit of compassion as individuals when we assume that everyone who needs help will get it from the government, and paying taxes is the only charitable action we need to take?