Choices

 In response to Cody's: Polarity

My son and I had an interesting conversation the other day.  He's studying World War I in his history class and we were discussing the politics that led to it's advent.  I pontificated like I knew what I was talking about for far too long.  Our discussion wandered, as they often do, and he asked me if I preferred the phrase "European style socialism" or "social democracy" to describe the governments of Europe.  I told him I guess European style socialism.  He informed me his history professor hates the term European style socialism because it's misleading and that social democracy better describes the governing and economic realities there.  I shot back with it being nothing more than a semantic difference and hardly an issue.  Then I gave it some more thought.

In Cody's Polarity, he writes about the ongoing political rancor that's so divisive these days, the polarizing figures that foment said rancor and the mass media's role in the whole matter.  I couldn't help but stand up and yell, "Preach on, brother!"  It seems we don't discuss our differences anymore, but rather we draw a line in the sand and dare the opposition to cross it...at their own peril.  Why all the acrimony and hate?  Cody asks this question; "Something or someone has raised the rancor of the rhetoric these days. But who, or what?"  That made me think about my son's professor's disdain for the phrase European style socialism as opposed to social democracy.  For me it helps to partially answer Cody's question of who or what is behind the "us verses them" mentality these days.  I'll try to explain.

Think about the rhetorical difference between those two statements.  The phrase European style socialism will have a significant negative effect on American free market capitalists because of the juxtaposing definition of socialism.  The idea of government ownership of the means of production is anathema to free market economies like ours in the U.S.  The term socialism conjures images of Marx and Lenin, Soviet style totalitarianism and the human rights abuses of China to some, to others a lack of choice and long lines as governments nationalize social services.  Social democracy gives a completely different perception, one of a government for and by the people with a concern for social issues.  The negative connotations of socialism are negated by the idea of democracy.  Now, both of these images are too simplistic, as socialism is far more complex and diverse than most people know (me included), but I still think I'm pretty close to the mark here.  After further reflection, I had to conclude that the history professor was right, the idea of social democracy does better describe Europe than the alternative.  So why do I think of European governance in the context of classic socialism?

Well, that one is easy to answer; it's because of the the choices I make in getting information.  I watch Fox News.  I read  Reason Magazine and the Drudge Report online.  I consider myself fairly opened minded, but I do gravitate towards conservative sources of information.  And I choose more conservative sources because I tend to agree with conservatives more often than not.  My values are validated by conservative ideas.  Information that I can use to support my positions is found in conservative media.  The debate of political issues is couched in the rhetoric of conservatism in the media I consume, and phrases like European style socialism is part of that rhetoric..  Believe me when I tell you I'm well versed in the rhetoric of conservatism after years of conservative media immersion.  It can act like blinders sometimes.  And I would say that to be true of the liberal steeped in liberal media dogma as well.  There's been many a time I've found myself discussing something with a liberal who would not deviate from the talking points issued from on high.  Regrettably, I'm sure someone could say the same of me at times.

So, who is responsible for the vitriol that divides our nation?  Well, the media is complicit, so are our politicians.  In fact, you can follow the money more times than not to see who is partially responsible.  But the ultimate responsibility falls on you and me, the individual.  The media does it for the money, the politician does it for the vote.  There's probably several reasons why the individual chooses one side or the other, but we choose all the same.  The shame is we allow invective and acrimony to enter the debate.  I guess that is partly because of the media, but what media we consume is our choice, too.  Just like European style socialism is apart of my vocabulary because of my choice of media.  Still, I'm thankful for freedom of choice and wouldn't have it any other way..

With that, a partial answer, as I promised.  It's important to consider our potential complicity in all matters, and when it comes to agitating I'd say we all do our part to stir the pot.  It's something a lot of us do well.  Maybe too well.

Polarity

by Cody Kilgore

I have to wonder if this has been said by almost every generation, but it strikes me that there is a great deal of arguing going on these days. It seems like every issue sparks intense debate, if not downright nastiness, from people that are always on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum on any, or every topic. Middle ground is rare.

Take for instance the recent spate of oil rig disasters that have happened in the Gulf of Mexico. You would think that the destruction that the BP rig caused would be appalling to just about everyone. But, when I took up the banner--along with thousands of others--to boycott BP, there was no end to people that would argue with me over the benefits of fossil fuels and the virtues of Big Oil, no matter how moderate a position I tried to communicate.

Any proposed answer to our recent economic problem is met with both praise and tongue-lashing. It seems someone always feels that they are about to lose something, whether we do something to help resolve it or do nothing at all. Even those that seemingly would have no vested interest, or would stand to lose or gain nothing feel passionately (and express it so) about something that might offer assistance or an advantage to someone else. Sometimes the argument boils down to a simple disagreement over what it fair (whatever “fair” may be).

Just the mere mention of President Obama, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or any Clinton is enough to light up my Facebook page with a litany of comments. But, that is understandable; I don’t think any of them serve as good examples of people willing to listen, understand, and find compromise with opposing views. Instead, they all seem willing to state, or stand for, the starkest opposition of the differing position.

I used to think the level of emotion I see demonstrated on behalf of one point or another was reserved for some of the deepest moral conflicts we’ve all been called to decide on, things like abortion and the death penalty. Not anymore. Those things still divide us deeply, but they seem to have lost some of their importance by virtue of how vehemently we argue almost anything these days.

There is a distinct tenor of "Us vs. Them" boiling up in our culture and I am not sure how it has evolved to the level that now exists. Something or someone has raised the rancor of the rhetoric these days. But who, or what?

I know we owe it, in part, to the ability we are all afforded by the internet and television to gather news and information and dispense our own communication. News comes to us faster now than ever before, and we are able to reach out to more people faster as well. And in that speed and volume of incoming and outgoing information, there lies a vast opportunity for varying interpretations, representations, facts, and opinions. Often, it's a blend of all four of those things.

It is an inarguable fact—an intention, even—that mass media impacts and influences both perception and opinion. Even in the act of writing and publishing this, I am engaged in that same effort (although no “mass” will likely read this). I hope, however, that I am influencing people to do what I think is the exact opposite that many in the media intend to do. I would like us to pause and examine differences personally, and try to ignore the media lords of mass exploitation, on both sides.

I won’t name any one person as being to blame, even though you are probably thinking their names (or the names you believe I would blame) as you read this. I know there are perpetrators on both sides, although I would argue that certain ones are far more inflammatory than others. My difficulty with these people is that they use imagery and language and slant to exploit people’s emotions and fears in order, quite frankly, to make money.

If you believe they are out to save mankind, or save our culture from dishonor, or save all of us from our immoral selves, you have bought too far into their message, and you would be better served to think more for yourself. Please turn off the tube, and step away from the remote.

I once heard an interview of an author who posited that we have several generations already in existence who have absolutely no idea of who they truly are personally, because the entirety of their personality and behavior was formed by what they saw on television. I know that seems like the often-argued point against mass media and it’s “dumbing down” of our culture, but he was speaking to something beyond that. He thought it went beyond forming our opinions; he believed it shaped how we think and feel, act and react, on the most basic levels. He believed that we learn more about those things now through our exposure to human behavior we see played out on our sets and read in print, where before we learned it through interaction and experience in our personal environments. I think he had a point.

And I think that makes it all too easy for those who want to make a buck by fanning the flames of hatred. In our willingness to be the blank slate for the people who can issue little more than spiteful commentary, we hand over to them our will, our independent thought, and the power of our one voice. It is as if it is easier to let them do our thinking for us, tell us what we should believe about anything in the public sphere, or even about ourselves.

I have to wonder where we would be today, or what the tone of our discussions would be today, without the influence of mass media. Or, what would it all look like if we were only without the venom spewed by shallow, self-promoting show hosts whose main interest is only in stirring the pot. How would we all relate, if we were left to decide things for ourselves in the absence of such influences? Would there be such a division between us?

I think a much needed Emersonian “Self Reliance” is too rare these days. Emerson once espoused, when we were a very young nation, that we had to stop framing ourselves and defining ourselves as a nation and a culture by our comparison to what it was we left behind, and that we needed to make a clean break for ourselves. He proposed this not only in politics, but in art and literature and education, and within our collective and personal psyche. He believed in the confidence and power of one’s dependence on their individual thought and action. Thoreau, mulling in the solitude of Walden’s pond, professed the same, and went further in saying that we didn’t need a government or collective entity to act or think for us, in matters that are most important.

The common thread of those two admirable men (or my take on them) is that we need to think more for ourselves, define ourselves and our thoughts and opinions more individually, and that when we do, a personal strength is constructed that little can chip away at. Such a resolve, I propose, would make agreement, and disagreements, easier.