Here’s a spout. Rose and Merlin were brother and sister. Rose played soccer and generally liked math. Merlin played in the orchestra and loved to photograph orchids. They hardly agreed on anything. Their arguments often got heated. Rose would say – “you are mean and you called Daddy a monster.” Merlin would retort – “you are a pig and Mommy loves me more than you.” One day they were confronted by an evil visitor from outer space who threatened their very existence. They were both worried but instead of working together to overwhelm the predator they took the occasion to yell at each other one more time. Rose started –“ if you had washed the dishes last night as required, none of this would have ever happened. “Merlin quipped, yes, but you are fat and ugly.” Rose and Merlin were never seen again.
So you are saying – Larry has clearly gone off the deep end. People have been saying that a long time so there must be another reason for me writing the above paragraph.
I am writing this paragraph after reading and re-reading my own words below and realizing it is possible for people to get the wrong idea – the opposite of what I am trying to say. The bottom line is that we have VERY challenging issues to deal with in the USA. These are made even harder by a divided government. It is tempting to up the rhetoric but that might make it even harder to find solutions for security, defense, employment, health care and other pressing issues. The below spout is not meant to single out any one side or person. As most parents find themselves saying – “I don’t care which one of you did it – you both can go to your rooms and right now!” I am not taking sides here. Both sides can hate me equally!
I am REALLY irritated by the political fighting concerning the Tucson massacre of this past weekend. Some people are being somewhat careful with their words. Some are not. Let’s face it – some people on the left are using this shooting as a way to point a mean finger at their adversaries. They associate what is so far being called a crime by a deranged shooter with statements made by politicians on the right. In private people are saying what they really feel and they are even more ugly and vindictive about their political enemies. I don’t like to use the term political enemy but when I hear the adjectives some people use I cannot help but classify their categorizations of those with differences in political opinions as enemies. Of course, some of those on the right are not exactly making things better as they defend themselves and counter attack.
This is crazy. How many days will we spend listening to talking heads discuss whether or not the deranged killer was motivated by right-wing politicians? How much time will we waste hearing our right-wing friends defend themselves and counter attack and name-call their detractors?
Not all of the discussion is wrong headed if it seeks to protect better politicians and the rest of us from crazies and others who seek to hurt us individually or collectively.
But come on – most of what I am seeing and hearing is not directed that way. Here is what I don’t understand and what I am spouting about.
First, what religion or spiritual body of thought supports this mean-spirited talk?
Second, why are they wasting our time with useless diatribes? Do we not have real and urgent problems to deal with?
Third, are our politicians so tired of battling the real and tough issues that they find it easier to lob stupid bombs at each other?
Fourth, do these talking heads have some real data or information that has uncovered a plot by right-wingers to use weapons and other means of violence to take over America?
Fifth, have left wingers never advocated violence against the rich, big corporations, or the powerful?
Sixth, are there not always fringe persons in our free society who seek to incite fear, hurt, and kill the rest of us?
Seventh, would we not all be better off if we worked together to protect us from these crazies?
Rose and Merlin are fictitious people and the story about them is silly. But why do we act like them? The USA allows freedom of speech and we have a right to say intelligent and stupid things. Neither the left nor the right has a corner on the stupid statements. I just wish the rest of us weren’t so often brought into it. What irony. Now that I finally purchased a digital TV I find myself wanting to use it as a hat rack.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you on the "heated rhetoric" bit, has it not been with us since the founding of this country? Without it, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, et al, wouldn't be in our history books. Hmmm! Perhaps, though, they've been removed as not being "PC" enough. Does anybody remember John W. Hinckley? With tongue firmly implanted in cheek, I ask isn't Jody Foster to blame for his actions? Come on! Loughner, like Hinckley, was a loon, a social bomb just waiting to go off. Neither right-wing nor left-wing talk radio had anything to do with his actions. Condemning heated political speech is just ridiculous. And actually, the only useless diatribes I've heard are...were...those emanating from the former Rep Alan Grayson (D-FL) from the House floor.
Crash,
ReplyDeleteAs usual -- thanks for your comments. I looked quickly at my post and am not sure I used the words heated rhetoric and if I did I see your point. But that was not my intention. Looking at all my words you see I have nothing to say about heated rhetoric. If fact, I am not sure what the word heated means in that context. What I am against is wasting our time in a national debate about name-calling and finger pointing. Raise the heat all you want when people debate points of fact about policies. But let's not scream that someone is a bimbo or a rich snob or that what some figure said in public caused a crazy person to do crazy things. I understand that people have the freedom to say what they want. But that doesn't mean that their actions don't affect me and that I have to be happy or silent about it.
"Heated rhetoric" just sounds so good, I love to use it. But, I do believe that to "first shot out of the barrel" place the blame for such a heinous act on.......and lets be honest, Sheriff Dupnik was no doubt taking a shot at conservative talk radio, bloggers, commentators, etc......political debate is disingenuous. I really haven't heard terms like "bimbo," or "rich snob" bandied about, routinely. But then, I don't watch MSNBC.
ReplyDeleteSheesh! And I resolved to be less active on your blog this year and give people with something valuable to say a chance!
I have had this conversation with many people over the past 4 days with a wide range of educational, social and economic depth. They all say the same thing. The tragic event was not caused by our hyper-polarized society. However, it serves to shine the light on that society. Larry is correct. We either start working together to solve our issues or we will lose the game. China and India will have no mercy in treating us like just another place to sell stuff .
ReplyDeleteYes the banks were greedy and in getting carried away with that greed wrecked our economy but it was on the way down for a long time. Only economic bubbles were propping it up. We did not see it because we believed we were truly happy and when a populous is too happy they go blind and get complacent. Look at history to verify that statement. The crash was just a symptom of what lay underneath.
Underneath are rapid and massive changes in almost every aspect of our lives. The media reports the affects of change but in doing so serves as the drummer boy stirring up polarization. Instead of researching the facts and then reporting, the media in this fast tract 20 second sound bite world just flash off messages over the internet or in print. We are adjusting but it is going too fast so we get frustrated, draw lines in the sand, yell at each other and in essence act like dear in the headlights.
We all can make a difference and we all can bring consensus because it is necessary for our economic well being and to get happy again ( but this time not blind). The WHO has a lyric that I will always remember “ we will not get fooled again”. That was written in reference to the Vietnam War which history tells us in part was really supported by certain economic interests. Those interests and the fears they spread about communist takeover and the domino affect never happened and we lost 56,000 soldiers plus took back three times that many who were mentally of physically injured. All the rhetoric and all of the protest violence did nothing but begin this long process of polarization with the belief that in your face tactics were the only way we could change things and cope with the impact of rapid change.
They are not working and the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and failing each time.
Don't be less active!
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. It is amazing how we get diverted from real social and economic opportunities by arguing at long distance from Mars to Venus. I love your point about insanity but wonder what happens when the institution is being run by the inmates. How do the sane people get the power to change things?
Having devoted 22 months to the Southeast Asian War Games and a whole heckuva lot of study on the subject, I can tell you that it was a lot more involved that just economic interests and domino effects. And, it's 59,000 American lives, and three of theme were my close friends.
ReplyDeleteCrash,
ReplyDeleteJames can speak for himself but my 2 cents here is that his main point has more to do with civility than a full assessment of the Vietnam War. Like you, I served over there and I lost good friends. Despite all the opinions about the War I am very proud of my role in it. I could have protested and I could have gone to Canada -- but I didn't. Anyway, I think we all hope that our current government will be more civil and try to stick to the issues while debating our future.
Larry, well you certainly emoted the echo being bounced around by all the media . . . and we can thank the Pima County sheriff, Dupnik, for instigating it . . . although his opinion is neither unusual nor unique . . . as it is the default position of regressives\liberals . . . and the foundation upon which they want to limit free speech . . . particularly talk radio and to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. They hate the fact that talk radio and free speech undermine and shed laser-like light on their regressive wealth redistribution, big government, weak military, and hate-America philosophy. Although I should know better, I would think they would feel shame for trying to make the case that (hate) talk radio and pointed criticism of regressive\liberal doctrine caused the Arizona murders.
ReplyDeleteI doubt the acrimony between Rs and Ds would subside if talk radio was muted and Rs reduced their pointed rhetoric about the regressive\liberal doctrine. The R’s message – whether via talk radio, cable newz, Senate\House debate, etc. – apparently has been very successful (and not a recent development, BTW) and continues to resonate (the truth hurts) to the detriment of the Ds (e.g. recent election); hence their continued screeching and snarling, teeth gnashing, and pants wetting. I agree with your sentiment that we would benefit from the Rs and Ds sitting down (amicably and singing Kumbaya) and legislating (practical and practicable) solutions to our problems, but it won’t happen at least for two years because the vast abyss between the two political philosophies is too wide to close and because of the f(l)ake in the White House.
On a more philosophical note, this country’s politics have never been amicable since 1787 and I don’t want that to change. Despite the distaste of pointed rhetoric (but sometimes entertaining), there is truth amongst the sharp words and it’s up to the voter to find it as well as the fallacy in the regressive\liberal agenda. As long as the regressives\liberals maintain influence over major mass communications (control of?) – except talk radio and some cable – the debate and rhetoric must continue to keep the laser on the lies.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteYou do a nice job of explaining why you think Ds and Rs cannot agree as well as why they shouldn't. You and I agree that being in a society of debate among parties that do not agree is a natural and healthy thing. I have no illusions that the parties will agree on much of anything though they sometimes come together enough when our national safety is threatened.
But I stick with my point that the degree of incivility changes over time. I think there may have been times when the parties could express their significant differences with a little more diplomacy and attention to facts and figures. What I lament is that the trend toward incivility seems worse now. What I worry about is that this heightened incivility prevents, more than normal, solutions to very pressing problems.
A change in this behavior is possible. For a starter it will take some changes in the strategies of party leaders. It takes leadership. These leaders will either do it soon because they think it is now the time to do so -- or they will come kicking and screaming to it when both parties are blamed for possible near terms failures in security and economic growth.
Hooray for Charlie!!! Wish I were that eloquent, but my right-wing rage keeps getting in the way.
ReplyDeleteLar . . . yes, Congressional leadership to put the foul-mouths in time out would help . . . but the left’s complaint is less about Congressional rhetoric than about freedom of speech and having to endure more-than-accurate-truthfulness about how and what they espouse is best for our country. Congressional leadership can muffle their outlying mouthpieces and have everyone play nice, but the underlying essential philosophies of the two parties nevertheless cannot be disguised by “nice, comity, civility, etc.” Fortunately, the “rude, crude, and obnoxious” non-Congressional mouthpieces of the right will toss aside the superficial dramas and minuets played out on Capitol Hill and continue to lay bare the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the left agenda. Kicking and screaming will continue until Rs occupy the WH.
ReplyDeleteOne last unoriginal thought: http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2011/01/15/confronting_hate_in_arizona
ReplyDeleteWe're all human with all of the human failings. Things won't quiet down on this planet until we all assume room temperature.
Crash,
ReplyDeleteO'Reilley's last sentence says it all -- trash talk is more entertaining than enlightening debate. How did we get to that point? Call me old and dull but when I go to basketball games I see more goofy player antics (stupid little dances and chest butts) than I see basketball. Between the commercials, the loud music and contests, and all this silliness they hardly have time to play the game. As I age I see less and less attention to fundamental value and more and more focus on hype and distraction. Am I really that much of a drudge?
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteYou have your view and you lay a lot of the blame on the left -- If I read you correctly. And you might be correct. But I have to say a couple of things. First, in some ways it almost doesn't matter who is right at the moment. I think of centuries old hatred in the Balkans. In one decade the Serbs seem to have the good on their side and they use it to kill a lot of their enemies. The next hundred years the tide turns and the enemies have seemingly moral authority to hang heads on posts for their day in the sun. As this unfolds century after century one has to wonder if there will ever be a time when both sides realize they are killing a lot of people. Second, I am not advocating that anyone give up a strongly held belief. I am simply wondering why the debate can't be focused on the real problems. Why can't one respectfully try to bring evidence or reasoning that shows the adversary is wrong. Yell it aloud or put it on signs. Write it in the sky. But stick to reason as you do it -- rather than name-calling. I don't know how many times I heard that Reagan was an actor. Who cares? I'd rather hear what was wrong with his tax cuts. There was a good piece in the Financial Times today where the author talked about Game Theory. The Prisoner's Dilemma is one game whose outcome suggests that cooperation can produce superior results. When parties could not cooperate, this extended the jail sentences of both inmates. This game has been extended to lots of interesting phenomena. We need to think about how it might apply to our current political and economic issues.
As O'Reilly said or maybe inferred, when you start scoring points with logic, the other side, and you know who you are, starts yelling invectives. After all, it's the one who yells the loudest who wins the debate.
ReplyDeleteLar . . . I enjoy\respect your equanimity . . . yes, I lay the blame with all the lethality of a bulls eye on the chest of the regressive\liberal agenda; wealth redistribution, big govomit, welfare, anti-capitalism and blame ‘merica, bowing to dictators, and weenie military – the antithesis of the fundamental values upon which our country grew and flourished.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is in a place now – both domestically and globally -- that cannot accommodate accommodation with those regressive\leftist values.
Comparing\contrasting our current situation with recent European history – particularly involving genocide and murder – with America’s relatively benign methods and procedures for resolving domestic conflict doesn’t fit.
We’re in deep doo-doo, and yes, it would be nice to be nice and dispense with name calling – but name calling and talk radio trash are not the problem. The problem is the regressive\liberal philosophy and no matter how nice Congressional players play that will not change.
Signage and sky-writing and trying to reason with people who interpret facts much differently than you or I has not and will not prevail in the course of changing the direction of our country toward regaining lost respectability and competitiveness. Game theory is neat and interesting but does not translate practically and practicably to defeating special interests, killing regressive legislating, and countering left-wing dogma.
Those of us who believe in conservative values must accept we are in a hand-to-hand combat situation that cannot accept anything short of full-court press.
Campaign promises to reach out in the spirit of bi-partisanship never materialized thanks to Pelosi and Reid who slam-dunked any R efforts to amend health-care or financial fix-it legislation and left the Rs in wasteland. Offering the other cheek will not work – rather I would have their cheeks mashed in gravel and mud, hardened like plaster-of-paris, and hung in the halls of Congress as a stark reminder of political values\philosophies\agendas that put this country on the precipice of death spiral.
Current politics are hard ball and nice just doesn’t work anymore. Hopefully, with Rs controlling the House, they can focus on “the real problems” and “facts,” effectively articulate the fallacies and consequences of regressive\liberal dogma as did Reagan (the actor), and leave it up to the Senate (and Reid) and the f(l)ake in the WH to tell ‘merica why their policies are superior. If\when that occurs – and prevails - your digital TV will be a most appropriate hat rack.
Crash and Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI enjoy and respect your work too. You guys make this blog interesting and fun for me. Even more, you help to elucidate your positions beautifully. It is too bad that we don't have more people speaking up who disagree with you.
I am a bit frustrated because I don't think I have gotten my points across. But maybe this is just a signal of what is more generally wrong in the population. Charlie thinks I want conservatives to back away from their positions. Charlie thinks I don't want them to be tough. But that is not true. Toughness and tone are two different things. The toughness comes when you elucidate and stick with your convictions. Toughness comes when you find ways to get what you want. Toughness comes when you make change. Toughness comes when you work every day to outsmart your adversary. Toughness has nothing to do with cheap shots, name- calling, and other methods that having nothing to do with the real issues. I am not for "nice" as you say. When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers he was not being very nice. But I am for respectful. While it is true that when folks on the other side are disrespectful they do not deserve respect. But it is also true that ignoring hateful insults is often a tougher position and more effective than trading tits for tats.
As for game theory -- it is a useful device to help people think about how you resolve issues of competing interests. Like any theory it is not to be taken literally. But the Prisoner's Dilemma is instructive about why adversaries may end up cutting off their noses to spite their faces....
As for Yugoslavia -- again don't take it literally. The experience there as well as in Catalonia or Waloonia or Southern Italy or Korea -- centuries old hatreds give people excuses for treating their adversaries badly and without respect. The old days give people the "right" to do horrible things to their neighbors. Liberals and conservatives in the USA have been at each other's throats as well. It seems to me that working a little harder for compromises would serve both camps better than meanness. Again, I am not asking them to be nice. But I am suggesting they would do better if they just stuck with real debates about real issues. Whew.
Larry, you definitely got your point(s)across, but I just like to be obstinate.
ReplyDeleteTo boil it down, I think Charlie and I are trying to say the same thing, and that is that those who threw the first stone in this "civility" battle are the very people who normally throw the first stone but who are the ones who always demand civility after they've thrown the rock. Charlie calls them "regressive/liberal." I agree with Ayn Rand and call the Progressives. Whatever.
Sure, civility in the national debate would be nice, but realistically, it ain't gonna happen. We bought our kids "Grand Theft, Auto" and other such edifying games to keep them inside and away from good, old games like baseball and touch football, and they have contributed greatly for the national lack of civility in any type of discourse. I mean, if it's OK for a character in a movie to tell another character to "f*** off," it should be OK to do it anytime, anywhere, right? Now, the chickens have come home to roost, what goes around comes around, and a whole bunch of other useless adages.Yes, what you're calling for is admirable, but don't hold your breath. And, yes, my middle name is "Cynic."
Lar . . . . that's nice . . . .
ReplyDeleteCrash and Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI think we have about exhausted this line of discussion -- at least for a while. I will let you have the last word. I am working on my next post on Monetary Policy...I best get to it. Best,
Larry