Non-Partisan Thinking
When I write for this column I try to not show a preference for Republicans and Democrats. I try and make fun of them equally. It's pretty easy,
actually, since politicians give me so much to work with. When I discuss current events I try not to take a political side, but rather to offer different
ways of looking at things. I have often been critical of the media because I don't think that they provide the general public with very many different
ways of looking at things. I don't think we should get our opinions from the media or from some random jackass writing a column on the internet (read:
me). The purpose of my articles (besides my own amusement) is to provide some texture to the overwhelming blare of media static. What I really want
is for everyone to think for themselves.
The Professor will insist, of course, that I check my premise here - do people really *not* think for themselves now? It is impossible to come up with
any hard data to support my premise, but I have good anecdotal evidence in support. I know someone that claims to be a liberal Democrat, but when I
asked what it meant to be a liberal Democrat, she didn't know. Her parents are Democrats and so she decided that she was too. I myself grew up
thinking that I was a Republican because that's what my Dad was. I didn't even know what that really meant. I have a relative that is an intelligent guy
and can knowledgeably discuss any number of topics, but forwards dozens of right-wing reactionary emails to me that make the most ludicrous
statements. He believes in these things without hesitation. The one example I can't forget is the email he sent that stated that 84% of Americans believe
in God and so the other 16% should sit down and SHUT UP [their emphasis, not mine] if they don't like the Pledge of Allegiance (or school prayer, or
whatever). How can a thoughtful and intelligent person not see that position, at best, as in opposition to the Constitution, or, at worst, fascism?
On the other hand, I regularly discuss current events with a group of people that swiftly accuse President Bush and the "Neo-Cons" of absurd
wrongdoings upon every political development. These are also intelligent people and, at times, their arguments are well thought out and supported by
credible evidence. Just as often, however, their responses are knee-jerk reactions to whatever has been reported on CNN that morning. For example,
this past week New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was vocal in his criticism of the Federal government's reactions to Hurricane Katrina. Because his
criticism was of the same people they want to blame, they started proclaiming Nagin as a viable candidate for President. Several said they would vote
for a Nagin/Obama ticket in the next election. Never mind that they had never heard of Nagin before last week and know nothing of his ideologies,
history of service, or personality - he had strong criticisms of President Bush, and that was enough.
So, all I have is anecdotal evidence, but it certainly points to the fact that, in general, Americans are led by the noses to their opinions by the media and
unsubstantiated preconceived notions. I suspect the reason is that politics and current events can be complicated and people don't have the time or
capacity to sort through the information to form their own opinion. It is easier for people to just listen to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken and adopt their
opinions. After all, Rush seems like he knows what he's talking about and Al has such great wit and humor. I'm not saying that we shouldn't listen to
these 'personalities', in fact, I think Jon Stewart is a really funny guy. What I'm saying is that just because you think Jon Stewart is funny, or Rush
Limbaugh seems intelligent, doesn't mean that you should let them do your thinking for you.
What is missing is the critical assessment of information given to us by the media and the politicians. For example, during an election cycle we get
inundated with political television commercials that play a critical role in defining the candidates for the average American. Oftentimes these ads are
extremely misleading, but people do not assess them critically and allow themselves to be mislead. Here is a fictitious example:
Bob Jones' record in the Senate is reprehensible. Our children needed Bob Jones' support and he repeatedly sold them down the
river by refusing to vote for legislation that would have provided more funding for our nation's schools. Bob Jones should be
ashamed of himself...
So what does this ad do? First, it repeats the opposing candidates name along with numerous negative terms like reprehensible, 'sold them down the
river', refusing, ashamed. Second, it gives us a vague representation of Jones' voting record. We don't know what legislation is being referred to and
what else that legislation might have contained. Perhaps it was legislation that would have spent $20 billion in tax money on research grants to public
universities on the condition that they only research alchemy. But the average person would never get this far, they would accept the subliminal negative
connection to Bob Jones and the vague idea that he didn't stand up for the children and form their opinion of him as a candidate.
There is another segment of the population that falls into a different category. These people try to stay informed, but only get their information from one
source. My right-wing reactionary relative and my knee-jerk liberal acquaintances fall into this category. Their perspective gets skewed because they
become insulated to other perspectives. My relative probably listens to Rush Limbaugh, watches Fox News, and reads and forwards political emails
amongst a group of wholly like-minded individuals. The knee-jerkers probably read Al Franken books, watch Jon Stewart, and argue politics online
amongst themselves. Any opinions contrary to those that fall within their ideology are dismissed without consideration. This kind of insular thinking
leads to the stagnation of ideas and to the infallibility of your own perspective. You must be right if everyone you talk to agrees with you.
I am an advocate of non-partisan thinking. I believe we should consider the facts and the opinions of all sides, weigh them all thoughtfully, and then
decide what we believe based on what is right in each of our minds. Otherwise we are letting Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken do our thinking for us.
And For No Apparent Reason
Archives
Baseball
Because I Can
Baseball Betting Pool
Fat Guys Get Naked Too
Fiction
Football Betting Pool
The Gogs
Guest Article
Mitch's Multi-Monthly
Meanderings
Mixed Bag
Naked Indian Lesbians
The Professor
Sex Stone