This thought (my title) is something I've had knocking around my head for the past couple of days. It started when I 'turned off' talk radio on my way to and from work. I know people aren't happy (that seems to be what the talkers feed off of), but sometimes it just gets to be too much. I then tried to find other ways to keep informed about what's going on (straight news just isn't trustworthy anymore), but so many websites have far too much hate. Oh, a lot of times it's not out and out hate. It's often displayed as sarcasm, putting the opposition down, and generally being rude.
As I kept encountering these sites, something began to gnaw at me. Over the years, it seems the general conversation in our society has been getting less and less 'intelligent'. People no longer seem to have the want or desire to look into a topic in depth, they just want instant analysis. It's like people are 'microwaving' issues to get done with them faster. You know what happens when you microwave food, don't you? You end up altering the food's structure, that's why it will taste different than food cooked on a stove or in a oven. The same principle applies here. You 'nuke' the issue, and you end up altering the framework the issue is built around, and not for the better.
A byproduct of the this short-changing of analyzing issues, is the tactics for debate change. Now, instead of debating the merits of a position, those proponents of one side of an issue immediately 'attack the messenger'. Since this isn't my first trip around the sun, I've seen this in action on many occasions. Growing up in the midwest, I saw early on that during campaigns, the first person to 'sling mud' would lose the election because the general population wouldn't put up with this. In 1994, I saw this change. A race I was somewhat interested in became very ugly, with both candidates going for the dirt. What amazed me was the public seemed to actually enjoy this, as opposed to being disgusted with the campaign tactics. It was a rather sad milestone if you will.
Going further, once you change the tactics by attacking the messenger instead of debating the issues, now you've made those who you don't agree with the 'enemy'. I sometimes wonder who people worry about more, terrorists, or people of the opposing political party. This used to not be the case, and not so long ago. While thinking on this, I thought back to the attempt on President Reagan's life in 1981. One thing sticking out in my mind was while he was in the hospital recovering, the Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, a democrat, came to visit. I can't find any account, but I do remember hearing/seeing that the two spoke to each other as human beings, acknowledging they were on opposite sides of many issues, but this situation transcended politics. I wonder how a similar situation would play out today? If the things one sees on the internet are any indication, we've 'demonized' the opposition so much that such high minded ideas are almost out of the question.
You look back further in history, and people who were on opposite sides of major issues often had great respect for each other. Or at least didn't wish ill of each other. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas knew and debated each other for many years. While they may not have thought very highly of each other, during the 20 years they debated each other off and on they did not attack each other in public. At the beginning of our country, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were on opposite sides of the issue of how the country should be run. Yet, after both were out of politics, they became close friends, exchanging letters until their deaths in 1826. Is it so difficult to say to someone 'I don't like your political views or ideas, but I've nothing personal against you'?
No comments:
Post a Comment