It feels too cliché to start off this post by talking about the election season ‘heating up’ and making broad statements about the ever-present political rivalries being brought once again to the foreground of public interest. But these things are nearly impossible to get away from, especially now. We are going to take a different approach though. For once, rather than taking a side, it may be better to take a step back and examine the current political climate in which ideas are clashing. Despite the wealth of information and massive communicative opportunities presented to us in this digital era, many people remain unable to open their minds to views and outlooks foreign to their own. Conservatives are rich, white, gun-toting, arrogant, xenophobic Evangelists. Liberals are drugged-out, tree-hugging, immoral, homosexual, baby-killing hippies.
At least that’s what we like to say about each other. How many of us take the time to truly understand other people before condemning them because of their views? Are we using the resources around us to learn and grow or simply to affirm our own opinions? When Obama and McCain announced their vice presidential running mates, how many people sought up damaging information on the candidate of the opposite party? How many people took time to research their own candidate’s running mate? How many people read an attack their candidate’s running mate and immediately began rationalizing it away?
The question we pose to you is how and why did it come to be this way? Is change possible? If so, how might it be brought about?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think it’s easy to see how such mind-numbingly shallow political judgments have come about- the historical precedent is clear. From the time of our earliest presidents (with the exception of George Washington) political attacks have been common place. Sure, today we have TV ads, internet videos, and all sorts of new media by which to broadcast opinions, but these are merely the evolution of the attack posters and editorial cartoons our political ancestors saw. Why did this happen? Well, that answer also seems to be clear: it’s a great deal easier to make a slanderous, name-calling, ad hominem attack based on a snap judgment or prejudice than to engage in substantive, thought-provoking debate with someone. Engaging in the latter form of debate means being willing to take a stand based on careful thought, facts, and reason, things that most people just don’t want to take the time for. Substantive debate also means the possibility of being wrong or having to compromise, and it is in such attitudes that we can find the hope for change in our current political atmosphere. Change will happen when you, when I, when each of us makes the conscious decision to engage someone in a civil dialogue based on fact and reason with an open mind (even open enough to believe that we could be wrong).
I agree, Ryan. The idea that change ultimately lies in the hearts of individuals is a difficult one, though. It seems easy to dismiss in an era where the 'majority' is made up largely of people who seem very self-absorbed and stubborn from an outside perspective.
I find Obama's attempts at reaching towards unity interesting, though. It's hard to tell if it's just a pleasant-sounding campaign tactic. Even if it is, I wonder if it'll do him any good in the election...
Ryan brought up an interesting point about people not "want[ing] to take the time" to engage in debate based on deep thought and careful consideration. I wonder if this holds true across history. Our founding fathers certainly took time to have thoughtful debate when creating our county. Yet now, when we have more free time than ever thanks to technology, we choose shallow thinking and debate.
A question I am pondering: Does having information spoon-fed to us through the internet make us less thoughful and more apathetic?
Laura, it would seem to make sense that the internet would cause us to have less of a tolerance for lengthy, in-depth attention towards a subject. I don't like reading long articles on a computer, as my eyes get tired of reading off a bright screen. On a less basic note, most articles online begin with a brief summary, and with the great number of articles that the reader knows are out there, it is perhaps easy to skim an introduction and then move on to the next interesting item. If I am looking for something on Wikipedia, I usually end up clicking on all the blue links while not reading even a quarter of the original article.
I'm not sure what the psychology is of Internet use, but it could be that when one is online, too many things are competing for one's attention. Ads, links to other pages, photos, and so forth are distracting to a reader attempting to plow through a block of text.
The question may be how much time one wants to spend on a single page while the rest of the Internet's content awaits.
John brings up a good point with the internet. The internet can be a useful tool in finding out important information about what you are researching but along the way you are bombarded with so much other material that may beb useless to what you want to find.
Going back to the main focus of the post, I would like to believe that everyone is capable of being open to discussion and the possibility that their ideas may be wrong. Although I feel like it may be extremly tough and possibly uncomfortable for people to steop away from their beloved views and open up to listen to others. I try to use this idea when other people's ideas are involved; You don't have to believe in what someone else believs in but you should atleast respect that it is what they believe. I feel if everyone could respect that others may have different views than them, that the idea of people opening up for a debate based on reason would be much easier and far mor likely to happen.
I think that it has become difficult to find unbiased information on the candidates in this election. Although there are countless blogs, television ads, articles and websites about the candidates, many of them are merely stating opinion, not fact. I think it is important to research the actual issues and positions that are involved in the election. We are bombarded daily with political advertisements trying to persuade us to vote for a particular candidate. However, since these are sponsored by a particular party, can we trust that the information contained in them is fair and balanced?
I'd consider myself to be in the "independent" party which pretty much becomes a problem as i am trying to choose who to vote for. I have never been a fan of any politics because to me all it sounds like is a lot of risky business focusing on the bad. Why can't people focus on the issues that will help the US instead of worrying about what McCain's running mate's daughter will do with her baby? honestly. It's ridiculous, i need to hear more about their views on how to help the US.
I relate to Kelly's position on wanting to hear more about the views of the candidates as opposed to the candidates' personal problems. I think most people approach the idea of politics with hesitance because it seems confusing. Furthermore, since both candidates are trying to reach the younger audience, McCain and Obama are trying to really introduce the idea of change. Also, for the media to reach a younger audience, wouldn't it be incredibly easy to reach this audience by talking about McCain's running mate's daughter's baby? The younger generation seems to thrive on gossip.
I completely agree that we need to focus more on the issues. In essence, we, the younger generation, are the ones who have to live with the changes either one of these candidates will enact. We need to be more informed.
I've said this before, I'm a registered Democrat but I feel so uninformed because most of what I hear is the simple gossip and slander directed at the candidates. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the best interests of the country are at hand, I don't care who's in office.
I woulld agree with many of the posts that today's politcal debate arena often turns into a soap opera. But in today's culture, is that really a surprise? That's what we get from a plethora of media sources- whether it's the arts section of the local paper (which sometimes gets a small front page headline), magazines, or gossip web pages. So much of American media culture today is focused on Tinseltown and the actions of the airheads wandering around there. We're so wrapped up in this culture of voyeurism and worried about what celebrity is doing what in his or her "private life" (though I use that term lightly), it doesn't come as much of a surprise to me that that's the kind of information we're fed by a vast majority of the media every day about politics and candidates.
I agree with most of the posts that talk about hearing the candidates’ actual stances on issues. But I think the real reason the media’s and political ads are so focused on attacking each other is because most politicians, during elections, do not want to attack their opponent on an issue that will cause them to lose the votes of a certain group of people. As a result of this, the candidates’ messages become very similar, very moderate, so they have to run attack ads that question the other candidate’s character. These attack ads also could be considered a solution to the fact that most Americans do not know what the country, or what they as an individual, really want and need in a president, so they just vote on something they heard on the news or on an advertisement. But I do think that it is possible to make an informed decision on who you think the best candidate is if you are willing to make the effort to research. So I agree with what has already been said that the individual has to make the effort.
I also agree with most of these posts. I too would like to hear more about the issues than the candidate's personal life. I hate all the attack ads that are always on. I have stopped paying attention to the election coverage on TV; I usually read about the candidates on the internet. Even though a lot of the stuff people write on the internet is completely false, it gives me a larger selection of information to browse through and filter out the crap so I can just read what is meaningful. Not much else for me to say that hasn’t already been said.
"The question we pose to you is how and why did it come to be this way? Is change possible? If so, how might it be brought about?"
It has always been this way...since the days of the Romans and earlier there were slogans (sound bites). People's attention spans have always been short...whether they were too busy looking for the next berry to eat or too busy with the daily commute and getting the kids off to piano lessons. A Cincinnati news station does something like "around the world in 80 seconds"...the news of the WHOLE world condensed to 80 seconds? That figures to less than 1/2 second per country. They advertise it as if that is a good thing.
Change is probably not possible. Human attention spans most likely haven't changed in a statistically significant way in 20,000 years.. You get the behavior you reward. With few exceptions, long attention spans are not rewarded in general. In politics, I haven't noticed the Libertarians, the Greens or any other party willing to discuss their positions at length, getting any rewards. I'd suggest that even most of the people that "want to hear about the issues" really only want to hear their views confirmed, don't let facts get in the way.
The cynic in me says that even if the candidates did have "meaningful dialogue" most likely it would all end up being lies anyway.
"Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" are any of you old enough to remember that one?
The current President is another perfect example. There is nothing "conservative" about the government intervening in markets, in family life/death decisions etc. The truly conservative wouldn't care one way or another about marriage, the truly conservative wouldn't be spending money they don't have.
With regards to the current election. With VERY few exceptions (nationalism), historically western democracy elections follow the economy...people vote their pocketbook (they pay attention to that!). By that measure, Obama should win in a landslide. There are a few firsts this time though, A woman on one ticket and a non-white person on top the other. A President whose unpopularity is only matched (actually beaten) by the unpopular Congress (held by the opposition party) and an unpopular mainstream media (with the exception of FOX) that clearly favors Obama. The age difference between the candidates, a war going on etc. One thing that probably won't matter though is the issues, the economy, social and foreign policy (every other "issue" fits in one of those three categories).
Many issues are far more complex than a 30 second spot can do justice to. The issues that are very simple are treated as if they are far more complex....the liberals need to make it so...they can't have people in fly-over land be anything more than ignorant "xenophobic Evangelists"...
I don't see anything changing anytime soon, but I've been wrong before.
Post a Comment