Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiYou might expect political discourse today would be more informed, sophisticated and well-reasoned than ever, at least in the United States. We're literate, learned, savvy and used to swimming in massive volumes of information.
Thanks to the internet, anyone can easily become an authority on anything from the local library budget to the competing congressional proposals on warrantless wiretapping. More than ever, citizens are able to know what they're talking about, to back up their assertions with facts (culled from original source material), and to state a logical, well-reasoned case for their conclusions.
So why is so much of our public discourse so detached from verifiable facts? And why is so much of it the rhetorical equivalent of a food fight? You can dunk a horse in the fountain of knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Serious commentators discuss the issue more rigorously. In "The Argument Culture," Deborah Tannen attributes our often-degraded national conversation to "a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight."
That reliance on adversarial discourse has, she argues, become "exaggerated," partly by the news media's attempts to frame discourse in binary terms -- between two polarized extremes that, it is assumed, compose "balance."
But civic debate requires more than ideological salvos. It requires that we listen to those with whom we disagree, to examine their evidence, to consider their arguments. When a philosophical foe makes a valid point, we are obliged to admit this. Where she errs, we are called upon to explain how.
Through such careful, logical and thoughtful exchanges, the theory goes, the sounder arguments will generally prevail, and society will improve. But to an alarming degree, that is not the nature of our public discourse.
"The truth is that American democracy is now in danger -- not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die," writes former Vice President Al Gore in "The Assault on Reason," an excellent book.
The simple act of quoting Gore is bound to undermine the arguments presented here. Gore is vilified by vocal foes who deny the rigor (and sometimes even the existence) of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by leading climate scientists. To such people, any argument buttressed by a Gore quotation is self-refuting.
But it is important to admit that people across the spectrum can and do make valid points and have valid perspectives.
Correctly, Gore observes: "Faith in the power of reason -- the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power -- was and is the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault."
It is under assault by a host of forces, including the lure of entertainment, the passivity of the public and the disinclination of leaders (on both sides of the aisle) to engage in the thoughtful, careful discourse upon which our system of government depends.
There is no simple remedy for this democratic disease. Perhaps it is enough, as a start, to admit that it exists and to recognize that it is malignant.
Clint Talbott, for the editorial board
© 2008 The Daily Camera
56 Comments so far
Show AllI've sent this to my father, the king of Limbaugh sound bites. Let's see if we can begin to talk reasonably.
Gore said "The truth is that American democracy is now in danger — not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die."
What are the "changes in the environment" that causes Gore to say "American democracy is now in danger?" The major change "in the environment within which ideas live and spread" can only mean one thing: the internet. Is Gore arguing that with this fantastic new tool democracy is somehow in danger? Nothing could be further from the truth. I have found this new medium to be liberating indeed.
If you are worried about democracy being in danger, watch out for attempts to clamp down on the free flow of ideas via the internet. For example, see yesterday's (March 31) editorial in the Rocky Mountain News titled "Bloggers Rights: Congress must confirm that the first amendment still has meaning," at
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/mar/31/bloggers-rights/
Back to Gore. He does not seem like the ideal person to be preaching about reasoned arguments. His famous "An Inconvenient Truth" is held up as an icon of reason, but fails some basic tests of evidence. Amazingly, it does not present a single reference in the traditional sense – that is, author, document, year, page, etc. I understand that it is a work of advocacy for a certain perspective. But its defenders seem to be impervious to counter arguments, even when those counter arguments contain an abundance of references.
Thank you for letting me share my thoughts on this topic. If interested, you can see more of my ramblings at:
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/about/
Tom
I love to read of building and strengthening crucial bridges, as we've blown up too many too easily - over essentially nothing that matters.
BE with nature, BE with friends and family, BE alive to LIFE.
There is no future other than the eternal NOW, which is always just in reach. ¿ How great is that ?
Namaste
whatever4. you wrote:
"Know what made me nuts about discussing issues? The complete lack of any real reason TO discuss issues. Because weren't discussing issues. They became egoists who would not be insulted by a powerless minority.
---- They didn't care about anything but believing they were right.---"
And exactly that is what I meant. We were on the same page but my comment cruelly denied it. I apologise for writing "not one of you seem to have a doubt of your own conviction or the "superiority" of your opinion." You obviously had, I'm sorry, and your writing deserves much closer reading, to be sure. I'm also sure you are not the exception that proves the rule, but that there are many potential teachers like you. Perhaps you feel alone now, but I know you are not.
Namasti wrote: "the teacher can focus on those others who are ready to receive." So, you feel frustrated that only a few listen, but the circumstances are bringing more people to reality and to listen honestly with their heart. It is difficult when you know you can see and you know so many are blind now but just need to open their eyes. Timing is everything. Be patient!
whatever4, you wrote further: "And like other people in history, they will be blindsided. Feel a little pity for them, I think I do. Easy to say "they deserve it", but who really says that TO people who are hurting, after having been lied to for so long, so well, by the best liars in the world? Face it, our stupid people got took."
Of course you have understood and are living the meaning of compassion. Even they torment themselves and others with their ignorance and arrogance, and yet you write:
"A completely understandable childish impulse was the real root of the problem. Arrogance…….
…..Up to us to figure out how to stop it then, since we were the only one's that saw it happening. Don't pat yourselves on the backs for knowing better. Are you better?"
Again you hit the nail on the head, and express it better than I. But also they need to be ready.
I Just hope you keep your strength and forbearance and don't let it get you down by realising that their Karma is not your responsibility despite your "wanting" to take away their suffering. You can only do what you can. Their enlightenment comes when it comes with their experience too. So all that pain out there has a reason, it is their's and our teacher. The answer is the easy part. The teacher can only make the student ask the right question.
My teacher today gave me some advice, perhaps it will help you too:
Since everything is but an apparition,
Perfect in being what it is,
Having nothing to do with good or bad,
Acceptance or rejection
You might as well burst out laughing!
LONGCHENPA
Peace!
Lucitanian March 31st, 2008 3:00 pm
'not one of you seem to have a doubt of your own conviction or the "superiority" of your opinion. '
Not one, eh? Well, I could argue that. I wrote about the arrogance of the people of the USA being actively fostered by our fasist government to achieve their profit ends. It's easy to see the American people were manipulated, and admitting to the manipulation is the only way to stop it. It goes along with discussing how unreasonable debate became in this nation. That doesn't seem especially superior or even enlightened. The points I made were obvious and hardly worth debating themselves, I just wanted to talk about it, from the trenches, as it were, as it was, for me. Silly me.
Bitter, I use too many words to describe how bitter I am over all the stupid arguments I had with I don't know how many people, over the wars and other actions, the past few years. I've learned a few things, but I realized that real debate was impossible, it wasn't happening, and completely gave up. I've been very upset ever since. It's been a life changing experience. It's been hard to understand how so many people, who can obviously read and write (I was arguing with them on the internet) could be SO blind. So simple minded. So cruel about the fate of other people. Indifferent. I have to believe either most people are monsters, or many people were manipulated by monsters. I guess I prefer to believe the people I used to call friends were manipulated, because otherwise, they were just monsters waiting for an excuse. And I was the dupe who was their friend. Not just one person. Not just three people. Crowds of people. Ordinary people. Had to watch them spin up into crazy, "Lets bomb Iraq!!!"
Think I'm so sure of MY convictions? I'm thinking, what convictions? Not to be rude, but I don't think running off at the mouth makes me sure of anything but not having anyone to talk to. In a nation gone nuts, at a time we could least afford the diversion. Where we used to believe we were free. There are no convictions left, save that it wasn't supposed to be this way.
The first amendment is something Americans will argue and fight over for as long as there are Americans. I know where I stand; on the side of maximum freedom of speech, the press, and artistic expression.
You can pore over the Constitution and see that much of it is written in the smoke of epic battles over principle, privilege, and power. It is a document largely composed of compromises. But the first amendment is, IMHO, absolutely clear. "The Congress shall make NO LAW..." That's a high standard Congresses and courts have rarely lived up to, but then, American elites have always detested democracy. Always.
Namaste and Lucitanian---thank you for your beautiful thoughts. They are like lush flowers growing in between the cracks of the side walk. Reason without love seems to me a recipe for cookies without any sugar. Might be edible, but sweet???? Maybe not the most eloquent analogy. That old 70's song, "What The World Needs Now Is Love Sweet Love." seems more timely than ever. Or the Beetles, " All You Need Is Love." YIKES!!! Didn't the Master Jesus even say that? " Love and then do what you will."
Humans fell in love with their thoughts and then have mistaken their thoughts for reality. But in the final analysis they are not a very big part of Consciousness at all. Love is the glue that holds this Universe together--it is so simple and yet so profound. Maybe that is why the thinkers cannot bring themselves to embrace the truth. It's just too simple.
The talbot school of wishful thinking and magic wand manipulation. Where in our education system are we taught to be rationale and reasoning, to be taught about empathy for others? Nowhere, we are taught about winning is everything, that self transcends all else, that wealth is the only measure of success and money will buy you anything. To learn about the former things one has to learn them in other venues. Gore, a man whose indecision about have I or haven't I won the election cost him dearly does not generate much enthusiasm about his pronouncements about the state of democracy when he was a follower of a system that was based on the opposite of rationale and reasoning. Illiteracy is rising and I don't see any efforts in the three levels of guvmint to do anything about it except talk bafflegab. I think Huck Finn's Pap is the poster boy for this nation and not Huck Finn. How ya gonna teech Pap anythin diffrent when he is your average effort in far too many areas?
Any attempt at reasoned discourse with the right wing is as bad an idea as wrestling with a pig - you just get muddy, and the pig enjoys it.
Hello Lucitanian -- My past sadness is now tempered with the knowledge that one's personal experience is the ONLY teacher, that is effective.
Sure the words are powerful, and elucidate possibilities for those willing and able, but until the student is really ready - the teacher can focus on those others who are ready to receive.
My hope is that the sharing of experience may (eventually) transcend the need for direct experience, as when fully open, each of us is entirely capable of that empathy needed to BE within another's experience.
Thank you for being a source for transformation, we are more powerful than we can imagine, which is why we need to remind ourselves and each other that there is ALWAYS more.
Namaste
Hello Namaste, It is truly sad that people who might deny the concept of prayer are perfectly able to create from thin air and mass psychology the monsters that they fear most. By joining their fears together they can create all the Orwellian reverse realities they like while solid in the conviction of their shared delusions.
This is how wars and fortunes are made and lost, banks, stock markets, economies crash, and empires subside.
In their fear and obsession people can become what they hate the most, their own worst enemy, the tyrannical instrument of their own destruction.
And so delusions of permanence and control are shattered and the river wins as does the middle way.
Thanks for sharing and I concur with your preferred perceived reality. Differences can strike cords of magnificent harmony to take me beyond the maddening echo of my thoughts.
Lucitanian -- You and I (appear to) share the view that the wonderful contrast of life is what drives us to excel and create, bouncing amongst each other enlivens the game and sweetens the rewards.
Many react to this diversity with fear, and gird their loins against imagined attacks and scarcity, which is then not too surprisingly not happily received, as it somehow appears as if orchestrated and created exclusively by and for them.
I prefer the perceived reality of abundance, joy, and peace, where we ALL do live together and revere LIFE and are connected as ONE, while also BEING in our natural diversity, of so many choices and preferences (each of has a really customized universe - but then attempts to have other's sublet from them).
Namaste
… … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … & … ML King … … Inspiration … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — MLK
Reading these comments I am amazed at the dogmatic approach that so many take, enlightened reason against dogmatic religious ethos or debate against dictate, the race against the winning, not one of you seem to have a doubt of your own conviction or the "superiority" of your opinion. Of course you have a right to your wrong opinions too. Apparently there are many democrats ready to dictate at the slightest chance about what is best for the other guy.
I thought the point was to appreciate that society is as varied as its component individual each one living their own delusions and bouncing of those of the others. That is what art, science and the ability to communicate is all about. I thought from swimming in that soup we "touched the gods". If we were all the same, having eliminated all our differences, all seeing things in the same or similar ways, we would be like the cells of Bamboo each the same, identical, and perfect. Sure we'd make a tall and splendid plant, but?
Each bamboo stalk grows to its full height in the matter of a few days then spends years adding only strength. The plant spreads vegetatively, most species flowering only once in 50 to 100 years. It is programmed to flower and when it does, the entire plant dies. So even if you transplant a part of the plant miles away, in a different climate or continent, it will flower and die at the same time. Amazing, uniformity, not suited to development and adaptation, but a strong plant indeed.
Humans are all different. It is messy but that is what makes it interesting to have a mind and be alive. Does not enlightenment mean having the broadness of mind to grasp as many ideas as possible, evaluate and weigh them, always knowing that there is more to know, being humbled by the immensity and excited by the quest; the realization that whatever it is we grasp, it is only a part of a personal delusion, because we cannot grasp it all? There are no winners. There is no end. There is only the way and we don't even know the half of it.
Realities and truths cannot be absolute. But, how can I fault someone else's delusion when I am so convinced of my own?
vmulier -- Right on. Our worse enemy is ourselves, and we need go no further than self-reflection to see the "face" of the assailants who raise havoc at "our gates".
It is perceptual dis-empowerment, and active control through propaganda paid for by citizens to manipulate their own public opinions, that stinks of reprehensible behaviors.
Eventually, there will be the natural pay-back intrinsic to such actions, which indubitably are already eroding their (foolish) base of clay feet, to the force of the coming torrential flood of public outcry.
It is the contrast of choices that is increasingly going to thwart the illegal machinations, and that tide growing is as unstoppable as the moon's orbit (gravity).
We can only learn from our own experience, so the deck is stacked to bring those "lessons" and real-life experiences into sharp focus - to aid easier perception & digestion.
What a roller-coaster ride that is coming to all of our neighborhoods. Please buckle in.
Namaste
I'd also like to say, I think what bothers me, a lot, is that I don't really judge my fellow Americans to be all that different from the rest of the world. Human nature is universal, isn't it? People are people; we aren't anything special. Our culture is a little over-the-top, materially rich (for some), but overall we're mostly just ordinary people, about average in most ways. In some areas, such as health and education, we're a bit below average.
So what makes me sad is that our ordinary people are going to be so demoralized and left feeling hopeless when they realize we truly ARE in for hard times, we truly did make terrible mistakes, we did this to ourselves, and have been horrible in our perceptions and what we allowed our government to do. The denial they allowed themselves is understandable, but it won't be forgivable, will it? Not any more than we can forgive these neocon monsters, how will the world forgive the US? It can't possibly matter to the rest of the world, our (neocon) egos. We'll be a fine scapegoat, and, how will we defend ourselves? What will these poor fools say? To themselves, and each other? Their own words will condemn them, the patriotic things people say right now, "God bless the USA" while we wage war, it will all be their undoing.
Our poor average Americans, those we condemn the most here now, they do NOT see this coming. They have no idea how harshly they'll be judged, are being judged, because they ARE average. They can't imagine it, they never imagined anything to start with, conservatives want a world without change, by definition, they are not imaginative people. It almost isn't fair. They'll never know what hit them.
All they did was bet on BushCo, the winning horse they thought, and thought they were being smart, listening to "smart" people conservative meanmouths, but they forgot betting isn't safe. They forgot betting isn't a sure thing, they forgot they could be wrong, because being wrong isn't in their imagination. They forgot not to bet the house unless they were willing to lose the house, and got sold out just like the housing market.
We might be upset, but THEY are losing the world as they know it, and THEY don't even know it YET. It's pretty sad, if you think about it. Watching the less able get run over, that's really what this is now, no matter how vile and stupid our people have been, all they were was average. And like other people in history, they will be blindsided. Feel a little pity for them, I think I do. Easy to say "they deserve it", but who really says that TO people who are hurting, after having been lied to for so long, so well, by the best liars in the world? Face it, our stupid people got took. They really aren't all that different from any other people anywhere, our average Americans, they just THOUGHT they were different, believed they were better. And THAT'S what did it. A completely understandable childish impulse was the real root of the problem. Arrogance. Talked into knowing how much better we are, as a people, as a nation. I don't even have to spell out what that should remind us of, because if murderous national superiority doesn't sound famliar by now, it never will. Have to be reasonable about this; our people were turned into Nazis before our very eyes.
Were we in denial of it? Us? While we condemned them for being so blind, did we play into the hands of the manipulators? I say, lets make sure we don't.
Keep a clear understanding how the brainwashing happened folks. Likely it could have happened to anyone, unless there's a bigger, badder superpower with a more massive propoganda machine out there, WE were targeted. Our weakest, most uninformed people were USED. Up to us to figure out how to stop it then, since we were the only one's that saw it happening. Don't pat yourselves on the backs for knowing better. Are you better? Do you really want to see your conservative Christian friends and neighbors run over by this thing our nation faces? Do you think hatred is appropriate at this point? I don't. But you can bet the manipulators do. I imagine they want us to turn on each other, I see them counting on it.
Under assault by whom?
Who is "assaulting" reason? I agree that the process of assault is happening, and reason is being hammered very hard. I often wonder, however, if the ones doing the assaulting and the hammering are better thought of as persons or as impersonal forces. There is a lust for wealth among average Americans. That is given. And -- loath though I am to admit it, given my utopian impulses -- there is also a lust for power among average Americans, a lust to exercise control over others. These impulses combine to cause major damage. They cause wars and sustain the assault on reason. But there is no central animating agent at work here; there is no shadowy back room dealing causing all this to happen. No. It happens of its own. It is part of the logic of capitalism. There is not really an "assaulter." Or rather, everyone is the assaulter, every action is assaultive when done against the backdrop of indutrial society. Just get in your car and drive. Assault. Using reason is humankind's natural inclination; rationality is the natural environment of thought and contemplation. It's a time-honored, highly proven system of perceptual and cognitive paths for viewing and making sense of the world. The natural world is being assaulted and destroyed. Everyone can see this. It is a fact of our existence. Mother Earth is losing biodiversity. Together with the assault on nature is the assault on reason. Just as the natural symmetries of the Earth are proscribed, so too are the natural symmetries of the intellect. The Empire fears them both and strives to eradicate both. Destruction of biodiversity and destruction of reason are the twin objectives of the Empire.
Know what made me nuts about discussing issues? The complete lack of any real reason TO discuss issues. Because weren't discussing issues. They became egoists who would not be insulted by a powerless minority. They didn't care about anything but believing they were right.
Never mattered if they were right or not, because with group responsibility, all they have to do is say "But, everyone agreed, we all agreed", even when we DIDN'T all agree. They just didn't care to hear disagreement. Being right, and being agreed with, was all that mattered.
In the shutting out of dissent, they weren't just unreasonable, they were fixated. Fixated on one thing and one thing only; winning. It was only about winning arguments, winning conservative! The reason to argue a particular issue didn't even matter, and so the issues themselves ceased to matter. Forget the people affected, they never mattered.
So many people didn't care about what it would mean if they were FLAT wrong. And they didn't care what happened if they were wrong. Couldn't be bothered to speculate on THOSE hypotheticals. Can you imagine? That's when we lost our way. Wars and selling out our Constitution. With everything at stake, they truly didn't care if they were right or not, or what would happen. It sounds so horrible, but it's the truth. They didn't care if they were wrong, and that's just all.
Wow, i'm just blown away by the level of discussion here.
whyzowl,
The first amendment was never intended to provide absolute protection for artistic expression, just as it was not intended to protect commercial speech. However, through Supreme Court interpretation over time it evolved to serve that role.
Originally, the first amendment was designed to provide absolute protection of political speech. And that made sense. If political speech were not protected, those in power could pass laws to outlaw criticism of them and their actions and to ensure their continued rule.
That was the idea, but over time political speech came to be restricted more and more, as the powers that be found it inconsistent with maintenance of the oligarchy, while commercial speech and artistic expression, with the backing of the profit-seeking corporate world, gained more and more protection.
And by political speech I do not mean simplistic provocative offensive speech, but well-reasoned and informative discussion of any possible political position or philosophy, including those far outside the mainstream. Try defending Marx or Trotsky, or Fidel Castro, in the mainstream US media today.
In talking with 'conservatives', I find it is impossible to reason with resolute ignorance.
Doom n Gloom ~
I would agree that at least half of Americans have been rendered into turnips. The only debate would be which half?
The left-brain, who's "Mommy-centric" thinking sees the right-brain as authoritarian, overbearing and militaristic only sees dead grey matter.
The "Daddy-centric" right brain looks to it's left and sees a feel-good, soft and feelings-based thought structure that is bereft of function.
It's no wonder we see the yin of our yang as brain dead.
pdf
The US needs reform, if not revolution. The party in power is willing to exert armed force and ignore our entire democratic (not the party, idiot) system to further its agenda. We are also a nation of laws that can dethrone anyone (eventually), and a Nation Under Corporations that has bought all media and controls the message, thereby controling voters and consumers.
We're gonna find out if the US is still capable of non-violent change this year, and if its not, then negotiating with the right-wing any longer, whom have already trangressed beyond treason, is no longer going to be an option, because even if dems are elected, the cuckoo right will get nastier and more dangerous, and they will at some point have to be met with violent force. Negotiate with right-wingers, yeah ok....
How about we just take Congress and the presidency and rub in their abject failure from when the media announced that the Dems were finished 'for history'
F*ck the media and every form of the rightist elites.
They've had decades with their rotting nonsense. Now they can eat some crow. Lefties giving the righties room will just defeat our goals. Time for the left to man up.
kivals, I really think that one either believes in the first amendment and artistic freedom along with it, or censorship--there is no middle ground. If you'd like to call me a first amendment absolutist, please do, I welcome the appellation.
Who, after all, will decide what is "offensive," or "inflammatory," or constitutes that which "mocks the core beliefs of others" to a degree that is in some way unacceptable--or not? You? The courts? As something of a relativist with a post-modern sensibility, you above others should recognize an impossible Gordian knot when you see one. No, it's ether freedom or the whim of some authority or other. And opposition to illegitimate authority is what the Enlightenment--our precious, and endangered, heritage--is all about. First principles: Know Thyself.
The good Christian folks of Germany and Western Europe didn't systematically murder millions of Jews and "others" just because Josef Goebbels was a particularly effective propagandist. I don't think the Holocaust was merely an example of the sudden eruption of a state-sponsored witch mania, though that certainly played a role. How large? Who can say? People don't like to talk about it much, and they probably wouldn't have anything useful to say about it if they did. The impulse comes from areas of the brain that are pre-cognitive.
By the way, the artist responsible for "Piss Christ" would have been one of those "others," wouldn't he?
Any society that provides incentives for psychopaths (anti-social personalities) to prosper can't expect 'reason' to be used effectively. Psychopaths (sociopaths) have no interest in the larger society, the 'greater good' or 'morals' - self-gratification is their only gambit, and that means using force, coercion, or outright murder to achieve their ends. Power always justifies the means - that's their 'reasoning' - and you're not going to change it by debating them.
"That reliance on adversarial discourse has, she argues, become "exaggerated," partly by the news media's attempts to frame discourse in binary terms — between two polarized extremes that, it is assumed, compose "balance."
"But civic debate requires more than ideological salvos. It requires that we listen to those with whom we disagree, to examine their evidence, to consider their arguments. When a philosophical foe makes a valid point, we are obliged to admit this. Where she errs, we are called upon to explain how."
Not quite. That is an approach that can only work under conditions that are not even the norm. Unreasonable people will not be reasonable just because we ask them to. And there is no allowance here for folks whose intentions are bad and who therefore lie in order to get their otherwise hard to get way. Of course, When those folks are in the majority, and given enough time, Bad is only what one opponent sees in another. Otherwise, There is no evil. Evil is good. Or just nature.
We indeed are swimming in information here in North America. And we absolutely take it for granted. Others would kill for our freedom, and we turn our noses up on it and engage in self-tranquilization - because capitalists survive no other way and therefore encourage mindless consumerism, a big component of which is entertainment products, And because brutal North American work culture means that any down time we get, we will 'only' use to self-tranquilize. That extreme, 'socially' useless self-tranquilization, while we are in this rat race, is not the sin. The sin is that we all accept that whole system whose costs are in fact too high, from a normal standpoint.
It would be nice if our civic dialogue was not the equivalent of a fight, but it is. The question is how will it be fought. Let me suggest some parameters:
It needs to avoid name-calling even if the other side persists.
It needs to avoid triumphalism and revenge. We need solutions, not getting
even.
We need to hold fast to reasoned dialogue even in the face of those who are
unwilling to do so.
We need to frame our own dialogue and avoid running from the name-callers and ad hominem attackers. When we are in the right we must stand firm.
Sadly, "civic debate" is not an issue for the radical right. Civic debate is not even the arena for this competition. Authoritarians are not interested in debate. Debate implies reason and rules. Reason is a tool for discussion, debate and compromise. Since when have Cheney and Bush cared about any of that?
Their business is purely coercion, and to them, reason is weakness, not a tool. They want control and power. Their tools are emotional and physical intimidation and manipulation, Honesty, facts and fairness are irrelevant.
The left cannot win by playing a different game than the right. They need to be brutally honest, and display the courage of their convictions.
whyzowl,
You wrote:
The idea that it's more important not to hurt somebody's feelings than to allow artists to perform their vital societal function with full and absolute freedom of expression, is itself junk thinking and an insult to reason.
I have to disagree with that statement as I do not believe in absolutes with regard to social rules, as you seem to and as most religious fanatics do. There are always tradeoffs as every action has a cost and a benefit. There is no algorithm for human survival, human happiness, or optimal human government, and no perfect and complete set of social rules exists or could possibly exist. In accordance with this, the reasoning in court decisions virtually always involves making tradeoffs. In pedestrian terms, every freedom runs up against other freedoms.
Every dissenter should be encouraged, and allowed, to engage in respectful discussion and disagreement, and I am saddened whenever this is prohibited (e.g. in most of Europe one is forbidden to spread doubt about the Holocaust, which I find regrettable, even though I certainly harbor no doubts regarding the Holocaust). However, disrespectful and offensive speech that mocks very core beliefs of others only hardens resistance to open discussion and the presentation of new ideas. Just because some cretin calls himself/herself an "artist" does not mean that reasonable people should approve of the cretin's unnecessarily inflammatory images and rhetoric that ridicule or mock the core beliefs of others and makes the development of common ground all the more difficult to obtain.
I seem to recall someone named Adolf who was once upon a time an "artist" and who enjoyed engaging in inflammatory rhetoric and ridiculing others who practiced a particular religion. And he encouraged the creation and dissemination of offensive images of members of certain groups. He also appeared to believe in absolutes in social rules. I do not believe he was someone to emulate.
Kivals -
Maybe you read my post too quickly? -- since I agreed with basic points made by AdeleTheCzech.
Only adding the provisos, to her, that:
Rational, tolerant people have no obligation to receive politely, theocratic political designs espoused by religionists whose sources of authority remain grounded in nothing more than their personally-chosen mythos.
Reasonable people can, do, and arguably must share their differing perceptions about Ultimate Truth; but always need to do so in a civilized, non-absolutist, non-violent manner.
But far too many Christian religionists, today, aren't satisfied to limit their private beliefs to the internal group life and theological society of their religions institutions, per se. Instead many US Christians mindlessly demand that western secular States take poltical positions based on ex-cathedra, Christian religious values -- just as most Muslim societys do! Quite insane, when you consider that the (Enlightenment-generated) de-officialization of religion in the west is largely why the west is more advanced than the Muslim east, in self-critical knowledge and democratic governance. .
Those western Christians who now want to blur this Enlightenment distinction, either (seemingly)in the name of infinite tolerance, or in the name of outright religious absolutism, are theocrats, first, and democracy-believers second (if at all.) The most-blind of them simply want a global religious war (which they wrongly assume Christianity will 'win'...) As such, doctrinally-rooted, Christian religionists, too, must be vigorously challenged in their delusions.
They are setting their own democratic states, and the rest of the non-Enlightenment world, backward, to a wholly pre-Enlightenment ethos, however gently or madly their arguments issue.
To me, upholding freedom of thought as a high value in a secular, rationalist society means defending both the freedom of the devout to worship as they see fit, and the freedom of artists, atheists or dissenters to blaspheme any particular religion or religious belief they wish. The idea that it's more important not to hurt somebody's feelings than to allow artists to perform their vital societal function with full and absolute freedom of expression is itself junk thinking and an insult to reason.
Reason is a paltry thing; often comprising in man nothing more than what Carl Jung described as, "the sum of (our) prejudices and myopic thinking." Still, it's the best antidote we have to thwart the assertion by regressives that our duty lies in unquestioning obedience to power and authority.
Ironically, I just tuned in C-Span2's Book TV to find their coverage of a talk by Susan Jacoby plugging her new book, "The Age of American Unreason.' Great talk. She was also recently a guest on Bill Moyers' Journal, and that segment is well worth watching too.
AD March___I believe using the word "evil" in describing the Clintons is a bit overboard and does nothing but encourage bad discourse. We have heard quite enough of "evil" from our great President who does not seem to realize his own actions.
Just because Limbaugh and others of his caliber use those terms does not excuse others. One can disagree with any of our candidates policies without vilifying them. Perhaps a trip to many of the oppressed countries in Africa or Asia would be a better example of "evil".
Who's Monopoly on Truth?
Shades of grey
shades of truth
grades of reason
Are they timely or delusion?
be one
or naught
ahh...binary thought
like Hal
a thinking but non sentient entity
one naught naught one
say
perhaps binary could learn to care
and Hal would not be jealous of your pal
could fuzzy logic help with Hal's reflections?
what about ah hahs or joyous bits?
you'd think at least that truth would have some tits!
one naught naught one one naught
Sforzando,
Though I am a lifelong agnostic, I would have to agree with AdeleTheCzech. She was not defending authoritarian Muslim beliefs or religious beliefs in general, but instead I believe she was arguing that progressives should bring a gentle, respectful, and understanding approach to human relations, even when arguing with those with whom they have fundamental disagreements. There is no reason to insult people unnecessarily, particularly with regard to their religious beliefs, beliefs that adults are often heavily invested in.
One can have a fair and reasoned argument with a Muslim or any religious individual without resorting to inflammatory and insulting images and rhetoric. Actually, the more disrespectful the message, the less likely the recipient will consider it seriously. Instead the recipient would most likely dig in and begin to harbor hostility toward the creator of the offensive message.
"Humans and reason don't really go well together." says Kelmer. He's put his finger on the main problem with our world. We humans are dumb. It's just that some are dumber than others!
Put reason and truth and morality in one bucket and dollars bills in another and which one will 99% of human choose? No prize for the right answer. Sorry.
I've been advocating a change to our genetic makeup for sometime as the only solution to problems with our greedy, violent nature. There is no other answer and that includes education. Man himself is a dangerous creation!
www.dangerouscreation.com
I think the author of this piece is pointing to effects, not causes of the attack on democracy in the US. The primary reason why public discourse is so distorted is due not so much to the binary nature of the arguments or failings of the average person to reason, it is that the main mass public space - the "public" airwaves, are owned, operated, and therefore controlled, by an exceedingly small number of people who are all wealthy, commercially-oriented people.
Since this handful of men have vast amounts of empirically gathered data telling them how to sell products using irrationality, they apply these same techniques to promote ideologies, values, and even politicians in the same way. That is to say, using irrational propaganda, aimed at stimulating and playing mostly off peoples' fears. There is little difference in "public discourse" between selling cosmetics and selling war.
There are many people who are trying to use the information available on the net to fashion coherent logical arguments to demonstrate their point. But these views will never reach a widespread audience because of media ownership rules.
I will only add that a Republican Congress made this concentration of power possible: where private interests own the primary means of communicating public affairs, by eliminating ownership rules for broadcasters in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, an Act which was signed into law by the Democrat Clinton.
AdeleTheCzech -
Your general point about the ability of some people on the Left to lose Reason via herd mentality or formulaic thinking is valid. But I can't agree that you strengthen your point by criticising the Left's sensible hostility toward doctrinal Religion.
The central virtue of Left/Progressive thought is that it refuses to accept reasoning about how humans should organize and conduct themseles based simply on Arguments From Authority -- which is what all major doctrinal religious arguments are finally rooted in.
Leftys, whatever else their all-too-human failings, at least refuse to blindly accept political claims that are by people who make unexamined, prior metaphysical claims, that reduce to nothing more than: My religion says that my God says that this norm or value Is The Way It Is, Metaphysically, and Therefore It MUST Be This Way In The Human World.
Such cosmically fear-driven, absolutist 'reasoning' is nothing but human mental illness (one person's subjective magical thinking claiming the right to ram such epistemology down the throat of anyone who disagrees.)
I agree that the "Piss Christ" (artistic?) display was counter-productive, and a needlessly insulting provocation; disgusting, especially because belief in the Social Gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't require metaphysical belief in JC's Divinity, to the begin with; this ethical message being able to stand, quite demonstrably on its own.
I'm sorry if you've been personally insulted by any Left-oriented, insensitive, mindlessly hate-filled critiques of your religious values. But, to the extent you or any other political/humanist commentator cite metaphysical claims to truth, based on nothing more than a religious doctrine's foot-stamping claims to Truth, you invite the counter-claims of Reason -- some of which will be legitimately angry at you, and thus, occasionally, impolite.
"Oldbadger US Too Much," what the hell do you mean by hatred of the Klantons" It's not any hatred, but pure contempt for such evil which is itself handing the presidency, and even perhaps the damn congress over to the GOP, and thus consolidating fascism so completely that we won't even have the slightest shred of democracy left come 2009.
[Aside to Thomas More: methinks Joneden was just being snarky with his "super simple snippet of right-wing slime."]
But this is SUCH an important article. Here on the left, it's easy to see how tone deaf the righties are on every subject; they just quote sound bites from Fox/Hannity/Rush, and figure they've shut you down.
But let's be honest -- there are problems on our side too. If you've ever found yourself agreeing with a wingnut on some issue and then mentioning this to a leftie friend -- whoa! It's almost as if you're a traitor to the cause. For example: although I was raised without religion, I thought the Danish cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was as appalling as Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ". Why deliberately insult and hurt millions of religious people, the vast majority of whom pose no threat to you? Well, I've been angrily criticized for expressing these views, and told that I'm an incipient "censor" who fails to uphold the sacrosanct First Amendment.
Genuine dialogue is hard to find, it seems, when we venture out of our little circles of the likeminded.
I think both the "talking Heads" (also on Common Dreams) and mainstream entertainment media seem to choose this "binary" winners and losers type of thinking.
For example, I believe the 3 remaining candidates/"contestants" share the same goals when it comes to Iraq:
1. They all want to turn Iraq from occupation state to a client state.
2. They all want Iraq to be a demi-(half) democratic state like Turkey or Egypt
3. They all want to continue putting pressure on Iran (through embargo, the navy, the airfore and keeping troops in Afghanistan and to varying degrees in Iraq).
Perhaps much of the American general public consciously or unconsciously understands the candidates shared position on Iraq and thus so easily can switch (according to the polls) between McCain and Obama or McCain and Clinton.
All of this reflects a deeper 'value' system that is pervasive in our culture....
Riane Eisler (The Chalice and the Blade, The REal Wealth of nations...creating a caring economics) exposed the "dominator value system/story" which is at the root of all of our cultures--our 'language' reflects this dominator story.
People like Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh, etc., have all been taught this story, believe it whole heartedly (ie, king of the hill is the game we're all playing and thus, if you're not on top--you lose and that's the way its supposed to be!) They laugh their heads off when others talk about social justice, fairness etc. because social justice/fairness makes no sense in a 'dominator value system/story'.
Truly, in their minds, they think they are being "reasonable"...because in a dominator value system--anything less than being on top and suppressing others makes no sense!
"Any man more right than his neighbors already constitutes a majority of one"---Thoreau
Being a better debater does not make one right. I would never try to convince anybody that this war is immoral. Anyone who can't see the truth will understand no explanation of why the truth is the truth.
The quote implied in the title uses the word "reason" but gives no reasons: "Come now and let us reason together" says the Lord "though your sins be as scarlet I will make them white as snow."
kelmer - I often think so too, but you and I are human and we also reason. CD is a remarkable paradigm for human reason operating exactly as it should. Immature posters tend to vanish quickly, and over the past couple of years we have seen an encouraging increase in the number of informed, intelligent and diverse opinions attracted to this venue. I think most of us read one anothers posts - quite a volume of information processing really - and as contentious as this forum gets I have seen people (speaking for myself) actually learn things. We throw our two bits worth into the fray, and our fellow bloggers don't let us get away with a thing, not logical sloppiness or misinformation or moral callousness. I wish Congress had such an appetite for reasoned debate as we have here.
The Dems have gone mad. Their hysterical hatred of the Clintons has addled their brains and they are handing the Presidency to McCain.
My question for the author is: who will be "allowed" to speak? Because if we get a wider range, a level playing field for ideas, including progressive voices outside of the two party system, eventually I honestly believe that people will listen and progress can be made - however, without that level playing field, it can't happen.
Brother Clint, can you say Hilary Rodham Klanton? That's the big reason for much hot air blowing so hard and so poisoning the political debate. The other one is Johnny "Straight Lies" McCain. Wake up and smell the propaganda and lies.
Humans and reason dont really go well together.
actually........the food fight started much earlier than that.
deaver and ailes (from reagan's years) started the "those" referrals that reagan used to define anyone who disagreed with his policies. the push to eliminate the "fairness doctrine" had begun and was achieved before reagan's departure.
since, we've been subjected to the "limbaughzation" of "public airwaves" radio and the "foxification" of broadcast television news (fox - run by ailes).
hate and berate.......call them a name and say they're to blame.........shout down discourse rules
Guess who started the "food fight?" If you guessed Newt Gingrich and Carl Rove, you win the door prize. Nasty polarization and and systematic lying did not originate with them, but they studied history and found Dr. Goebbels.
For almost thirty years Democrats have tried to present reasoned arguments about policy and process. They have been rolled over repeatedly by Republicans who throw emotional BS and name calling into the space that should be for thoughtful discussion. The reason they do this is because they know that their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. The reason it has been sucessful is because the media prefer the twenty second sound bite to a three minute reasoned explanation.
"Bomb bomb bomb..." is catchier than an explanation of why that act is insane. Besides the guys who make the bombs buy advertising.
The American people will be plundered as long as they remain divided. About half have already been rendered into turnips. Division is good for business.
Excuse me I got to go. This is all way too windy for me. My neurons are just not adapted for processing info beyond just taking in some super simple snippet of right wing slime.
This is exactly the slime we are talking about. I'm not surprised you couldn't understand anything.
If anyone else feel's the same way, that this is "right wing" slime, then you have nothiing to offer an intelligent discussion anyway. So please go out and play. A closed mind is a terrible thing.
Excuse me I got to go. This is all way too windy for me. My neurons are just not adapted for processing info beyond just taking in some super simple snippet of right wing slime.
This is the most reasoned and sensible explanation of what has been and continues to be wrong with our communication. Wrong with our attempt's to solve our problems and formulate policies. It explains a failure to understand each other.
"But civic debate requires more than ideological salvos. It requires that we listen to those with whom we disagree, to examine their evidence, to consider their arguments. When a philosophical foe makes a valid point, we are obliged to admit this. Where she errs, we are called upon to explain how."
This is the exact truth. Anyone that couldn't accept the above criteria for a discussion on policies or pay attention to a good idea no matter where it comes from, simply isn't interested in our country or the world.
Thank you Mr. Talbot!
Those who control their anger by dealing with it first and then control their desire for revenge on those who are its cause by dealing with that desire, will have the clarity of mind to deal with such circumstances as are deescribed in the article above.
Now comes the anti-Gore flame-war. Wait for it ....
Lucitanian April 1st, 2008 10:15 am
"I apologise for writing "not one of you seem to have a doubt of your own conviction or the "superiority" of your opinion. You obviously had, I'm sorry, and your writing deserves much closer reading, to be sure."
Before I read on, before I dig in, let me say thank you. That was kind of you to say, and I appreciate it. I only hop on occasionally, and that was a nice thing to read first thing this morning, I'll try to carry it with me all day. I keep coming back to this article, because I wrote so much on it, like a web troll almost, and I keep on thinking about it, fretting about the whole topic. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of the comments, and I'm so glad I came back to check on it. Best wishes Lucitanian and to everyone.