Let’s say there are two political parties whose symbols are, for example, skunks and porcupines — both indigenous to North America, both with few predators save the occasional lost mama grizzly bear wandering down from Alaska. Now say you used to think the Skunk party was the one that was True and Good and Right and that Porcupines were gnawing apart the Fabric of Society, but evidence and experience and, well, logic led you, in the end, to actually prefer the spiny side. Say you marry and your husband — who dabbled in Red Fox philosophy for a bit in college — has had a similar experience: Both of you come from families of hardcore Skunks, and both families don’t quite understand why you prefer the herbivorous rodent philosophy to its odiferous counterpart.
You have nothing against Skunks, per se; you think some of their ideas are okay, although they seem a bit too black and white for your taste (you believe the quill is mightier than the anal gland, for example), but the Skunks you grew up with were wonderful people and you bear none of them any personal ill will. In the end, both are trying to coexist in the same general habitat even though they have quite different ways of expressing themselves.
So would you be at all suspicious when your families keep giving your child textiles with skunks on them? Bath towels, blankets, and shirts? Is this some sneaky rhetorical persuasion they’re attempting? Or do porcupines simply not have the same childish appeal and family values as their symbolic counterparts?
About this time last year, I remember wondering, “Hey, will Jon Stewart have anything to talk about when Obama gets elected?”, thereby effectively eliminating myself as a contender for America’s Top Prognosticator. Suffice it to say, I did not imagine that conservatives — who so decried liberals’ furor over Bush 43 — would themselves turn into the angry, irrational scrum that they have become. You see, I grew up among conservatives — smart, thoughtful ones, people whom I admired. And I have no idea what the hell happened to them. I’m not old enough to have a huge frame of reference, but I see this country becoming more and more polarized, and it’s despicable. Rational debate? Pfft, forget that — let’s take up arms instead!
So I have this to say: If you believe the smirking Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin are voices of reason and thoughtfulness, get the hell out of my life. Similarly, if you like the snarkiness of Keith Olbermann or Maureen Dowd for anything other than humor, you are too far gone. In either case, I don’t think you exist as a contributing member of society. I’ll still recognize your right to exist, and your fucking good luck we’ve got a constitution that guarantees that right.
I do believe in listening to what others have to say, and trying to understand different points of view — it’s how we learn and how we relate to others. But there has to be something rational to begin with, as well as a willingness to listen, and people who are solely interested in their ratings and the shock value of their words are not people interested in civil discourse. They’re talking heads, and if you parrot them and their beliefs, you’re pathetic. That brain you have? Use it.
Remember Jon Stewart on Crossfire? Remember what he said about the sniping between the left and the right?
Some timely highlights:
“You are part of their [politicians'] strategies.”
“We need help from the media, and they’re hurting us.”
“You’re doing theatre when you should be doing debate.”
“You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.”
“The absurdity of the system provides us with the most material, and that is best served by sort of the theatre of it all, y’know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it’s helped.”
Remember that? Good stuff. It’s still applicable. Crossfire may have been canceled as a result, but Begala and the Bowtie are doing guest commentator stints, and there’s a whole horde of other hosts wasting brains and energy.
I know it’s idealistic, but I’d like just one show — just one! — that didn’t worry about the ratings and did concern itself with meaningful debate. So far, the only place I ever see something even resembling that is on the The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer because there is a moderator who keeps things in check, and the guests manage to exhibit self-control that is totally lacking on other shows — yes, including the Sunday talking-head programs such as Meet the Press and that ilk. The moderator model should be used on other shows, and the print media should encourage point/counterpoint columns where there is thoughtful, engaged debate — not a competition to see who can talk louder or whose soundbite is repeated most often.