Do I live in a country of short sighted, ego-centric fourteen-year-olds (I will not ask “when did this become...” because it seems a persistent problem)? When it comes to political discourse, the major talk within mainstream media outlets, not to mention a good chunk of citizen media, reeks of impatience and immaturity, and an ignorance of the bigger picture. How about we all grow up a bit?
First, let's clear some things. The government represents a manifestation of the general, aggregated interests of all constituents, for the sake of moving on and making decisions. No, it is not perfect. No, it does not always watch out for everyone. That presents a call to arms to work towards perfecting it, rather than a reason to give up with abandon and feed into the failure, first person to the top of the hill wins mentality.
The public sphere exists for no honest reason but service to others, and, more specifically, service to everyone. As part of this premise of organized society, public officials and those who aim to influence them work to improve the current state of affairs, however interpreted.
Few phrases bother me more than the argument that “ nothing ever changes.” Have you been paying attention for the last couple centuries? The history of the world consists of nothing but change. I do not care that similarities or patterns persist, one cannot deny that, in the long run, situations improve. But instead of efficient, and well-meaning improvement, we often receive hacked together, mediocre 'solutions' that serve to further a person or a group more than the rest of us.
How to do this?
Step one: stop watching the 24 hour news networks and lamenting about the lack of intelligent discussion to your friends, and say it louder. People forget that change happens both slowly and requires patience to a achieve the big goal, but that change necessitates the small steps along the way. Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and said it “was hurting America,” -- canceled. Morgan Spurlock tears apart the bigger is better mentality of McDonalds – and the 'Super Size' becomes replaced with salads. Hell, Upton Sinclair writes The Jungle eventually leading to the creation of the FDA. Surely, these must merely represent coincidences.
Therefore, stop imagining the monster as too large. Big, evil, controlling organizations, for example, still have something bigger than them – economic forces. Create a siltation where it becomes economically less viable to support whatever status quo they currently stand by and they will fall ridiculously fast. Then repeat. And again. One foot in front of the other, and eventually the landscape starts to look different.
Step two: stop trying to convince your ideological opponent (or neutral passerby) using arguments important to you. What you believe to be morally or socially correct is irrelevant. Before the liberals get too excited, this applies equally to everyone from Evangelicals to hard-core secularists, to those considering themselves moderate. Neither the fact that people agree with you, nor that you believe you hold the moral high ground means a thing with regards to convincing someone else. Figure out who you need to address, what they care about, and format your argument accordingly. Sounds incredibly simple and obvious but so often ignored. Do not feel afraid that you will abandon your cause by modifying its argument and reason, instead accept that this gets the job done.
Then again, this last piece of advice pertains to those who honestly support whatever cause based on a belief that it helps everyone in the long run. Those engaged in discourse for the purposes of furthering only themselves need not heed. Get the egos out. No reason exists for politics to really be about winning and losing. This game continues much farther than even terms without limits.
Why complain quietly when you can shout. Find the small steps in to whatever needs to be changed and start walking. And keep in mind why you're doing it. Don't be afraid to actually talk to people on the other side. Negotiation is not only not a myth that requires diluting one's message or purpose. Actual discussion of issues, rather than fights, lead to solutions, rather than partisan plans of attack. So grow up, move on, and get some stuff done for once.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i love your rants, they entertain and educate. plus they remind me of being in a Thought Talk with only 1 person who wants to talk, 1 couple in the back making out, and a moderator who has no idea what the topic's really about so is half assing the whole thing. oh to be young, dumb and a jsaer....
ren writes, "The government represents a manifestation of the general, aggregated interests of all constituents... The public sphere exists for no honest reason but service to others, and, more specifically, service to everyone."
Over time, I have become more cynical (or as we cynics call it, "more realistic"). The government is only one of many institutions in our society that hold power over us. As Max Weber wrote, a government is just an institution that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in some region. Governments rarely manifest the interests of all, and sometimes manifest the interests of none: policies sometimes take on a life of their own.
Your two steps are interesting because, despite the idealism offered in the preamble, your steps are utterly pragmatic: take small steps but put a lot of effort into each, and when it comes to convincing others, couch your views as needed to do so. I agree with the first step--if only because the news networks are so poorly produced--but the second step feels wrong... let me explain.
In the "legitimate use of violence" I quoted above, the key is "legitimate." That's the coin of the realm. Compromising your views, your values, or your language in order to win votes can cost oneself legitimacy. Bush won the 2004 election in part because voters thought he believed what he said (even if they thought it was moronic) while Kerry was successfully painted as mealy-mouthed. In terms of legitimacy, confrontation adds to one's credentials; compromise smacks of hypocrisy. Observe that neither Morgan Spurlock nor Upton Sinclair pulled any punches, nor did they avoid the strident, ideological voice.
Post a Comment