I remember 8 years ago when I was hearing rumors about McCain being the Manchurian candidate. You know, that he was brainwashed while he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam so that he might rise to power and then make America communist. Today (from the same people) it's that Obama is a Muslim who is going to get gay marriage in every state, nationalize health care so that people over 80 don't have access to hospitals, and is going to raise everyone's taxes--even though all these claims go against Obama's stated positions on these issues.
In the late 70's and early 80's, when I was just an unthinking lad passing on the fear tidbits of that day I had heard, it was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). If we passed that thing, there would be unisex bathrooms before you knew it. The ERA failed--although ironically America now operates as if it had passed. HA! What truly Christian Republican would vote for Strom Thurmond or George Wallace today?
My conclusion is that people who go for conspiracy theories in an election--on either side--are gullible and the weak dimension to democracy. By their very nature, conspiracy theories require us to go with an understanding of the situation that is not as it appears. That means that while such a conspiracy theory may be correct, it is by its very nature more likely to be false than to be true.
For this reason, I am far more inclined to disbelieve an email with some juicy tidbit about some candidate than to believe it--on either side. To a slightly less extent, I am inclined to question seriously any claim on talk radio or on cable shows that tend to have experts from only one side or who consistently lampbast any guest they might have from the other side.
And if it hasn't hit the mainstream media and been discussed in a forum with representatives of both sides and a moderator letting both sides speak, then I will hold serious reservations about an idea. So the idea that Iraq's WMD were smuggled off to Syria before we invaded seems very doubtful because virtually no one is saying this in the main stream media and in fact the Bush administration itself is not saying this. Is it possible? Yes. But I will consider it very unlikely until further notice.
There's currently a rumor going around that Obama is not qualified to be President because he was "really" born in Kenya at a time when his mother was out of the country for too long a period of time. Is it possible? Sure. But I will consider it another rumor for the weak-minded for the time being. Good grief, I wasn't even able to find that story on the Fox News website, although Hannity has mentioned it on talk radio.
We hurt the democratic process when we give any credence to these sorts of rumors in an election... and we almost always end up looking stupid in the light of history.
So what are some of the scare tactics you remember from the past--that FDR is really the antichrist? that McGovern would legalize marijuana? It's fascinating to me to realize that my forebears were demonizing Democrats long before Roe vs. Wade. What was their argument that Democrats were godless back then, I wonder?
I suspect that then, as now, it really has much more to do with whatever group culture to which we belong, rather than whatever the actual arguments are that are coming out of our mouths. The words change, but I can predict right now the positions of this type of feeble minded individual in the next election. The Democratic or Republican groupee (as opposed to the swing voter and independent, the most rational elements of our democracy) will say things that make their candidate the clear hero of truth, justice, and the American way, and they will make the candidate of the other party the anti-Christ. And they will do this forgetting whoever they voted for in the primary or what they thought of the person in between elections.
Do you remember some scare tactics from the past? What are some juicy rumors you are hearing now on both sides?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
And your not gullible believing the promises or anything else these politicians say to get elected? Glen Martin taught years ago that we need to look at a person's core beliefs or presuppositions to predict their actions. Looking at what a certain politician's record shows is a clue to how he will govern, not what he is saying to get elected. Of course, as you have said, Martin was wrong so I am sure everything you hear from the mouth of your man is exactly what he will do. That is why I think you are naive.
I never said that I never fall into these traps for the feeble minded.
But my points above stand. We should question whether the candidates are giving us the straight scoop, as you say. And then we should weigh the evidence rationally with each position fairly presenting its questions.
This is not the nature of talk radio or cable shows where only one side is represented or a token representative of the other side is only brought on to lambast.
There is certainly some truth to the idea of looking for presuppositions and core beliefs, however, few people are as consistent as Dr. Martin tried to be. Our core human impulses are far more sub-rational than rational, and Dr. Martin mistakenly projected his own personality on people in general. Our ideas far more bubble up from the realia of our lives than the other way around.
The Devil will always be in the details, not in some simplistic label we put on someone. Here's the way the approach you take works in practice.
1) I find something about the candidate that I can map to one of my bad labels.
2) I commit the fallacy of composition and say, "So and so is a fascist or a communist or a racist or a socialist."
3) And thus I have found the faulty presupposition that I can use to override all the other specifics they are saying. They're not being honest about them because I know what they really are.
I'm old enough to remember 1964 with LBJ versus Goldwater. At that time Texas was still dominated by the Democratic party. My parents were Goldwater supporters so I was sensitive to all the badmouthing about Barry, about how he would foolhardedly trigger World War III. That was an effective message because nuclear war was a great source of anxiety at the time. Everyone was already afraid and we were constantly reminded of the possibility. A couple of homes in our town had personal bombshelters in the front yard. We still did the Civil Defense drills ("duck and cover!") and even our church fellowship hall had a Civil Defense sign, designating it as an emergency shelter in case of nuclear attack.
As for whether we were better off by electing Johnson, there was a joke going around a few years later:
"They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, soon we would have half a million troops in Viet Nam. Well I did vote for Goldwater and sure enough we did!"
And your comments about the ERA are correct. The social conservatives raised so much consternation about the revolutionary changes it would force onto our good innocent Christian families. And if the ERA were passed now it would hardly have any effect because of other legislation (much of it legislated by the states) and by changes in social attitudes.
-or if we vote for an "egghead" such as Adlai, the nation will go socialist. I did, and it did.
Ah, the wonders of the American system. Wouldn't trade it for the "world," unless of course we vote wrong.
OK, Ken, beleive Obama. He appears to be the master of convincing the guillible that he is saying what they want to hear. What if Reagan would have tried to run as a liberal? Wouldn't people have questioned his past "associations" with conservatives and his positions on past issues. That is what you are suggesting we not do with Obama. Believe what he says today and give him a pass on his past!
You will have voter regret someday when the real left wing liberal emerges and surprises you because his core beliefs were dismissed by you in favor of his phoney rethoric.
Forgive me, but when did Ken ever say NOT to question Obama? I am pretty sure the entire point of this post is to say that we should question people on both sides of the aisle. You accuse Ken of being "gullible" by misrepresenting what he has said, but gullibility goes both ways.
I think a person who accepts what a right-wing, conservative government says without so much as questioning it is just as gullible as the person who accepts what the so-called left-wing liberal media says without questioning it.
And by all means, if the shoe fits wear it.
Post a Comment