danemodsandy
Well-known member
Keven:
The point I'm trying to make is that the problem is not really with the "christianists", as you call them, or with demagogues of any other stripe. The problem is us, because we listen to them and we allow ourselves to be stirred up by them, and therefore distracted from things that are important. If we are spending our time spluttering at the distasteful rantings of the "christianists" and responding to them in kind, then maybe we aren't devoting enough time to getting acquainted with the real issues, or finding out whose voting record makes them most qualified to govern us as we wish, instead of how the "christianists" wish.
If We the People were not so ready to go ballistic at the drop of Rush's (Neal's, Sean's, Al's) hat, such hats would become far less profitable to drop. If no one listens to you, you don't get votes, and you don't make money.
Imagine the following: A candidate for some Congressional seat or even higher office rips into a campaign audience with fiery words about the threat homosexuals pose to America. He goes on to trash his opposing candidate's morals, judgement, and sanity. He tells you that the principles of his religion - and his religion only - will make America great again. This is a speech we've all heard many times, right?
But now suppose that a neatly-dressed, grey-haired little lady sitting in the middle of Row 8 were to stand up and say, "Well, that's all very well, Mr. Soandso, but what I want to know about is your stand on universal health care and exactly how you intend to bring it about?"
And then suppose that the candidate says, "Well, now, that's a very complex issue, and while we certainly want health care to be available, we can't plunge into anything that burdens employers, the poor, the rich, or the middle class, now can we? The opposition will tell you that they want to do something about health care, but they cannot pay for what they propose, and you shouldn't have to. Those people just want to expand entitlements and give your tax dollars away to people who haven't worked as hard as you." How many times have we all heard this?
At this point, let us say that the neatly-dressed grey-haired lady in Row 8 says - quietly, firmly, with exquisite courtesy - "But Mr. Soandso, that does not answer my question. I want to know how we can have health care, and how you think we should make that happen."
In our imaginations, let's suppose that this was followed by murmurs of appreciation from the rest of the audience. "But, my dear little lady, haven't you heard me?" the candidate says. "I've just told you those people in that other party are nuts! They want to tax you! They want to take away your right to have health care or not, as you choose! They want to go against the principles of our holy writings, which place the virtue of charity to the sick and the dying above all else! Do you want that?"
To which the little neatly-dressed, grey-haired lady in Row 8 says, "Bub, what I want is an answer to my question. How do you intend to give us the health care plan we want?" And the other audience members begin a gentle, but unmistakable rhythmic clapping, chanting softly but purposefully, "Answer! Answer! Answer!"
It would not take too many repetitions of this scenario before the light bulb would go on over the heads of politicians - the rantings, ravings, and blatherings that used to work won't work any more. Led by the little old lady, people were demanding substance on an issue that actually mattered to them, instead of engaging with the politician on his terms.
It's the same with news stories. If people don't comment on the sensational revelations, don't call each other names on blogs because they're trying to be righter than the other guys on the blog, don't buy the magazines with the screaming headlines about a pregnant teen daughter of one candidate and the decades-old, youthful drug experimentation of another candidate, then those stories become unprofitable, and therefore less likely to be part of our public discourse. And again, the light bulb goes on over politicians' heads - the game has changed, and their survival will ultimately demand that they play by the new rules.
So, while I agree with you that the "christianists" certainly have a lot to answer for, so do those of us who empower them. Reasoned, civil demands for change and a refusal to play mudpies with these people might actually get us somewhere. If that sounds naive, remember two things:
1) I like being naive; it makes me feel young. ;-)
2) Playing the game by politicians' rules doesn't work. If ever we needed any proof of that, the past eight years should be all anyone could ask for.
The point I'm trying to make is that the problem is not really with the "christianists", as you call them, or with demagogues of any other stripe. The problem is us, because we listen to them and we allow ourselves to be stirred up by them, and therefore distracted from things that are important. If we are spending our time spluttering at the distasteful rantings of the "christianists" and responding to them in kind, then maybe we aren't devoting enough time to getting acquainted with the real issues, or finding out whose voting record makes them most qualified to govern us as we wish, instead of how the "christianists" wish.
If We the People were not so ready to go ballistic at the drop of Rush's (Neal's, Sean's, Al's) hat, such hats would become far less profitable to drop. If no one listens to you, you don't get votes, and you don't make money.
Imagine the following: A candidate for some Congressional seat or even higher office rips into a campaign audience with fiery words about the threat homosexuals pose to America. He goes on to trash his opposing candidate's morals, judgement, and sanity. He tells you that the principles of his religion - and his religion only - will make America great again. This is a speech we've all heard many times, right?
But now suppose that a neatly-dressed, grey-haired little lady sitting in the middle of Row 8 were to stand up and say, "Well, that's all very well, Mr. Soandso, but what I want to know about is your stand on universal health care and exactly how you intend to bring it about?"
And then suppose that the candidate says, "Well, now, that's a very complex issue, and while we certainly want health care to be available, we can't plunge into anything that burdens employers, the poor, the rich, or the middle class, now can we? The opposition will tell you that they want to do something about health care, but they cannot pay for what they propose, and you shouldn't have to. Those people just want to expand entitlements and give your tax dollars away to people who haven't worked as hard as you." How many times have we all heard this?
At this point, let us say that the neatly-dressed grey-haired lady in Row 8 says - quietly, firmly, with exquisite courtesy - "But Mr. Soandso, that does not answer my question. I want to know how we can have health care, and how you think we should make that happen."
In our imaginations, let's suppose that this was followed by murmurs of appreciation from the rest of the audience. "But, my dear little lady, haven't you heard me?" the candidate says. "I've just told you those people in that other party are nuts! They want to tax you! They want to take away your right to have health care or not, as you choose! They want to go against the principles of our holy writings, which place the virtue of charity to the sick and the dying above all else! Do you want that?"
To which the little neatly-dressed, grey-haired lady in Row 8 says, "Bub, what I want is an answer to my question. How do you intend to give us the health care plan we want?" And the other audience members begin a gentle, but unmistakable rhythmic clapping, chanting softly but purposefully, "Answer! Answer! Answer!"
It would not take too many repetitions of this scenario before the light bulb would go on over the heads of politicians - the rantings, ravings, and blatherings that used to work won't work any more. Led by the little old lady, people were demanding substance on an issue that actually mattered to them, instead of engaging with the politician on his terms.
It's the same with news stories. If people don't comment on the sensational revelations, don't call each other names on blogs because they're trying to be righter than the other guys on the blog, don't buy the magazines with the screaming headlines about a pregnant teen daughter of one candidate and the decades-old, youthful drug experimentation of another candidate, then those stories become unprofitable, and therefore less likely to be part of our public discourse. And again, the light bulb goes on over politicians' heads - the game has changed, and their survival will ultimately demand that they play by the new rules.
So, while I agree with you that the "christianists" certainly have a lot to answer for, so do those of us who empower them. Reasoned, civil demands for change and a refusal to play mudpies with these people might actually get us somewhere. If that sounds naive, remember two things:
1) I like being naive; it makes me feel young. ;-)
2) Playing the game by politicians' rules doesn't work. If ever we needed any proof of that, the past eight years should be all anyone could ask for.
Mark
