I have a dream that they will wake up

I have a dream.  A dream that someday we will turn on the news and see reflections of hope and unity and not fear and discrimination.  I have a dream that leaders in our society will not call the President racist.  I have a dream that leaders will not foolishly defend the use of the word “nigger.” 

I have a dream that the American people will wake up and realize that in the past year we have made more progress than during this entire decade.  That we are starting to fight laws that discriminate (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).  That we are recognizing the need for affordable health care for all.  That children and all people cannot be denied medical treatment due to a pre-existing condition.

On this day of August 28, 2010, I watched the rallies in Washington D.C. and around the country in honor of the 47^th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a dream” speech.  I have no doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr.  is rolling in his grave after watching Glenn Beck speak at the Lincoln Memorial, the same location King spoke at 47 years ago.  Beck: who called President Obama racist, who mocks progress, who intentionally and deliberately lies (remember the claim that health care reform would be extended to dogs?).  And then there’s Palin.  Palin who defended Dr. Laura’s repeated use of the N-word just this week.  Palin: who tweeted to Dr. Laura, “Don’t retreat.  Reload.”

If you really want to taste the flavor of these rallies, you have to look at the audiences.  Beck and Palin had to announce a rule that the people attending their rally could not bring signs.  What does that say to you?  If one’s supporters contradict the message of the day (freedom, respect, diversity, tolerance) through their disrespectful protest signs, then that is a sign that these are scary people.  The second rule, by the way, was that the people couldn’t bring guns.  That’s right: the rally by Palin and Beck had to announce to not bring your signs and not bring your guns.  Wow.  Obviously, the Palin and Beck supporters have very bad taste, lack common sense, and have a penchant for disrespectful rhetoric.  If those are the characteristics of your supporters, then you are not a credible leader.

The other rallies showed audiences of mixed cultural diversity: black, white, brown, yellow, and all types of people.  It comes down to this: you have one group, consisting of the likes of Palin and Beck, who polarizes the American people.  They spread their messages of fear.  They try to throw a rally that shows they do embrace freedom and diversity, but they have to tell their supporters to “behave.” 

We need to get back to the politics of discussing issues and policy without fear and polarization.  We can have a “left” and a “right” that tackles the issues by looking at facts and empowering reason.  We can debate and we can disagree.  But we cannot allow ourselves as a nation to fall into a state of disillusion that thrives on name-calling, fear, and division.  Palin and Beck, as well as their supporters, have fallen into a political black hole.  They are no longer Democrats or Republicans.  They are not the left or the right.  They are a black hole that sucks out logic, reason, and compassion.

I have a dream that we will have political parties who are able to debate and disagree with respect.  I have a dream that we will once again discuss the issues, and when we disagree, we will be able to back it up with credible, unbiased sources.  We will not fall prey to greedy corporations, greedy politicians, and those who just enjoy the limelight and attention.  Beck and Palin have discovered a formula for success: say lots of stupid things, brainwash your followers, scare your followers into thinking Obama, the left, and the government are destroying the world (which in turn prevents your followers from ever actually examining the evidence from opposing viewpoints) and you will always find a camera in front of you.  They have managed to find an audience they can manipulate and essentially put into an eternal dream state in which they see and live in a false reality.

I have a dream that they will wake up.

Warning: Conservatives Don’t Read This Blog (or Do! Oh, Please Do!)

I’m enjoying reading a variety of blogs, news stories, and information that both support and challenge my opinions.  I’d like to make an argument for all bloggers and readers on exposing oneself to challenging viewpoints.

First, it must be stated that avoiding the arguments of opposing viewpoints is incredibly harmful.  In a world that is becoming more and more polarized, the only reasonable solution to polarization is to force ourselves to understand the rationale behind opposing viewpoints.  When we are exposed to challenging opinions, we develop greater political tolerance.  When we are exposed to only opinions that reinforce our own—or only watch biased news networks like Fox—we become increasingly intolerant of political differences.  Not exposing oneself to challenging opinions begins a vicious cycle: we become more and more polarized.

In communications, one of my fields of study, the theory of selective exposure explains that many people prefer to only engage in discussions and information with those arguments that support their own.  For the average person, selective exposure plays a significant role.  The World Wide Web may exacerbate the problem of selective exposure due to the plethora of political extreme groups and partisan news sites.  Furthermore, fear exacerbates polarization.  For example, in the last several political elections, the person we support will make our world “safer” and our lives will be “better” while the opponent will make our world more “dangerous” and our lives will be “worse.”  Fear is used—and this idea is an emphasis in previous blogs—to replace logic.  When people are afraid of the other candidate, then individuals seek more information to support their candidate and point of view and neglect to engage in critical thinking of the other candidate’s ideas and policies—resorting to fear and generalized negativity. 

Even more interesting is that political studies show that conservatives and republicans engage in more selective exposure than liberals and democrats (Sears & Freedman, 1967; Mutz, 2002, 2001; Amodio, Jost, Master & Yeee, 2007; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski & Sulloway, 2003; Tetlock, 1989; Garret, 2006, 2009—to cite a few studies).

Political study after political study reveal that republicans seek more sources that specifically favor the republican candidate while democrats engage in more discussion and have a more balanced mix of political information.  Studies further show that Bush supporters in particular were very deeply involved in selective exposure and did not – as a generalization—even try to engage in the intellectual arguments of the opposing viewpoints, instead just using fear and negativity.

I’m not making these studies up.  I’ll post them below, and these are graduate level academic, research studies.  Additionally, even people who claim they expose themselves to other arguments do not necessarily understand them on a critical level.  They know of the arguments; they have not critically engaged in the arguments.

So two things:

1)      Selective exposure is dangerous.  We must understand our opponent’s arguments and not simply vilify them. 

2)      Can someone tell me why by nature conservatives and republicans engage in selective exposure significantly more than liberals and democrats?  That’s the question I want to answer.  Does conservative mean holding onto traditional arguments and points of view and not recognizing the importance of other ideas?  Does liberal mean searching through all ideas and all arguments—no matter how new, how old, how challenging or contradictory?  If so, why would anyone label themselves as conservative? 

I guess you can call me liberal, baby.

 Here are a few complete citations for the info above.  You can search by the authors and years I listed on Google Scholar if you want to find the articles, or ask me for specifics, I’ll give them to you. 

Garrett, R. K. (2006). Seeking similarity, not avoiding difference: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, Dresden,Germany.

Mutz, D.C. (2002) ‘The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation’, American Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 838-55.

Mutz, D.C. and Martin, P.S. (2001) ‘Facilitating communication across lines of political difference: the role of mass media’, American Political Science Review 95 (1): 97-114.

Sears, D.O. and Freedman, J.L. (1967) ‘Selective exposure to information: a critical review’, Public Opinion Quarterly 31 (2): 194-213.

Fear: Logic’s greatest enemy

               In my high school classroom, I do an activity where I scramble the top causes of death in the U.S. and ask my students to put the causes in correct order.  Almost always, homicide, suicide, and AIDS place in the top three– those causes are placed higher than heart disease, cancer and strokes!– when in actuality, they are significantly lower.  [1]  Now, to give my kids credit, they immediately argue though that they think homicide, suicide, and AIDS are much higher because that’s what they hear about in the media and that’s what they talk about.  And that’s the problem.

                What we think we know is often untrue.  And this idea can definitely be applied to politics.  Today, fear and entertainment in the media take priority over logic and reason.  Some news stations may argue that they are presenting logical arguments, but when we take a closer look, we will see that the stories are to create emotional reactions, not logical thought.  Just look at Fox News for any example, or watch this recent example. [2]  Glen Beck presents what appears to be a logical response to a struggling economy, but what he is actually doing is inciting fear that our economy will collapse.  The news stories on Fox in particular are designed to invoke emotional responses, and emotion often outweighs logic.  The most powerful of all emotions: FEAR. 

                Fear is the villain to reason.  Fear destroys reason.  If I am afraid that the government will destroy my life, then I will react in unreasonable fashions.  The more extreme the fear = the lower the amount of reason.  If I live in fear of robbers, I will unnecessarily spend money on guns and alarm systems.  If I live in fear of a complete government takeover, I will protest at rallies, chant gibberish with the crowd, and create signs that reveal my total lack of reason.   

                Just look at any Tea Party protest to see how the fear destroys logic.  I have no doubt that Tea Party members are afraid of excess government involvement and increased taxes, but the Tea Party most often responds emotionally, not logically, and in doing so, they only spread more fear instead of adding to a good, logical debate.  Take any Obama sign where his picture is manipulated to look like Hitler.  We have two serious problems with such actions: 1) We are spreading more fear and 2) We are showing utter disrespect to our President. 

                The challenge with fear is that reason is generally not strong enough to overcome fear.   Plus, the more fear we see, the more likely the general public will believe it to be true.  Just as young students may think homicide and AIDS rank in the top causes of death, the general public may think they will have a drastic increase in taxes and witness a complete government takeover, which (in terms of health care reform—will it increase taxes on the middle class and is it a government takeover?) has been disproved via factcheck.org. [3]

                Emotional images for entertainment or for fear are likely to trump reason.  One recent Tea Party protestor made a sign that said George Washington was a right wing extremist.[4]  Poor choice of a right-wing extremist, considering George Washington argued against torture and poor treatment of military prisoners, a policy supported by many so called right-wing extremists. [5]

                How do we overcome the politics of fear?  Even when presented with non-partisan, unbiased facts and statistics that clearly counter arguments time and time again, many politicians don’t stop the emotional fear-mongering.  And in reply to that, I would argue it is because fear works.  A famous quotation from the Roman Philosopher Lacantius says, “Where fear is present, wisdom cannot be.”[6]   We have to be fighters for reason, truth, and logic.  We cannot let ourselves be manipulated by fear, negativity, and disrespect. 

                How do you overcome the politics of fear?  What are your suggestions as to how to fight fear and promote reason?

---

[1]  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

[2] http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/01/fox-poll-beck-fears/   

[3] http://factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/

[4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/detemporibussuis/3449656397/in/faves-47404406@N04

[5] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5011464

[6] http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/1059414/lactantius/where-fear-is-present-wisdom-cannot-be

Defining ourselves in politics before we debate the politics

               I’m guilty of having too much fun on Facebook by posting links and status updates briefly stating a political idea.  Most of the time, I just can’t help myself.  I see an article or a video that makes me laugh or supports something I agree with, and I have to post it.  I usually add some kind of comment that is no doubt likely to frustrate anyone opposed.  Sometimes I feel I need to stop posting such things on Facebook and find a better outlet for such posts.  With that thought in mind, I’m starting a blog for anyone who wants to discuss and debate ideas.  And I don’t want the blog to just be political.  I want it to include spiritual/religious discussions as well as just the simple things in daily life that make us smile or frown.  So this blog is open to all observations: political, spiritual, and everything in between.  Some days, I want to discuss health care and other days I want to discuss Oreos versus chocolate chip cookies 🙂 No matter what, this blog is open to all—those who agree, those who disagree, and those who want to just be part of the conversation.  Let’s learn from each other, and let’s have a little more conversation.

                Before discussing any specific topic, I argue we need to know define ourselves.  A prerequisite to all debates should include a definition of what we value.  After all, our values should determine our politics. 

                I grew up in two sided family.  One side of my family promoted conservative ideas and the other side promoted liberal ideas.  It wasn’t until my freshman year in college that I really began to have a basic understanding of the differences between republicans and democrats.  My freshman political science teacher provided us with two definitions I have never forgotten (and that’s impressive considering it’s been 13 years since I was a freshman in college).  He defined democrats as those “who want more government involvement to help the people, which may require more taxation” and republicans as those “who want less government involvement to lower taxes and leave the responsibility to the individual.”  On a basic level, I view political issues from these fundamental definitions.  Certainly, political policies are more complicated, but these two definitions provide a good foundation to begin discussion. 

                Whenever a policy is introduced, I ask myself, “Is this cause worth fighting for?  Do people need it?  Is it worth paying taxes for?” 

                In my college years, I discovered an overwhelming propensity to lean democrat.  I would go back to this question with specific policies.  Do people who have been laid off from work need assistance?  Yes.  Do low-income, single parents need extra help?  Yes.  Do individuals who cannot get health insurance need help? Yes.  Do children need better education?  Yes.  Do senior citizens need extra income and health benefits after retirement?  Yes.  Time and time again, I felt a responsibility to support programs that would help people, and I increasingly viewed the right side of politics as an incredibly selfish political viewpoint.  Yes, I understand you worked hard for your money and you want to keep it. But I couldn’t help but think that the right side is simply selfish, only changing their minds on specific policies when they experience problems directly, such as getting laid off from work or losing their health insurance.

                (Note: I understand that just because I answer yes to the above questions does not mean that conservatives will answer no.  Each specific question leads into policies, and we can tackle each policy in future discussions.  However, I do argue that democratic answers to these questions do more for the people in need while republican answers limit the assistance—just think of the recent republican blocks in congress to cut off unemployment checks or efforts to reduce the education budget at times when many schools and students are already suffering.)

                I believe we have a profound responsibility to help each other.  If I care about my neighbor as much as I care about myself, then we will live in a better world. 

                I want to be more open-minded to the right, and in part, that is why I want to start this blog.  As I progressed through college and career though, I witnessed so many other problems in society.  Every person deserves equal rights, for example.  In the 20^th century, we fought hard for civil rights, and in the 21^st century, we are fighting for gay rights.  When I hear someone on the right like Huckabee associate homosexuality with incest or Palin condemn the homosexual lifestyle, I can’t help but wonder if civil rights activists in the 20^th century encountered similar situations.  When I examine politics and candidates, I have to know: will they promote equal rights or will they restrict rights? 

                And so I view the political world from two major viewpoints: are we fighting to help our neighbor as much as we would fight for ourselves and are we supporting or restricting human rights? 

                But of course it is more complicated, and here’s one of the biggest complication I have: I know VERY GOOD people from both political parties.  I know people on the right and on the left who would do anything for me.  I know republicans and democrats who love their family, love their friends, contribute to their communities, and so much more.  The fact that there are good people on both sides challenges my core values, and so I also hope it challenges yours.

                So what is your political mentality?  Without debating specific policies in depth at this time, what defines you as democrat, republican, independent, etc?  I know we are dealing with basic definitions, but if we can at least define our general viewpoints, perhaps we can learn more from each other than we ever would debating a specific program like health care (though we certainly can debate that in time). 

                I want to grow as a person, I want to challenge others, I want to find those who enhance my viewpoints, and I want to find those who dispute my viewpoints.  So it’s your turn, reader.  What do you look for in politics and what defines you?