It has been a while since my last post. After my last post, I decided to take stock of everything and reflect on the feedback I received. Some of what I received seemed to reflect the overall nature of debate in our world today. It seems that we can no longer converse on ideas. We, as a country, seem to have the need to vilify the "opposition".
During the early part of this decade, those that opposed the U.S. military actions abroad were labeled "unAmerican". Now those that were labeled as such in turn apply the same label to those that oppose the President. The same people who vilified those that labeled President Bush and his cabinet as Nazis, minimize the issue of people doing the same to President Obama.
I don't understand why we have changed. 30 years ago, Tip O'Neill vehemently opposed the policies of President Reagan. While he publicly expressed his issues to President Reagan and what he deemed his protection of certain classes, the two actually maintained a cordial relationship. As President Reagan said "We are friends after 6PM". So here you had two political rivals that agreed on almost nothing and yet they considered each other friends and treated each other cordially and with respect.
Now it is not just the goal of both parties to "win" the argument, but one must also belittle the opposition. When a news station opposes the President, they are "not a news organization", but instead a "propaganda arm". If that is true, then explain to me why the same people who have criticize the same party that are "beholden" too.
Yes, I am referring to Fox News. Do I agree with what I see on Fox? Sometimes I do, but I also agree that some COMMENTATORS (yes, I believe the emphasis is necessary) go over the line. Labeling the President as a communist or socialist is wrong and plays into the "oppositions" hands. Does the President have some socialist leanings? I believe so, and he has said as much (health care, wealth (re)distribution, etc). That still doesn't make him a socialist and definitely not a communist.
Saying that though, just because Fox points some of that out does not make them in "lockstep" with the Republican party. Too often, the other media outlets have ignored issues that seem to be "inconvenient" to there ideological profile. Is Fox "fair and balanced"? I leave that up to the individual viewer. However, I do believe that even with their "rightward" slant on the issues, they bring some balance to the news as a whole. The majority of television and print media are slanted left. When a news organization spends an entire segment to "fact check" a late night comedy sketch, but can't do the same to verify racist quotes supposedly made by a political commentator, you know there is an issue.
Obviously Fox addresses an untapped market, given their ratings I think they clearly do. I would put forth that the "surest way" to "destroy" Fox is to address the gaps in one's coverage. If CNN, NBC, et al actually address those who lean right in our country, Fox would have been necessary. Yet, those organization, and the Left as a whole don't see that failing, they speak as if it is a failing of those others for "flawed thinking".
So here we are now, everyone is so entrenched in their ideological thinking, that they can't see that maybe others have valid ideas too. We have become so afraid to be wrong that anyone who can bring up that possibility must be "destroyed" to protect a potentially flawed ideology. There is no growth anymore in this country. One side must win; the other must lose. There is no compromise, there isn't even any real conversations. Promises are made, but not kept. Offers are made with no real intent to follow through.
People change over time on a personal level. As we experience the world, we look at it differently. Our interactions change, our relationships change, and yes our politics change. If this change can happen to us on an individual level, why can't it on a political level. We heard 15 years ago that we would have a permanent Republican majority, now we hear it will be a permanent Democrat one. The problem is that those in power only address those that voted for them and will always do so (i.e. the base). This alienates most of the country, as while there are those entrenched in the ideology of the opposition, most of the country will sway back and forth between parties. This was shown in the "Reagan democrats" and those Republicans who voted for President Obama. They are labeled as independents, but given that they really are the majority, shouldn't they be labeled as such. Instead of addressing their needs, both parties seem to want to bring them in the fold not by showing the value of the party's ideas, but by belittling the oppositions.
Why is this so? Debate is what made this country great. Having the ideas of Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Washington, to name a few, created our great nation. These individuals have very diverse ideologies, but instead of starting with what separates them, they looked at what brought them together and worked from there. This country was founded with checks and balances and that is how we should continue to govern this country. That, I believe, is the actual purpose of the political parties. They should check the most radical ideas of each other. Yet they don't and because of this, we have wild swings in power every 10 years or so. This is sad. I feel that we have failed those who gave their freedom and their lives to give us what we have today.
Personal reflection leads to personal strength. Those that can debate their ideas and LISTEN to those who don't agree show the courage of their convictions. Working towards a common goal, the betterment of this great country" should be the primary goal. Unfortunately, it is not anymore. Why?
