"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information in the recently concluded presidential election and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren’t told the truth. We’re communicators, and it’s up to us to start doing it now.Her argument is that Americans don't think. That both sides of the political fence are reactionary and myopic, refusing to change their opinion about a subject in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. I've experienced first-hand on more occasions than I can count this exact phenomenon. I have literally run right up against this with good and dear friends of mine, and have gotten so frustrated that now I just loudly pontificate and swear so as to state my opinion not caring at all about what they have to say to the matter (not the most constructive use of my time I agree, nor is it polite), because it's pointless to invite discussion. I've put in the time, argued their points back at them, used their own reasoning to refute their positions and in the end I still get the same dismissive, "I just don't agree."
I happen to live in leftist-central, Alachua County Florida, so the issues are usually leftist in nature: historic districts infringing on property rights, education for poor people, the evil republican state legislature, Wal-Mart and so on. And, it's amazing how normally intelligent and thoughtful people become blindingly stupid the minute you question one of their pet government projects.
For instance, I have a friend who has a strong need to hold onto the past. He cares deeply about holding onto things that existed previously. I don't in any way begrudge him this, as a matter of fact I applaud it, simply because I don't care that much about these things. But, I take exception when he advocates taking people's property to do so. So, you can imagine how bitter the arguments are when I question expanding the Historic District of Gainesville unnecessary and wrong. Unnecessary because there are plenty of like-minded people who could form an association to buy up and restore those houses without state funds, and wrong because zoning is an indirect form of theft. The worst part of his argument is, "But, everywhere there's an Historic District home values go up, so there's a demand for such things." The counter to that is, of course there is, it's similar to gated communities (that he despises), people with capital want some guarantee, but in driving up home values are you not also driving up the property taxes? And, by doing so aren't you destroying the neighborhood? Those who can't afford to either comply with the zoning rules or the increased tax assessment will have to sell their homes. So, you've traded (over the course of time) the appearance of a neighborhood for the contents thereof. In the end, it's pretty much a racist issue. Higher income families want to drive the lower income families out of the neighborhood using the cover of 'historic preservation' to sell it to the local governments, who love the idea because their budgets increase when the land values do. It's the worst kind of corruption, and it makes me sick to my stomach. This analysis was dismissed with a wave of his hand and an "I don't agree. Historic Districts are good things." My reply was an unkind, "Yeah, of course it is, your parents live in one." Sometimes I wonder how we remain friends, to be honest, because frankly, I am not always a terribly nice person.
I've had similarly rancorous arguments with my mother over issues concerning the Bush administration and their polices thereof. And, again, I wasn't kind (and sometimes purposefully so, unfortunately) because sometimes a cut that deep may create some doubt and open a person up. Most of the time it's just rude.
But, back to the matter at hand. Ms. Katz does a great job of defining part of the problem, and another good friend of mine and I have been discussing this very thing for years. Most people are locked into a simple binary style of thinking. The logical fallacy of "If not A then B." For example, if you're NOT a Democrat then you ARE a Republican. If you're NOT in favor of tax increases for more public parks, then you are anti-community. She's right that the structure of our discourse is so simplistic that it's impossible to actually communicate with anyone, and with this approach all-too-common it's going to take a long and hard struggle to effect any real change in politics. And, as I mull a decision to run for political office again, I have to remind myself that my patience in the face of this has got to be better than it's been recently.
What I've described above is inflexible thinking. Robert Anton Wilson has a great book called Prometheus Rising wherein he decsribes the human brain as having two parts, the thinker and the prover. And, most, if not all, human behavior can be described by the following axiom:
What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.
Most people are inflexible, static personalities that cannot grasp an alternate approach to a problem. Check out Leaty Interpersonal Grid on page 76 of that .pdf. See if you can find yourself there. The chapter leading up to that is fascinating and revealing. Most people are stuck in one quadrant of the chart, if not one subsection thereof, and that's what we run into when arguing about politics and breaking those personality barriers down is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Change is scary and critical thinking requires a flexible and adaptable mind, without that capacity meaningful communication is the exception rather than the norm.
Ta,
Comments