Thoughts On "10 Things That Aren't Going to Stop Bush"
Hey, lookee here! Two posts in the same day! What the Hell is this world coming to!?
Well, just after I posted my little personal note below, I surfed on over to one of my favorite comedy websites, Blagg Blogg. It is usually a source of witty, humorous posts that often have me laughing at loud (sometimes while I was at the office, pretending to do work-- when I had a job, that is). However, today, I want to comment briefly on Alex Blagg's seemingly serious, non comedic moment of introspection, 10 Things That Aren't Going to Stop Bush.
It is an interesting list, and there are things that I definitely agree with contained in it-- protesting, especially in liberal cities such as San Francisco or even New York City is probably an exercise in futility, as is clever bumper stickers or being punk rock. And his point about the Democrats is fairly spot on. However, I want to comment on a few of his points (although I may be engaging in a futile exercise as well, given that it may have been written simply for comedys sake).
"2. Blogging (unless you're Atrios)
I recently spent about 3 hours deleting the first year or so of this blog, which consisted of hundreds of pointless posts where I wasted word upon word, naively trying to demonstrate and argue the fact that George W. Bush is hell-bent on destroying civilization as we know it. Every day there are political blogs, message boards and "news portals" where idiots on the left and idiots on the right incessantly argue irrelevant talking points, reveling in their mutual self-righteous idiocy, never once grasping the nature of this irony. Those of you who know me are probably thinking to yourselves, "you used to be one of those idiots". Well, I can admit when I'm wrong. Instead of banging out angry blog posts about Bush's Evil, try reaching out to those whose opinions differ from your own and engaging them in a calm, rational, civilized discussion. Chances are your points will be better received."
I understand where he's coming from here. However, there is a reason why I read blogs like firedoglake or Talking Points Memo or Altercation (and a reason why they're all featured on my blogroll, kids). And it's not because these people are engaging in simple, "angry blog posts about Bush's evil." Believe me, if these and other blogs were the equivalent of taking a can of spray paint and writing "Fuck Bush" graffiti on the overpass of the internet highway, I wouldn't waste my time reading them.
Rather, I read these blogs because they educate me. In a time when you can't hardly trust your professional media anymore, I depend on these sites not only for information, but to cut through the bullshit and bring out the relevant points routinely lost in the morass of political discourse, something which our supposedly liberal mainstream media seemingly refuses to do these days. If The New York Times won't do it, I'm glad there are people around like Eric Alterman, Jame Hamsher, and Josh Marshall to do it. I and anyone who reads these and other blogs like it are smarter, more well-informed, and more prepared for upcoming arguments/discussions/3 AM drunken state of the world conversations/shouting matches than before.
Usually, these blogs do not descend into "self-righteous idiocy," but are more concerned with doing just what Alex desires: "engaging in calm, rational, civilized, discussion." Because quite frankly, I can't talk to every conservative in this manner (and honestly, I'm not so sure I'd like to even if I could). However, by throwing up opinions on the internet (on anything, not just politics), that's what I'm trying to do here. Engage in discussion. There's a reason why my blog is titled Mental Sword Fighting-- you're supposed to do a little thinking, even if it is something as basic as "Hmmm. that new Ivy disc sounds really cool, maybe I should go pick it up!" Ideally, we'd even have a few arguments here and there, get into some actual debate (although I understand that the likelihood of this is limited by the low traffic this blog gets and the fact that I spend large portions of my time writing about music, a subject which is probably not gonna get you all hot and bother and fighting mad-- unless you're me).
"7. Michael Moore
My friend Merkley??? summed it up pretty well himself, but the fact is that Michael Moore is the fucking Disney brand of Liberalism. Literally. He appeals to people who prefer to blindly adopt the opinions of others as opposed to forming their own. His movies are manipulative, poorly researched and are about as objective and unbiased as Mein Kampf."
All of which is true. One of the most illuminating things about Fahrenheit 9/11 for me was seeing it with a few friends of mine who were/are anti-Bush like myself, but were not nearly as into politics or knowledgeable on these issues as I was/am (not trying to toot my own horn here). It wasn't that these people hadn't ever heard these things before, or that I spent the next hour or so after the movie on my friends porch holding court on a discussion group on these issues, pointing out the instances where Moore was biased, or where he was grasping at straws and over reaching in his conclusions. No, that was actually fun, I enjoy doing that (and hey, it's not the fault of my friends that they didn't take several upper level political science seminars and thus don't understand international relations theory or high handed political maneuvering).
No, the most illuminating moment was when we were walking out of the theater, and my friend turned to me and said "Ya know, now I'm actually gonna vote."
That statement left me flabbergasted. I couldn't believe that there was anyone in America, let alone anyone my age, who needed to be convinced to vote in this past election. Or that Fahrenheit 9/11 would be necessary simply to convince people that voting was important.
That got me thinking. Part of what makes the right so successful is that they have an untold number of spinmeisters out there, like Robert Novak or even (shudder to think) Bill O'Reilly, who simply scream and scream and scream and bludgeon you to death with their arguments. Does it matter that, often times these people blatantly lie or engage in other forms of idiocy. Rather, its the simple fact that these guys exist, and that people believe them. When you've got a major media outlet like Fox News acting as a propaganda arm for the Republican party, that's a problem.
Enter Michael Moore. Yeah, he's a bomb thrower, and yeah, his positions are often somewhat tenuous as well as extremely biased. But this is exactly what the Left needs-- someone to counter the Fox News Brigade, someone to out-O'Reilly O'Reilly (without the sex scandals, natch). If the success of Fox News has proved anything, it's that the majority of Americans are lazy and aren't going to have Media Matters bookmarked, so that they can sift through the lies and pomp and circumstance to get at the real truth.
Unfortunately, due to the inherent laziness of the American people, as well as the fact that the mainstream media seems to be asleep at the wheel, you need Michael Moore. Because this is what passes for political discourse in America, circa 2005: two or three talking heads screaming at each other, trying to beat each other down with the massive weight of their excess verbiage. The left cannot simply surrender this position to the right, as politics (like everything else), has largely become about public relations. It matters less what you are really doing, but more about how you can dress it up and present it to the public. And Moore is a master of doing this and getting people to watch. So, while Moore may be pompous and over reaching in his assertions, he's a necessary evil in order to present differing opinions and attempt to drown out O'Reilly, Novak, and all the rest.
(All of the above points have probably been made before and made better than I just did, particularly around the time Fahrenheit first dropped, but it was a topic of discussion so I figured I'd take it there).
"9. Your Liberal Hubris
The reason the left is unable to garner support among a broader range of American voters is quite simple - we treat the right with condescension and hostility. The fact is, most of the people in this country didn't go to college, don't listen to Radiohead, don't read books without raised lettering on the cover and don't ever think to question what they're told on television. So rather than angrily dismissing these people, try respectfully explaining the reasons why you believe what you believe."
I agree. Indirectly, Alex here supports my point about Michael Moore. He notes that "most of the people in this country... don't ever think to question what they're told on television." Exactly. If people start just blindly accepting what Al Franken or Michael Moore told them, rather than Bill O'Reilly, the left would be in a better spot. It's not exactly the kind of Republic I'd want to live in, where people just mindlessly accept everything they're told as long as it comes from a source they trust (be that source George W. Bush, The New York Times, Fox News, etc.), but it's essentially the Republic we're getting with a large portion of this country. Understanding that, I'd rather all these accepting individuals listen to Michael Moore and vote Democrat, rather than Robert Novak and vote Republican.
All in all, Alex is right tho-- the left does need to do a better job of reaching out to people and getting its message across. However, how do you have a rational discussion with people who, when you try to talk with them about matters of substance, tell you that they don't read The New York Times but rather get their information from fucking Ann Coulter books (as I personally have been told)? How do you engage in debate with someone from the O'Reilly school of debate, which consists of screaming and browbeating your conversation mate until they throw up their hands and go "Fuck it, you win, I just don't care anymore"?
Like I said earlier, most of the blogs I read do a good job of presenting the issues in a rational manner, but who on the right is gonna read them? I know I don't read right-leaning blogs, because frankly I don't care about their opinion or the way it's being spun in the right wind community. I'd rather read about issues that matter to me, and learn more about them so that I can engage in discussion as a more well informed, rational individual.
I dunno if this post makes any sense, and alot of these points no doubt have been made elsewhere by people who've thought about this longer than I have, particularly in the first few weeks after the election. However, Alex's blog post got me thinking (got me itching to do a little mental sword fighting, eh?), so I felt like writing about. Feel free to discuss in the comments section.
Well, just after I posted my little personal note below, I surfed on over to one of my favorite comedy websites, Blagg Blogg. It is usually a source of witty, humorous posts that often have me laughing at loud (sometimes while I was at the office, pretending to do work-- when I had a job, that is). However, today, I want to comment briefly on Alex Blagg's seemingly serious, non comedic moment of introspection, 10 Things That Aren't Going to Stop Bush.
It is an interesting list, and there are things that I definitely agree with contained in it-- protesting, especially in liberal cities such as San Francisco or even New York City is probably an exercise in futility, as is clever bumper stickers or being punk rock. And his point about the Democrats is fairly spot on. However, I want to comment on a few of his points (although I may be engaging in a futile exercise as well, given that it may have been written simply for comedys sake).
"2. Blogging (unless you're Atrios)
I recently spent about 3 hours deleting the first year or so of this blog, which consisted of hundreds of pointless posts where I wasted word upon word, naively trying to demonstrate and argue the fact that George W. Bush is hell-bent on destroying civilization as we know it. Every day there are political blogs, message boards and "news portals" where idiots on the left and idiots on the right incessantly argue irrelevant talking points, reveling in their mutual self-righteous idiocy, never once grasping the nature of this irony. Those of you who know me are probably thinking to yourselves, "you used to be one of those idiots". Well, I can admit when I'm wrong. Instead of banging out angry blog posts about Bush's Evil, try reaching out to those whose opinions differ from your own and engaging them in a calm, rational, civilized discussion. Chances are your points will be better received."
I understand where he's coming from here. However, there is a reason why I read blogs like firedoglake or Talking Points Memo or Altercation (and a reason why they're all featured on my blogroll, kids). And it's not because these people are engaging in simple, "angry blog posts about Bush's evil." Believe me, if these and other blogs were the equivalent of taking a can of spray paint and writing "Fuck Bush" graffiti on the overpass of the internet highway, I wouldn't waste my time reading them.
Rather, I read these blogs because they educate me. In a time when you can't hardly trust your professional media anymore, I depend on these sites not only for information, but to cut through the bullshit and bring out the relevant points routinely lost in the morass of political discourse, something which our supposedly liberal mainstream media seemingly refuses to do these days. If The New York Times won't do it, I'm glad there are people around like Eric Alterman, Jame Hamsher, and Josh Marshall to do it. I and anyone who reads these and other blogs like it are smarter, more well-informed, and more prepared for upcoming arguments/discussions/3 AM drunken state of the world conversations/shouting matches than before.
Usually, these blogs do not descend into "self-righteous idiocy," but are more concerned with doing just what Alex desires: "engaging in calm, rational, civilized, discussion." Because quite frankly, I can't talk to every conservative in this manner (and honestly, I'm not so sure I'd like to even if I could). However, by throwing up opinions on the internet (on anything, not just politics), that's what I'm trying to do here. Engage in discussion. There's a reason why my blog is titled Mental Sword Fighting-- you're supposed to do a little thinking, even if it is something as basic as "Hmmm. that new Ivy disc sounds really cool, maybe I should go pick it up!" Ideally, we'd even have a few arguments here and there, get into some actual debate (although I understand that the likelihood of this is limited by the low traffic this blog gets and the fact that I spend large portions of my time writing about music, a subject which is probably not gonna get you all hot and bother and fighting mad-- unless you're me).
"7. Michael Moore
My friend Merkley??? summed it up pretty well himself, but the fact is that Michael Moore is the fucking Disney brand of Liberalism. Literally. He appeals to people who prefer to blindly adopt the opinions of others as opposed to forming their own. His movies are manipulative, poorly researched and are about as objective and unbiased as Mein Kampf."
All of which is true. One of the most illuminating things about Fahrenheit 9/11 for me was seeing it with a few friends of mine who were/are anti-Bush like myself, but were not nearly as into politics or knowledgeable on these issues as I was/am (not trying to toot my own horn here). It wasn't that these people hadn't ever heard these things before, or that I spent the next hour or so after the movie on my friends porch holding court on a discussion group on these issues, pointing out the instances where Moore was biased, or where he was grasping at straws and over reaching in his conclusions. No, that was actually fun, I enjoy doing that (and hey, it's not the fault of my friends that they didn't take several upper level political science seminars and thus don't understand international relations theory or high handed political maneuvering).
No, the most illuminating moment was when we were walking out of the theater, and my friend turned to me and said "Ya know, now I'm actually gonna vote."
That statement left me flabbergasted. I couldn't believe that there was anyone in America, let alone anyone my age, who needed to be convinced to vote in this past election. Or that Fahrenheit 9/11 would be necessary simply to convince people that voting was important.
That got me thinking. Part of what makes the right so successful is that they have an untold number of spinmeisters out there, like Robert Novak or even (shudder to think) Bill O'Reilly, who simply scream and scream and scream and bludgeon you to death with their arguments. Does it matter that, often times these people blatantly lie or engage in other forms of idiocy. Rather, its the simple fact that these guys exist, and that people believe them. When you've got a major media outlet like Fox News acting as a propaganda arm for the Republican party, that's a problem.
Enter Michael Moore. Yeah, he's a bomb thrower, and yeah, his positions are often somewhat tenuous as well as extremely biased. But this is exactly what the Left needs-- someone to counter the Fox News Brigade, someone to out-O'Reilly O'Reilly (without the sex scandals, natch). If the success of Fox News has proved anything, it's that the majority of Americans are lazy and aren't going to have Media Matters bookmarked, so that they can sift through the lies and pomp and circumstance to get at the real truth.
Unfortunately, due to the inherent laziness of the American people, as well as the fact that the mainstream media seems to be asleep at the wheel, you need Michael Moore. Because this is what passes for political discourse in America, circa 2005: two or three talking heads screaming at each other, trying to beat each other down with the massive weight of their excess verbiage. The left cannot simply surrender this position to the right, as politics (like everything else), has largely become about public relations. It matters less what you are really doing, but more about how you can dress it up and present it to the public. And Moore is a master of doing this and getting people to watch. So, while Moore may be pompous and over reaching in his assertions, he's a necessary evil in order to present differing opinions and attempt to drown out O'Reilly, Novak, and all the rest.
(All of the above points have probably been made before and made better than I just did, particularly around the time Fahrenheit first dropped, but it was a topic of discussion so I figured I'd take it there).
"9. Your Liberal Hubris
The reason the left is unable to garner support among a broader range of American voters is quite simple - we treat the right with condescension and hostility. The fact is, most of the people in this country didn't go to college, don't listen to Radiohead, don't read books without raised lettering on the cover and don't ever think to question what they're told on television. So rather than angrily dismissing these people, try respectfully explaining the reasons why you believe what you believe."
I agree. Indirectly, Alex here supports my point about Michael Moore. He notes that "most of the people in this country... don't ever think to question what they're told on television." Exactly. If people start just blindly accepting what Al Franken or Michael Moore told them, rather than Bill O'Reilly, the left would be in a better spot. It's not exactly the kind of Republic I'd want to live in, where people just mindlessly accept everything they're told as long as it comes from a source they trust (be that source George W. Bush, The New York Times, Fox News, etc.), but it's essentially the Republic we're getting with a large portion of this country. Understanding that, I'd rather all these accepting individuals listen to Michael Moore and vote Democrat, rather than Robert Novak and vote Republican.
All in all, Alex is right tho-- the left does need to do a better job of reaching out to people and getting its message across. However, how do you have a rational discussion with people who, when you try to talk with them about matters of substance, tell you that they don't read The New York Times but rather get their information from fucking Ann Coulter books (as I personally have been told)? How do you engage in debate with someone from the O'Reilly school of debate, which consists of screaming and browbeating your conversation mate until they throw up their hands and go "Fuck it, you win, I just don't care anymore"?
Like I said earlier, most of the blogs I read do a good job of presenting the issues in a rational manner, but who on the right is gonna read them? I know I don't read right-leaning blogs, because frankly I don't care about their opinion or the way it's being spun in the right wind community. I'd rather read about issues that matter to me, and learn more about them so that I can engage in discussion as a more well informed, rational individual.
I dunno if this post makes any sense, and alot of these points no doubt have been made elsewhere by people who've thought about this longer than I have, particularly in the first few weeks after the election. However, Alex's blog post got me thinking (got me itching to do a little mental sword fighting, eh?), so I felt like writing about. Feel free to discuss in the comments section.
posted by Black Charles at 11:43 AM
2 Comments:
My two cents:
1. You should always be reading views from both sides of the political spectrum. In fact getting an international point of view by reading say... a british publication is also helpful.
2. Micheal Moore is a fucking moron!
Sorry nothing insightful, just my opinion on the matter. Politics in this country really make me mad. People to often only look at issues by party line, rather then stepping back and looking at the facts from all prospectives. Bush has brought several really great ideas to the table that get shot down becuase his retarded stances on Gays, Abortion, The Environment and Stem Cell Research. It's amazing that anything ever gets accomplished in this country.
Chris,
Michael More is indeed a fucking moron, unfortunately so are an overwhelming majority of our country. Sadly not too many middle Americans respond well to carefully pointed discussion on how our history in par with our culture (still developing) and our financial capabilities have created absolute mayhem at home and abroad. What they do respond to is people like Mike More, who although bias, is entertaining and instigative enough to get that nationalistic blood pumping and get these people out of their lazy boys and into the voting booths.
If Mike More is what it takes, then god bless.
But those are just my thoughts...feel free to disagree.
-M
Post a Comment
<< Home