Rehtoric or “What I Want to Hear”

It’s that time of the year again.  Candidates solidified, conventions finished, and my father and I immediately begin debating the merits of various candidates.  We have civil debates and, as much as the adage insists that politics and religion don’t belong at the dinner table, they’ve never distracted from the taste of steak and wine for us.

As a nation, though, I’m not so sure civil debates are possible.  In The Atlantic this month, James Fallows has watched all the debates of the campaigning season, a staggering 47, in an effort to see if there is any value in a candidates rhetoric vis-a-vis his or her campaign and potentially competency. The result is more telling about the current standard we the people hold our moderators and the press to than any true insight into candidates perceived abilities.  CNN and ABC have a considerable amount to be ashamed of.

I don’t quite know how to express my disgust at hand-raising yes or no questions.  What does that tell me about what a candidate thinks?  Or, more importantly from what a debate reveals, how a candidate thinks.  We are, after all, looking at someone to lead us and make decisions.  I want to know how he or she will make these decisions, not how he or she will raise a hand so that lazy journalists can opine with simpler efficiency.  I picture this leading to a culturally vapid future where our great leaders are sculpted in marble with their heroic hands thrust high in the air indicating yes, or, gasp, no.

As sensationalist as that is, the true show stopper is the complete lack of consistency or reasoning from (who else) Fox News analysts.  No one makes a better argument for the perils of free speech than this station.  The humor of the Daily Show presents hypocrisy with hilarity, but after the laughs are over, we should grumble at the sad feeling in the pit of our stomachs.

There is asbolutely no desire here to be consistent in reasoning. What saddens me is that the viewership of this station, instead of being insulted by its disregard for their intelligence, is sated by the constant stream of exactly what they want to hear.

The true loser in this affair are actual conservatives who hold to the republican party’s root values of limited government and individual self-reliance.  More and more, the voice of that party is verbal morphine.  Why look for yourself, why hear for yourself, why think for yourself, when someone can tell you what you want to hear?  Is it an exact contradiction of what you wanted to hear 3 months ago?  So what.

The sad irony behind this is that it is just this kind of easy-answer rhetoric that is the root of the problems its perpetrators are attacking.  It serves to disrupt the flow of news.  This is not reporting, because that would require thinking for oneself.  Everything broadcast here is intended as thinking for everyone else.  Independent ideas are a product of freedom, it’s probably about time people seize on that.  I can’t help but recall a campfire conversation from Easy Rider.

Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom?  That’s what it’s all about

George: Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s what’s it’s all about, all right. But talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things. I mean, it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don’t ever tell anybody that they’re not free, ’cause then they’re gonna get real busy killin’ and maimin’ to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they’re gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom.

Really? Her?

Three cheers for the Economist and once again taking the words right out of my mouth.

This perfectly hits every one of my problems with the Palin selection. Regardless of questions of her experience and ability, what this reveals is how backwards McCain’s team’s thought process functions (if it functions at all).

You HAVE the republican vote. You NEED the independent vote. Who the hell is advising this man? How do you not choose Tom Ridge? Do people really think that Pro-Life republican voters are going to be so angry they’ll vote for pro-choice democrats?

Talk about getting the paradigm wrong. Karl Rove has left in his odious wake the most moronic disciples around. Kind of reminds me of the Monty Python monks chanting and smacking their faces with books.