|
I agree with you: a little opposition research is always required for a healthy understanding of the human discourse. In fact, I take issue with some DUers and their aversion to visiting FreeRepublic (or any other rabidly right-wing site) every once in a while, just to see how we're being perceived.
However, my greater problem is with those who turn on cable news and take it seriously; as though the networks have some unspoken, sworn duty to convey hard information to the American people, and they're inexplicably falling short of fulfilling that expectation.
My take is that there is deliberate misinformation going on, consisting of 24/7 right-wing reframing of even the most basic of debates, and it's very easy to get caught in the cycle of either believing what is being said, or becoming incredibly angry at those who do. Even at the expense of personal relationships.
The first step to counter the arguments of an individual who brings up, say, as an example, Teresa Heinz Kerry as a focal point of concern amidst our situation of constitutional crisis, is not to say: "Well, here are some positive points about Teresa Heinz Kerry, and I think you'd agree." But rather, to say: "I don't know why the hell you're focusing on trivialities like Teresa Heinz Kerry when X, Y and Z are problems which should be of much greater concern than such tabloid trivialities as a potential president's wife."
Such is true with countering any political distraction. Perspective is the key, and, unfortunately, the networks provide none.
We cannot keep working within the frame which is being created for us. What the body of the right wing has proven over the past decades, more than anything, is that it is adept at creating frames. If we want to put on MSNBC-sponsored boxing gloves and fight it out with idiots who think the second coming of Christ is about to occur, then we are bound to lose -- not because we lack in logic, but because we have chosen to fight on their turf, with their rules, which are invariably rigged in their favor.
It is very possible that these pundits are the "out-of-touch" ones, and that they represent nought but the interests of their overseers, which, in turn, represent the interests of the Fortune 500.
By steering the water-cooler discourse of middle-class America, they are creating mouthpieces for their own narrow set of values. And they can only steer these conversations if we allow them to. I suggest that we categorically reject their values, and thusly their networks, and refuse to engage in the petty distractions of the Scarboroughs and Hannities of the world.
|