Let's assume for a moment that we want to have unbiased information for making decisions. I don't know that this is a good assumption, but it is a premise. If that were true, then we would want to have information that laid out fact and accurately portrayed numbers and statistics.
Unfortunately, beyond the difficulty of finding such information, there is a growing reliance in this country on conflated information that is tailored to the desires of the recipient. I would submit the entire content of MSNBC and Fox News as examples. You can watch reporting and information on the same story on both networks, and find opposing numbers, statistics and "facts".
Most of my friends are happy to agree that MSNBC is highly biased. CNN as well. Less often do I hear recognition of the opposing bias at Fox. When I do, I literally get told it is necessary to balance the scale. People listen to the advertising and forget to engage their discernment. Fair and balanced has never been true, on any of those networks.
I am not condemning anyone that watches Fox or MSNBC. All I am saying is that we cannot assume unbiased information from those sources, and when we cite those sources as incontrovertible proof of our point, we are actually contradicting ourselves. It is not that there is not some fact found on both channels, there is. But it is couched in opinion, and explored as part of dogma. Very, very dangerous fuel for politics. The foggy memory most of us have about hearing about yellow journalism in the role of politics and the reform movement. (Yes, I see you kind of nodding..) This era is the electronic version of that print era.
It was dangerous then, as it poorly informed an electorate that came to regret some of the candidates and positions that it came to favor from that biased journalism. I would just urge you to not take what you hear on any of these channels as gospel for your vote. They are telling you a piece of a story that does not contain all the context. For example, the "budget deal" that just got passed by the Senate. It is a "kick the can" event for both sides of the dial. You will hear that phrase equally as many times on Fox as on MSNBC. Nothing that meets either ideal, or gains either side superiority in the ongoing cage match for hearts and minds.
For 2 centuries, we celebrated that kind of legislation as the hallmark as to the strength of our governmental design. We did not all win, 100% of the time. We got some of the most urgent of our desires, while subscribing to the sense of some of the most urgent ideals of the other side of the debate. We used to be able to see sense in the opposition argument. Whether we agreed or not, we did understand their point and their position. Today, it is a violation of what it means to be an American to have some kind of accord with the other side of the aisle. It has cost the Speaker his job, and all but crippled the Presidency.
I urge you, do not be lulled into believing the all or nothing argument you are hearing articulated throughout this campaign. It is lunacy and won't happen. We are not built that way on purpose. Understand that basic compromise is essential and welcome. The opposition is what keeps us in the land of reality. The candidates that demand 100% of their program and swear they can accomplish it, are LYING to you. Whether that is Clinton, Sanders, Trump or Cruz, it is a lie. The last eight years are proof.
Look for a candidate that does not fit into the Fox or MSNBC windows. That is where we all live, every day. I think that sanctuary cities are incredibly dangerous and illegal. At the same time, I understand the reality of dealing with 12 million people that are here already. I won't get my whole agenda accomplished, it is impractical and impossible. Part of what the other sides of the argument want are necessary counterbalance.
The same goes with entitlements. I think that the ballooning entitlement spending is the number one risk to our national security. I also think that giving any of that over to the unprosecuted criminals that gave you the 2008 economic collapse, in the private sector, would be an even bigger risk. There is a place in the middle, and some of both sides of the conversation is going to be required.
Look for that candidate. There are some out there, Kasich, Webb, Christie. They recognize that they must work with others, that there is a path to accord, not mutually assured destruction. Our politics should not resemble a replay of the US/Soviet Cold War. These are good people on both sides of the aisle that grasp equally valid images of the total solution. Melding those images together is supposed to the be the American super power. At least it used to be, and can be again.
Think for your self, if it sounds too good to be true, or too crazy to be possible, you are right. No matter how much you want it or fear it, you know deep down that we are not going to get it. Trump will not get Mexico to build us a wall. Creepy lunacy. Sanders will never get college to be free in this country. Crazy lunacy. But, somewhere short of the lunatic line we will find the solution, if America is to survive.
That should be what we are hoping for, and electing people to do. Electing someone because of their desire to never bend, is electing someone that would be comfortable as a tyrant. And, it does not matter if they are inflexible on the right or left of the issue. Tyrants are supposed to be a huge allergy for our nation, so I don't understand the attraction we have for those wanting to see that kind of structure. It is scary.
God loves your and so do I. He does not love this country. He loves the people, the right thinking and pragmatic people that made us the standard in education, quality of life and potential at one point. God does not love our government, or our nation. But He loves us, and He expects us to do a better job of using that intellect and choice He gave us. Please, because this is starting to get ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment