A close friend of mine finally registered to vote last week, catalized in part by the fact that I know and talk quite a lot about political issues. As she did so and started studying issues and candidates, she asked me what advice I gave her. My answer surprised me, but I'll share it with you because it's how I keep my sanity during insane times.
"Pay no attention to advertisements or news reports during the last 30 days before the election. Quite frequently, they will cast untrue aspersions designed to rile up emotions with timing that prevents their opponent from reacting and assuaging concerns. If it was true and really important, we'd know sooner. The so-called 'October surprise' is more approriately often the 'October Lies'."
We're getting very close to that point. It's only September, but it will be October soon enough, and then we'll hear all sorts of things that are half truths and whole lies. We'll hear all sorts of things about Candidate X or Senator Y that are not true or that are only true without the rest of the story to back it up. This is done in a calculated manner, and it's the reason I told my students last week to do their own homework. That's always good advice. You won't have anyone or anything in the voting booth with you, and if you haven't educated yourself, you're really casting a second vote for the opinions of someone else.
Far too much of what I read on the internet is nothing more than editorials masquerading as facts. Even if the counterarguments offered are true, they frequently do not actually refute the original claims. More often than not, the 'fact checkers' are partisan. I even read a story yesterday about fact checking the fact checkers, because again as I tell my students everyone has an agenda. Some of them have ulterior motives. When I read things, I have come to adopt the attitude that they might be right. Far too often, the people who say those things are not willing to return the favor.
Bishop Stendahl, part of Harvard's Divinity School until of late, explained his three rules for all discourse. First, you do not ask a detractor for objective information about his opponents. You see, we typically get inaccurate and emotional charicatures from people who do not know or do not like what they are asked to describe. To the good Bishop, asking one group to describe another invites them to violate the commandment that states, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Frequently they are far too eager to do precisely that. Secondly, you do not compare your strengths to their weaknesses. That sets up an adversarial relationship that introduces inequities from the outset of discourse. It's a gross violation to skew the direction to the most favorable light for yourself without returned the favor. Finally, he asks us to leave room for what he calls "holy envy". If there's something virtuous or of good report or praiseworthy, adopt it and emulate it.
Then again, the problem may lie in the fact that too many government officials are lawyers. You see, law is the art of rhetoric, where the best argument prevails rather than the true one. Some Greek philosophers considered rhetoric to be an evil advancement of discourse and warned people to reject it. After all, lawyers are the best liars; for a sum of money, they will say whatever you ask.
It has been said that while you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Even if what you bring is factual, it does not excuse you ignoring other facts that don't corroborate what you already happen to believe. Most people I hear investigate only what validates them while ignoring everything else. This they call being 'open minded' or they will read the opposing viewpoint looking for things to prove it's not true. You see, the more I teach, the more I realize that people are not really looking for truth; they secretly hope the truth will corroborate what they already happen to believe. They bend facts to fit theories and ignore other facts as "right wing conspiracy theories" or other emotionally-charged phraseology.
Fact check the fact checkers. I frequently ask people to, as I often do, cite their source. Then at least you know if they're valid or biased or well rounded in their argumentation. If you do not, you are not speaking your mind; you are speaking theirs. Sayest thou this of thyself or did others tell it thee? That doesn't make you a person; it makes you a puppet.
I will close with this fascinating verse from Job:
Who is this that darkeneth counsels by words without knowledge? Arise, gird up thy loins like a man and answer thou me. --Job 38:2-3
Far too many people speak "words without knowledge". They do not have any firsthand knowledge. Come look at my bookshelf and flip through the books. You can tell I have read them because I annotate them. My handwriting is distinctly awful, but it's mine. I do not let other people tell me that Jefferson or Lincoln or Eastwood said such-and-such; I actually buy books to find out what they said and in what context it was said, and then, even when I wish it were a real quote, I call out those who pass on these inaccuracies. I am looking for truth. I can handle the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment