Post by Hussar on Feb 2, 2005 4:09:38 GMT -5
Thinking about it, I finally understand something that 's been puzzling me for some time now. I've often wondered how we've gotten to the point where our countries are being run by the town elders from Footloose. I mean, there has always been a strong conservative sentiment in most western countries. And there should be. Conservatives have lots to be proud of. That's never been a surprise. What has been a surprise though, is the trend over the past decade or so towards this sort of extreme conservativism where we have allowed the loudest voices to speak for us instead of the voices we might agree with.
It's volume.
The far right, and by that I mean the extremists who refuse to accept that any other point of view may have validity, have figured out a very effective tactic. Simply shout as loud as you can for as long as you can and refuse to allow anyone else to make a point. Repeat the same thing over and over and over and eventually people will agree with you, not because they think you're right, but because they are tired of fighting over it. The trick is to never, ever admit to being wrong and never stop shouting.
We've seen it in the Bush administration. Bush repeatedly stated that Hussein was closely linked with OBL. This was proven to be false. Yet, even after it was proven false, Bush still maintained the link. It wasn't until challenged on it just before the election that he performed a flip flop worthy of John Kerry and stated that he had never drawn a link before. To this day, supporters of the war in Iraq continue to see it as part of the War on Terror. Yet Hussein had few if any links to terrorism and certainly no links to extreme Islam considering that Islamic extremists would see him as as much of an enemy as the west.
And, if you look at the terrorism occuring in Iraq, much of it is being led by non-Iraqis like Al Zakari. Yet supporters of the war insist that the war in Iraq was a blow to terrorism.
Pick up the local paper and you can see it. Extreme conservatives continue diatribes against whichever issue without any attempt at any sort of consensus building or cooperation. Unilateral action seems to be the standard policy. Whether it's on the international stage or local. We have let the loudest and most annoying amongst us run our countries. Canada is hardly exempt from this. Current debates are rife with both sides entrenching themselves deeper and deeper.
I remember watching a discussion a while ago with parent groups and the teachers union. The teacher's union rep got up and stated something. I can't recall what now, it's not that important. The parent's group rep stood up and said, "You are 100% wrong."
See, that's extremely difficult. Being 100% wrong is something you have to work at. Despite my feelings about certain politicians, I would never claim that they are 100% wrong. I might disagree and I might question their conclusions, but, unless they've gone way off into la la land, very very few people are ever 100% wrong.
Why have our societies gotten to the point where we refuse to compromise? Is it because of TV? We've watched Jerry Springer one too many times and now we cannot discuss only explode into mindless ravings against the "other" side? When did we stop trying to work together and created a zero sum game where there must be winners and losers in every issue? Why the heck to we listen to the idiots among us just because they happen to be louder than the rest?
It's volume.
The far right, and by that I mean the extremists who refuse to accept that any other point of view may have validity, have figured out a very effective tactic. Simply shout as loud as you can for as long as you can and refuse to allow anyone else to make a point. Repeat the same thing over and over and over and eventually people will agree with you, not because they think you're right, but because they are tired of fighting over it. The trick is to never, ever admit to being wrong and never stop shouting.
We've seen it in the Bush administration. Bush repeatedly stated that Hussein was closely linked with OBL. This was proven to be false. Yet, even after it was proven false, Bush still maintained the link. It wasn't until challenged on it just before the election that he performed a flip flop worthy of John Kerry and stated that he had never drawn a link before. To this day, supporters of the war in Iraq continue to see it as part of the War on Terror. Yet Hussein had few if any links to terrorism and certainly no links to extreme Islam considering that Islamic extremists would see him as as much of an enemy as the west.
And, if you look at the terrorism occuring in Iraq, much of it is being led by non-Iraqis like Al Zakari. Yet supporters of the war insist that the war in Iraq was a blow to terrorism.
Pick up the local paper and you can see it. Extreme conservatives continue diatribes against whichever issue without any attempt at any sort of consensus building or cooperation. Unilateral action seems to be the standard policy. Whether it's on the international stage or local. We have let the loudest and most annoying amongst us run our countries. Canada is hardly exempt from this. Current debates are rife with both sides entrenching themselves deeper and deeper.
I remember watching a discussion a while ago with parent groups and the teachers union. The teacher's union rep got up and stated something. I can't recall what now, it's not that important. The parent's group rep stood up and said, "You are 100% wrong."
See, that's extremely difficult. Being 100% wrong is something you have to work at. Despite my feelings about certain politicians, I would never claim that they are 100% wrong. I might disagree and I might question their conclusions, but, unless they've gone way off into la la land, very very few people are ever 100% wrong.
Why have our societies gotten to the point where we refuse to compromise? Is it because of TV? We've watched Jerry Springer one too many times and now we cannot discuss only explode into mindless ravings against the "other" side? When did we stop trying to work together and created a zero sum game where there must be winners and losers in every issue? Why the heck to we listen to the idiots among us just because they happen to be louder than the rest?
