The Deaf Zom-Bushes
Over on a social network of which I am a member there was an exchange that is emblematic of where we are as a society today. We have lost the ability to hear what each other is saying because of the hyper-partisanship. With all the stereotyping done by each side, we have removed any individuality from our convesations to such an extent we can no longer converse. I make my own stereotypes, Zom-Bushes are my favorites. I not pure in any sense, but I hope I have not gone this far. Let me share the exchange.
{Disclaimer: Obviously this is but a segment of the exchange. I have not spoken to the posters to get their agreement to share this, but I think it speaks volumes about my point. These were responses to a statement ridiculing the Republicans for suggesting tax cuts as the cure to everything.}
<i>Poster #1: Don't forget, the Republicans do recommend cutting spending on useless things like regulatory oversight of food, drugs, environment, financial, energy...just about everything.</i>
<i>Poster#2: Oh no, I thought we were comrades.....thats funny I feel absolutely exactly the opposite, seems to me that alot of people are waiting for the gov to supply everything to them including the hang nail clipper.</i>
<i>Poster#2 (Again): If the gov would stop handi capping us you might be suprised at how industrious people get</i>
<i>Poster #2 (3rd time): OK, I will stop now</i>
<i>Poster #2 (4th time): Argg</i>
Poster #1 mentions regulatory oversight while Poster #2 responds related to entitlements. Poster #2 is in such an emotional state Poster #2 makes four entries before anyone else can post, with the last ending in Argg[Sic]. The two issues are NOT opposites. They have nothing to do with each other.
The opposites are only reflected when one associates one issue, Poster #1 relating to oversight, with one party, which therefore necessitates that that other issue, entitlements, is also held by Poster #1. This is a pretty big leap. It is an unfounded assumption. Poster #2 never really heard what Poster #1 stated. Poster #2 went blindly straight into unrelated talking points. How did we come to such a detached place that we assume we know everything about another person because they reveal a single viewpoint? Are there really only two kinds of people in this world? I don't think so,
Along another thought, though. I will not assume Poster #2 opposes regulatory agencies. Or, at least, I will not assume Poster #2 finds it acceptable that, apparently, merchants were willing to put profits before the public health selling peanuts they knew were tainted with <i>salmonella</i>. Nor will I assume Poster #2 is okay with merchants who sold drugs with the possibility of ill side effects. I will not assume Poster #2 is okay wiht our present financial situation which came after the Right overturned laws to protect the public from the occurrence, or even that Poster #2 finds it acceptable to trash the environment with toxic coal by-products. Poster #2 never responded to those issues.
What Poster #2 said was, "I thought we were comrades...?" Does Poster #2 mean they used to be friends, but...? Are we really that antagonistic towards each other we are no longer friends, or comrades because of divergent views. <i>E pluribus unum</i> means from the many one. Does that mean all the people will hold one view and until they do we are not one? That's not my interpretation.
Our challenge, if we are ever to "Stand United", which was one of their goals according to the hundreds of bumper stickers I saw over the past eight years, is to find a way to dissolve the stereotyping on which the Reich wing talking heads prey. It's only when they can create an illusion that liberals/progressives are all alike that their arguments make any sense to the Bobble-heads, and it is only if we allow them to paint us like this that they will succeed. Hopefully, we can find a way for them to hear us and see us as individuals, and we can see them, if we are to be One. We need to show people we are not all the same, nor should they be the same, agreeing to every talking point before they think for themselves about it.
