Comments on The Haunting Sense of Impending Failure: Conspiracies, Politics, and Common Sense

Seriously, though, every now and again when I'm no...

2008-11-06T15:53:00.000-08:00

Seriously, though, every now and again when I'm not certain my blood pressure is high enough, I'll find my way over to the SLTrib and read one of Rebecka Walsh's columns. If there were ever a prime local example of what you are talking about, it is manifested in these columns.

Perhaps more appropriate, though, is the response her columns get in the comments section. I expect people to spout their opinion and either agree or disagree, but the SLTrib has a way to rate comments. If a comment gets more than 7 negative ratings, it is hidden from view. Readers can still read the post by simply clicking on the appropriate spot. Still, this does not lend itself to the political debate.

The most interesting part of this ability to censor others' comments is that it is usually only those who disagree with Ms. Walsh's comments who are censored by their fellow posters.

I am a very conservative individual. I almost tend toward libertarianism in my view of the government's role - especially the federal government. I LOVE a good debate. I always imagined that the "enlightened liberals" and elitists also enjoyed a good debate. In reality, however, given the rate and way in which conservatives and Republicans are censored from the comments section, it is apparent that they are not interested in a debate.

I guess it's easier when your opinion is the only one heard.

But it's fun.

2008-10-23T16:04:00.000-07:00

But it's fun.

I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, but it s...

2008-10-23T15:28:00.000-07:00

I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, but it sounds like you completely agree with me.

Like I said--and like you said--this kind of discourse does absolutely nothing to convert people to your point of view. (Granted, I said that it converts stupid people, but you seem to think that I think there are a lot of stupid people who are converted. I don't.)

My whole point is that this type of inflammatory discourse is worthless. It does not win votes for your cause, and it does not educate the people who already support you. Instead, it spreads anger, misinformation, and polarizes the country.

I disagree. The "stupid people" are those who don'...

2008-10-23T14:51:00.000-07:00

I disagree. The "stupid people" are those who don't pay any attention whatsoever to any election.

I recently read an article in the deseret news focusing on misperceptions created by negative campaigning. Questions such as, have you heard that Obama is a Muslim, or have you heard that McCain fathered a black child, were asked and then the same people were asked if this had influenced their vote. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of those polled stated that the misperceptions had not altered their votes.

I think the American voting public deserves a lot more credit than they get. There is a presumption that people are stupid if they listen to conservative talk radio. That presumption is founded in the assumption that everyone listening believes everything that the host says. Most take everything the hosts say with a grain of salt recognizing that the purpose is to fire up the base. Otherwise, the hosts would be more subtle in their attempts to change the minds of people.

It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Bart is part of a boy band that is actually a recruiting tool for the U.S. Navy. When Lisa stumbles onto the plot, the Lieutenant states that it is part of the threefold approach to up enlistments - subliminal, liminal, and superliminal. He then demonstrates superliminal by yelling at the first person he sees to join the Navy. The person complies.

It doesn't work that way in real life. If I stand on my soapbox in the busiest intersection of each city and town in America and yell that Obama is anti-American, people aren't going to be swayed.

The same goes for those whose soapbox is the radiowaves. I just don't see it causing people to make a decision one way or another.

So, while it may solidify and fire up the host's base, it does little to gain any headway in causing people to swing one way or another.

This may, in turn, cause those people to become more staunch in their beliefs (and therefore more averse to compromise) but these people were unlikely to be the ones gunning for true compromise in the first place.

I'm not saying that some of these people don't hav...

2008-10-23T11:28:00.000-07:00

I'm not saying that some of these people don't have nuanced reasoning, nor am I saying that they don't have a reason for why they do what they do.

What I am saying is that, while calling a cadidate "anti-American" may be an effective tactic (if your goal is to scare stupid people, or to fire up the support of people who already agree with you), it's not a good tactic. It doesn't educate or inform, and it doesn't convert anyone to your point of view (other than, as I said, the stupid people).

And, of course, it exacerbates the problem of a dissatisfied populace. If the public thinks that there are simple solutions, then they'll always be angry at the slow movement of government (in both making decisions and in executing decisions). And they'll be more polarized, less interested in compromise and more interested in indignant dogma.

So, while I agree that it might be a good tactic for a single election, or a single party, it's a bad idea for the country in the long-term.

Holy cow Rob, I didn't know you knew people who co...

2008-10-23T11:10:00.000-07:00

Holy cow Rob, I didn't know you knew people who could throw an anvil. I suppose I should start being nicer to you for fear of your friends' rath against me.

I think your post suffers from exactly what you are railing against. There are many reasons why people publish blogs without going into great detail on the principles and issues behind their stance. There are also many reasons why Huffington and Coulter use reactionary and incendiary language to express their viewpoints.

It isn't simply because people don't have a nuanced reason for supporting one candidate or another.

Thank you Rob . . . Can I vote for you? Seriously...

2008-10-21T19:03:00.000-07:00

Thank you Rob . . . Can I vote for you? Seriously.

And that wasn't the only reason I liked The Counte...

2008-10-18T20:15:00.000-07:00

And that wasn't the only reason I liked The Counterfeit.

Well said. I know a teeny tiny fraction about politics compared to you, I'm sure, but this just rings true--and explains why half the time I want to throw an anvil at the screen when I read blogs about the election.