Why do we let politicians, the media, and special interest
groups treat us as if we are stupid and lazy?
Is it because we as an American people have demonstrated a willingness
to believe without questioning what some people tell us? Is it that they count on us being too lazy to
check?
The 2009 Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson's movie The Invention of Lying put forth the idea
about what the world might be like if no one ever told a lie. Everyone would always believe exactly what
everyone else said because nobody even knew what a lie was. That was until one day the main character,
Mark, told the first lie ever. But
because everyone believed exactly what he said, no matter how ridiculous it
was, Mark found out that he had immense power to control the minds, beliefs,
and actions of the entire world. As one
watches the people in the movie, one can't help but wonder how people can be so
gullible and naive. The sad truth is, we
don't have to go far to find people who display many of those same characteristics
in real life.
It seems that as Americans we have become so complacent that
politicians, the media and special interest groups believe that if we are told
something often enough that we are just going to assume that it must be
true. In fact, they not only believe
that, they count on it. They count on it
so much that when people demonstrate a belief contrary to those that they have
been force fed, they are painted at having been manipulated or uninformed or
even worse, as having their opinion and their vote bought.
Look at the recent discussion regarding the spending that
corporations and SuperPACs have been making for political purposes. One side wants to restore limits placed on
these individuals because they believe they are unfairly influencing the
outcomes of elections. Democrats
continually point to outcome of the Wisconsin recall elections as one of their
cases-in-point. They say that the
outcome was largely due to being outspent in the state by their Republican
rivals and their supporters. They give
little or no credence to the idea that the citizens of Wisconsin might have
minds of their own and voted the way they truly believed.
It is insulting to believe that just because a SuperPAC puts
out a message that people will blinding believe it, but even if for the sake of
argument we assume that that may have some validity, if we are going to put
constraints on these special interest groups, how about leveling the playing
field even further by placing limits on Hollywood and the media trying to
influence political views as well? Of
course the argument will be that those things are protected as free speech,
freedom of the press and freedom of expression, especially for the writers,
producers, directors and actors. But
movies and TV shows are rarely funded by an individual anymore. They are funded by groups of investors and/or
corporations that either believe in the message of the project or they believe
in the potential of the project to make them a profit. Aren't people and corporations that donate
money to a SuperPAC donating because they believe in either the message or the
ability of the outcome of the SuperPAC's goal to ultimately make them a
profit? I understand that people make
the case that donors to these SuperPACs should be disclosed, but we allow
anonymous free speech in this country, especially in the age of the internet.
Politicians also believe that we as American have very short
memory spans. For example, yesterday in
response to the United States Supreme Court's decision regarding the Arizona
Immigration Law SB1070, Congresswoman and Chair of the Democratic National
Committee Debbie Wasserman Shultz, said, "I’m pleased that the Supreme
Court struck down most of the ill-conceived provisions within this law." Who reading this doesn't believe that if two
days from now the Supreme Court rules similarly on ObamaCare, Congresswoman
Wasserman Shultz won't be demonizing the Court?
It is much the same when Democrats point to the alleged political
"fishing expedition" by the Republicans regarding Operation Fast and
Furious and Attorney General Eric Holder.
Are the Democrats counting on the American people forgetting their
similar efforts in 2007 regarding then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and
the firing of U.S. Attorneys?
Democrats don't hold the monopoly on counting on short
memories on the part of Americans.
Former Republican Presidential Primary challengers of Mitt Romney are
hoping that now that they have endorsed Romney for President that the American
people will forget all the bad things that they said about him in the
primaries. The only person hoping for
that more is perhaps Mitt Romney himself.
Limiting the spending that SuperPACs and corporations can
make for political purposes is not the answer, even if we include limits those
who cite "artistic purposes" as is often the claim by those in
Hollywood. Rarely when politicians call
for limiting one side or the other in any way, is the purpose to really promote
fairness in the process. It is usually
to restore the advantage that that side felt they enjoyed before the
"unfairness" began in the first place.
If we as American are willing to turn a blind eye to the
manipulation, lies, and dishonest tactics perpetrated on us from the various
sides of the political spectrum, then we are bound to continue to suffer for
it. The only way for us as Americans to
take back the power and the discourse from the political elite is to ensure
that we make our decisions by being well informed.
A friend of mine from high school and I regularly converse
over social media regarding a wide array of political and social topics. While we rarely agree, I have a great amount
of respect for my friend as he rarely relies on information that he hasn't
thoroughly researched prior to forming his opinion. We both come to the discussion with well
thought out and well researched views and even when we sometimes cross the line
due to our passion for those views, we always manage to return to that sense of
respect that we started our discussion with, even if we still don't agree at
all.
My friend and I don't count on just the information that
politicians, the media and special interest groups tell us. We confirm and test that information to see
if it is valid and if it can be useful in helping us develop our own
opinions. Part of the reason for that is
that we recognize that they each have lied, distorted or ignored the truth, or
tried to manipulate people before and we are unwilling to fall for it. But so many people are willing to still give
these groups the benefit of the doubt even after having been deceived.
In his 1987 movie Raw,
Eddie Murphy tells a story about a husband whose wife walks in on him and
another women in the act of having sex.
The wife storms out of the room and her naked husband follows her.
When she asks him how he could cheat on her, he responds by saying,
"Wasn't me." When she reminds
him that she caught him in the act, he again says, "Wasn't me." When the wife challenges him one more time,
the husband repeats, "Wasn't me."
To which the wife responds, "Well maybe it wasn't you." Politicians, the media and special interest
groups have treated us just like the wife in Murphy's story. And the reason that they have been able to do
it for so long is that we have been willing to believe the lies even when we
know the truth, all because it is easier to do so than to have to take the
chance that we may have to face the hard truth.
As long as we are willing to take the easy way out, others will let us,
as long as we are willing to give them our vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment