Google
 
Web Osi Speaks!

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Spin, talking points replace honest debate.

Here is a very insightful column by Jerry Shaw, a Contributing Columnist. The column makes for a very interesting reading and, most importantly, it is BRUTALLY honest -- a characteristic that is sorely lacking in this day and age, particularly when it comes to the political arena.

Tell me what you think by posting your comments below. Now for the column:

Political discourse in this country is fast becoming an oxymoron. Liberals and conservatives have lost the ability to debate and the ability to compromise.
Control of our government has become a trophy. It is the ultimate pot at the end of the rainbow. Winning has become the most important thing in politics and our culture.
Politicians mold any argument around their parties' ideology. They create catch-phrases or talking points to explain or attack the other party. Party leaders and the people who make up the party's base chant these incessantly.
About 30 percent of voters make up the Democrats' base. Many of these folks are liberals, defined by conservatives as godless or non-Christians, members of rather wacky religions (i.e. Scientology), lovers of big government, environmentalist whackos, college professors and educators in general. The rest seem to consist of most African-American voters, union members and the poor who vote.
About 30 percent of voters make up the Republican base. These folks tend to be very conservative, defined by liberals as intolerant Christians, most wealthy businessmen, the upper-middle class, middle-class business owners and blindly patriotic Southerners.
Neither of these lists is official nor all-inclusive. That leaves the 40 percent of us who fall into the "swing vote" category. We listen to both sides and decide for ourselves which candidate makes the most sense. We bristle at the attack ads, knowing the truth is somewhere in the middle.
In political circles we would be wafflers, still listening to both sides of an issue before making up our minds. If "wafflers" is not the word of the day, we may be labeled unprincipled -- we don't examine things through conservative or liberal filters first -- and we don't need to thank the various talking heads sent out to chant the talking points for that day.
We don't vote straight tickets, and we are hard to predict.
Pick any current political issue and then tune into CNN, Fox, KET, local TV stations, or local or national talk radio. You will hear the same old catchwords and phrases used by both parties. Usage depends on which side has the moral high ground on that particular day.
Democrats and Republicans no longer debate issues. They label behavior and ideas. They attempt to divert attention from the issues. It's the result of too many lawyers in politics.
Look at just three typical political phrases being thrown around lately by TV and radio talkers when a politician has been caught red-handed.
"It's a witch hunt." Translation: He is probably guilty, and the opposing party is playing it up in the press. Draw negative attention to the other side by questioning their motives. Gov. Ernie Fletcher and Attorney General Greg Stumbo know a little something about that spin.
"It's politically motivated." Translation: He is guilty, but he is being persecuted/prosecuted only because of his political beliefs. Please disregard the evidence and focus on the motive for this investigation. Please disregard our side's motive. Divert! Divert! Divert! In case folks in charge in Frankfort are wondering, most of us understand that anything involving politicians is political.
"They did it, too." Translation: Yes, let us revert to our childhood days on the playground. If we can't argue the merits, let's drag our opponents down with us. We said we would clean up Frankfort. We meant we would clean out all those nasty Democrats in Frankfort.
Was that unclear?
Where is Henry Clay when you need him?

... And where is Abraham Lincoln when the Commonwealth and the nation desperately need him?

Labels:

6 Comments:

Blogger Johnathan Gay said...

Interesting. One thing that's always fascinated me about Clay was his advocation of internal improvements and commerce. This of course didn't always sit well with the south who opposed infrastructure as a threat to the slaveocracy. (See George Will's recent oped on the interstate highways.)

Who would be more like Clay today? Newt? McCain?

8:16 PM  
Blogger KYJurisDoctor said...

Can you link me to Will's op-ed? As for Clay, he was a man of GREAT honor -- and it is NO wonder that my hero, Abraham Lincoln, emulated him. Oh, what I would give for those statesmen to come to life! I suspect, they are, and probably will remain, irreplaceable. As for Newt, I like him, but I do NOT know if he can rise above partisanship. And McCain has started to play the Politician, much to all of our collective chagrin.

8:33 PM  
Blogger Johnathan Gay said...

Osi:

Even Lincoln played the pol on many occasions. His greatest deed, emancipation, was itself a half measure made with the realities of poltical expediency firmly in his mind. So to did FDR play the isolationist while maneuvering us to war against Germany and Japan.

I don't think either man is any less of a hero for bowing to the demands of politics since they did right in the end.

8:48 PM  
Blogger Johnathan Gay said...

Osi:

The Will piece: http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/12418684p-13142334c.html

And my post on it: http://cyberhillbilly.blogspot.com/2006/07/in-defense-of-highways.html

8:48 PM  
Blogger KYJurisDoctor said...

Abraham Lincoln did NOT play a pol and even if he did, it was NOT as blatant as it is played today. Lincoln was the epitome of a Statesman: He was a leader who had the wisdom of Solomon. He knew right from wrong and then set about doing right, politics be dammned. His emancipation proclamation was more of a precision strike at the heart of the Confederacy than a political move. As he SAGELY noted, there was NO need to release slaves in areas where they did NOT exist!

8:03 AM  
Blogger KYJurisDoctor said...

Thanks for the link. It is an interesting article about the nation's indispensible highway system. It somehow misses the point about a reason for the South losing the civil war, since the North's road systems were no more better than the South's. The reason the south lost the war was because of its mission to institutionalize the evil of enslavement, and good inevitably ALWAYS triumphs over evil!

8:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home