e-Claire

Getting a Handle on The Reality Based Challenged Community

Let’s face it. It’s not Kerry’s fault. It’s not Nader’s fault (this time). It’s not the media’s fault ... It’s not “our” fault either. The problem is just this: Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the “reality-based community” say or believe about anything.

Anyone who's spent much time at all with kids recognizes way of thinking; "You don't looove me! If you loooved me, you'd do [what I want]!!" Not quite as simplistic, nor as attractive, as a 2 year old's plaintive cry, the Moonbat cry is slightly more *ahem* nuanced though on an emotional par. The writer has chosen to view a political loss as an indication that he and his fellows are not seen nor respected. The concept of "worthy opponent" is alien. Verging on anathema. Interesting that he would go for that conclusion rather than "Slightly more than half... do not agree with what [we] say or believe in." Or, "Slightly more than half don't understand what we say. Or, "Slightly more than half have very different values..." Implicit is the idea that, if they did care what we believed, they would do things differently. I find it difficult to imagine that Alterman believes that people who care what he believes would just give in, regardless of their own beliefs, and go along with him. Is that caring? Or tyranny by another name? From "disagree," there is somewhere to go; explanation, persuasion, re-evaluation... All these approaches can be learned from a good border collie -- back off, go around, come at it again from another direction. From "simply do not care about us," where ya gonna go? Any approach seems merely a needy, pathetic effort to demand or force respect where there is none. The next paragraph is key to comprehending the dilemma: "This is not a world of rational debate and issue preference. It’s one of “them” and “us.” " Unfortunately, this is where what the psycho-babblers call "perception *is* reality" kicks in. What one chooses to look at -- how one chooses to interpret what is looked at -- will be the basis on which one chooses action. When the lament becomes, "they" don't care about [insert incorrect statement]" it is nearly impossible to work past the resentment created by the "not caring" to a place where re-evaluation of the initial preconception is even possible. If someone believes that "they" don't care that tax cuts only benefit the rich, it is near impossible for that person to grasp that the facts demonstrate the benefit of tax cuts to the entirety of the 50% of the nation who even pay taxes. That person will be caught up in the righteous indignation that his fellow man could be so cold hearted. The lethal blow is to the idea of reconciliation of a divided nation. Why would anyone even want to create commonality with another whom he believes "simply doesn't care" about his views -- about his very perception of reality? OTOH, it sounds a lot like "our" side, doesn't it? How many gun owners really care about the reasons or logic behind the opposition's argument? Nope -- we just call 'em ignorant, or chickenshit, or government loving control freaks. Sure, that is an accurate description of many and looking at it that way gets us exactly nowhere. What sane person wants to hold a conversation with an ignorant, chickenshit control freak?!? This strikes me as all too similar to the polarization occurring between the West and the Islamic fundamentalist militants: the two world-views are mutually exclusive. This, then, cannot be a question of "healing the divide" or "reaching a consensus with each side giving a little ground." Those options require each party to be highly motivated -- the kind of "highly motivated" that feels like a matter of survival. Yet, even though it is a matter of survival, it is apparently not more motivating than the siren call of righteousness coming from the polarized sides. It often happens that a common enemy brings two sides together. If you're squabbling with your brother and the kid from down the street starts throwing dirt bombs at you, fraternal squabbles are forgotten in the effort to kick the interloper's ass. Right? So why isn't that happening on a larger scale in our country? Is it that the kid from down the street is too big and too scary so therefore we are avoiding the issue by deepening the familial squabble? Someone has to take the role of adult and point out - and enforce - the optimal choice of accepting our differences and standing together against a common threat. ...'course that involves both sides agreeing on the seriousness of the threat. ...or the direction from whence it comes. Hell -- agreeing on the existence of the threat! See? I'm in the midst of another tree-jello-nail-hammer moment...

1. All you need to do is watch any “news/talking heads” program to see the model for dialogue that exists in this country. 

   Here are the rules as best I can determine:

   1. If I am the loudest my point is the best. 
   2. If I allow the other person to finish a sentence, I have lost the debate.
   3. If I allow the other person to speak, I have lost the degate.
   4. The more irrational my stance, the less likelihood it can/will be refuted.  Therefore, I will win the debate.  See, also, 2 and 3, above.
   5. If you show civility or (gasp!) manners, you are a wuss and a loser and not worthy of my time.

   Alas, Dear Claire, though your point is well reasoned and presented, it will never be heard by those who need to hear it most.  See 5, above.

   Posted by  on  11/06/04  at  12:38 PM

2. Perhaps we should take these cries of pain a bit more seriously (yeah, right).  Though calling themselves the “reality based community” is good for hours of amusement—I think there is still a kernal of truth in the whining. and that is:  these people are looking at the end of left-liberalism as a mass popular political movement. 

   Big sigh of relief from me—I didn’t think left-liberalism (a bas la liberalisme-gauche!) could survive the fading out of the mass-man notions of the 20th century, and left-liberalism has just been getting in the way for decades now.

   OTOH, I think there isn’t anybody who is interested in picking up the central core of traditional liberalism on which there is a great consensus in this country.

   Posted by  on  11/07/04  at  11:21 AM

3. All of this ranting and raving, and the vast majority of it having virtually nothing to do with reality.  That’s what concerns those of us who still value deliberation, fact-checking, a sense of history, and other characteristics that have made other presidents great, and which have always evaded this overmatched president.

   In a recent poll, 62% of Republicans said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11.  And it’s no wonder Republicans are so out of it.  The Bush administration has made NO effort whatsoever to embrace reality, or to be up-front with us.  It manufactered collaboration between Saddam and al-Qaeda when there was none, inflated all manner of WMD threats, sensationalized the WMDs (remember the dirty bomb?), you name it.

   Some of us are sick of this manipulation, because we know Americans don’t take the time to thoroughly examine the facts.  And blogs like this one, that spend so much effort trying to reduce issues to crude, simplistic black and white dogma, are part of the problem.  You guys don’t care about the truth.  You love your president too much to care about the truth.

   This president is reckless and careless, and the reason is that he never had the qualifications to be president.  He’s been flying by the seat of his pants since he was inaugurated, and thanks to his charisma, millions of Americans like yourself have gone along for the ride.

   Bragging about miniscule job creation, when Clinton created more than 20 million—while staying within a reasonable fiscal framework.

   Bush’s Iraq policy is the worst-designed foreign policy in the last century, and you know why, because NO ONE’S BEHIND THE WHEEL of this baby.  Bush is clueless.  He’s been manipulated by radical staffers from day one, and he’s dumb enough to believe that conducting a reckless, impatient, poorly-planned war like this one is actually a step forward in the “war on terror.” Bush is compromising America’s future, and so few people have a thorough grasp of the facts that now we get four more years of this nonsense.

   The State Department tells us that as of 9/11, al-Qaeda had no presence at all in Iraq.  It was present in 45 other countries, including the US.  Since the war, terrorism around the world has spiked, which is precisely what terrorism experts predicted would happen.

   Meanwhile, the Bush administration has let bin Laden off scot-free.

   Several months after 9/11, Bush said, “I have no idea where [bin Laden] is.  I have no idea and I really don’t care.” He said, “I’m not that concerned about him,” and, “I don’t know where he is.  No, you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him to be honest with you.”

   Dead or alive.  America is a bunch of suckers with their heads in the sand.  This war was designed in the 90’s by foreign policy radicals who AREN’T counterterrorism experts.  They knew nothing of al-Qaeda, and in fact deemphasized the threat of al-Qaeda when the took office in 2001.  When this war was designed in the 90’s, terrorism was not a significant factor.

   Just keep plugging along behind your favorite dumb-ass of a president, waving and cheering his every move.  The man is a disaster.

   Posted by  on  11/11/04  at  11:52 PM

4. ‘whatever’ do you spend your time dropping bits of pre-digested DNC talking points in comments sections all over?  Now *there’s* a hobby.  Do you just drop and run or do you check back?

   For someone claiming to be so concerned about “fact checking” and so forth, may I recommend you to the 9/11 Commission report and the CIA report by Charles Duelfer.  Bremmer has some things to say which also might add to your world view.

   Posted by Claire  on  11/12/04  at  05:13 AM

<< Back to main