Mr brother sent me an article about a school district in Virginia where residents are trying to get Howard Zinn's A People's History of The United States removed from the Advanced Placement (AP) History reading list.
One parent said that kids taking the AP course "don't have the judgment to put this book into proper [perspective]."
Bear in mind that an AP course is by definition not only a college level course (and one presumably taken by the smartest, most intellectually driven 15-18 year olds) but it's voluntarily chosen by those who participate. No one is forced to take AP history.
There is no question that Zinn is politically incorrect.
What you're supposed to intone the half quote ("My country, right or wrong") not the full quote ("My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right").
What you're supposed to mouth is, "America is not perfect, but it's the best damn country in the world."
It's ok to acknowledge that America has been imperfect, but you’re not actually supposed to detail those imperfections.
You're supposed to present a rose-colored picture of history, not one that presents the whole truth. We don't want to learn from our mistakes so that's why we should never talk about them.
This is why so many of the crimes of the "war on terror" that we now regret are repeats of American crimes in previous conflicts. But most Americans aren't made aware of these parts of our history, because it's politically incorrect and, as in the Virginia school district, often consciously censored. As a result, they had no reason to realize that things like imperial occupation and waterboarding and other forms of torture were counterproductive (to say nothing of grotesquely immoral for a place that claims to be a "Christian nation") in the 19th and 20th century and thus they were almost guaranteed to be counterproductive in the 21st.
Discussion of topics like genocide and imperialism should be limited to the Nazis and the Brits, should be limited to "them."
Zinn doesn’t follow that politically correct orthodoxy.
This orthodoxy is why critical thinking is so badly lacking in this country. And if you think it's not important, just remember how many American were so quick to buy the bill of goods being sold about how the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were brilliant ideas... in complete defiance of the common sense offered by historical perspective.
More tellingly, look at the degree to which people who exercised critical thinking by actually asking tough questions were denounced as unpatriotic for doing so.
Zinn argues that America has committed, and continues to commit, genocide and imperialism. Even if you don't think America has ever been guilty of those things, you should be allowed to argue that. But the point is that there ought to be a discussion. This is how healthy democracies operate.
A country that continuously pats itself on the back as the Leader of the Free World ought not to be so childishly insecure as to be afraid of an open dialogue.
One woman called Zinn’s book "a real slander of American history."
Let's leave aside her ignorance of the difference between slander (spoken) and libel (written). But even so, slander and libel unpleasant. They don't disagreeable. They mean untrue (intentional and with malice).
This flap is yet another example of a plague that's affecting America. People are more and more hostile to reading or hearing points of view that might be different.
And contrary to liberal smugness, this closed mindedness not unique to conservatives. The establishment liberal hostility to Ralph Nader was not toward his ideas (which were much closer to what liberals claim they believe in than were Obama's, Kerry's or Gore's), it was against the fact of his candidacies.
They steadfastly refused to engage Naderites on the ideas. They'd say that Nader is an idiot or naïve or a cancer or a Bush-enabler. But they'd never say he was wrong on the issues that they themselves most strongly advocated. They just thought he should shut up and disappear. They weren't afraid he was wrong. They were afraid he was right. And they were afraid that enough liberals might be open-minded enough to realize he was right, although this turned out to be an unfounded fear. And as much as liberals may refuse to admit it, this hostility toward Nader participating in democratic politics and pushing ideas they themselves believed in was just as nasty and closed-minded and virulent and frothing-at-the-mouth as anything you'll hear from Michael Savage.
Liberals watch Olbermann and Rachel Neddo on MSNBC. Conservatives watch O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox. Liberals read the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. Conservatives read World Net Daily and the NRO.
The real problem isn't that people seek out views that are similar to their own. That's completely normal. The problem occurs when they ONLY seek out views similar to their own and don’t seek out or when they actively push away views that might challenge them to (gasp) think, examine and reflect.
Worse yet is when they seek retribution against opposing points of view. Book banning like I mentioned above is just one example. Another is when Democrats and Republicans conspire to keep smaller party and independent candidates off the ballot; don't beat them, silence them.
I've heard it argued that Obama critics ought to be thrown in jail for slander/libel; I'm sure Bush-Cheney apologists wish this had been true during their reign. It actually was once illegal in the US to criticize the federal government, as anyone who criticized World War I and the liberal saint Woodrow Wilson found out. Just ask Eugene Debs.
In fact, one of the important differences between generally free and generally unfree countries is slander/libel laws. In the US, for example, slander and libel are civil crimes. That means the violator is subject to being sued by the object of his alleged offense. In some countries in Africa and other parts of the world, slander and libel are criminal offenses. That means the violator is subject to being thrown in jail for long prison sentences. This is actually one of the most common ways that tyrants silence any and all political opposition. The human rights' community strongly believes that slander and libel should be civil crimes.
Too many people in this country chose to ONLY seek out agreeing points of view. Whenever they leave their echo chamber, they've been so bombarded with the notion that no humane or patriotic person could possibly disagree with liberal/conservative orthodoxy that they think it's perfectly reasonable to call others bloodthirsty fascists or an America-hating terrorist appeasers. Someone who disagrees with you is not wrong or misguided or ill-informed, they are evil.
When you shield yourself from differing points of view, you don't expose yourself to the possibility that people of good will can honestly disagree on important issues. To hide from (or worse yet to try to silence) differing points of view is, I dare say, the position of cowards.
Disagreement can cause discomfort, so people avoid it. But disagreement can also cause enlightenment. If your mind is open, it can cause your views to evolve or change. Some people reject this as "flip-flopping." I contend that being open to the possibility that you might sometimes be wrong is a sign of maturity. Absolute certainty is the domain of fanatics and sociopaths, of religious fundamentalists and revolutionaries.
Hopefully, you become wiser as you get older, learn more and experience more. If you change, why shouldn't your opinions change? If you evolve, why shouldn't your perspective evolve? If you're exposed to facts or opinions you hadn't previously considered, what's wrong with adjusting your point of view based on that new information?
Think of it this way. I have a canister of flour in my kitchen. As long as it remains in the canister, it will never be anything other than flour. But if I take it out and expose it to yeast and hot water, it will become dough. If I then expose the dough to heat, it will become bread. Bread tastes much better than flour.
If I screw up the yeast/water mixture or if I bake it for too long, then the result will suck. So it's a risk. But if I don't take that risk, if I never expose the flour to outside influences, the powder will never be anything other than flour. There will never be the possibility that it becomes something much better.
Modern technology is great. I love how customization allows me to find lots of news about Africa and about soccer, things that are ignored in the mainstream media here (except for the worst catastrophes). But it also allows people to make sure they're only exposed to points of view that fit their pre-conceived notions and to skip those that don't.
The word 'broadcasting' is a compound word, the first part being broad. You used to consume your broadcast media and be exposed to a BROAD range of things, whether sports, other hobbies or stories or political points of view.
This specialization has transformed things into narrowcasting, where every micro niche has its place. And that's useful for people with out-of-the-ordinary interests like me.
I don't have to suffer through 3 hours of watching random F-list celebrities play Xbox NBA on ESPN followed by 2 hours of faux angry discussion about how the injury to the Rams' third string long snapper might affect the fantasy leagues values just to get my 20 seconds of soccer highlights. I can just go to FSC or GolTV and skip the b.s.
It's also good because broadcasting has never been quite as broad as it should be. The mainstream media only includes points of view within a very narrowly proscribed spectrum, especially in news coverage. On any particular issue, there was the standard establishment liberal point of view and the standard establishment conservative point of view. Those who claim a 'liberal' or 'conservative' bias to the news media or a particular mainstream outlet are really missing the point.
The real bias comes from never hearing from non-establishment points of view. You almost never hear from leaders like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader. You almost never hear about smaller party and independent candidates for political office (much easier to invent non-stories by constantly analyzing polls and discussing strategy). Even though smaller party and independent voters make up a significant portion of the population.
When such people and ideas are mentioned, it's only sporadic tokenism not anything even vaguely resembling consistent.
Very religious people is another significant demographic that the media doesn’t know how to cover.
Rather than figuring out how to properly integrate into their coverage the points of view of smaller party and independent voters and of very religious people (each of whom make up a significant percentage of the population), the media just throws its hands up and doesn't make a serious effort.
Narrowcasting is a way for people like this see their point of view reflected. It's popularity is a testament at how much broader broadcast could be.
But narrowcasters are only useful if they supplement, rather than replaces, more general sources.
Ultimately, society will continue to become more polarized as long as people keep consciously rejecting any seed of dialogue with anyone else who might conceivably with 1 percent of what they to have to say.
People ought not to abandon their principles just to avoid the slightest hint of tension. But solutions need to be sought. The millions of unemployed aren't all conservatives. The tens of millions with no or too little health insurance aren't all liberals or progressives.
Ignoring the tens of millions of Americans who might disagree with you is self-indulgence that isn't going to solve anything. Suck it up, find people who may not share your political perspective and talk with, not yell at, them and see what happens.
5 comments:
A minor point, but Rachel Maddow might not like being confused with the conservative rear guard who really really doesn't like third party candidates (except the ones he adores who pull votes from the Democrats).
You commentaries are quite thoughtful, though I would hope you might address the issue of pragmatism in American democracy.
Simply because one candidate has more philosophical virtue than the rest of the field does not mean necessarily that voters will or should vote for him/her. The electorate (partly conditioned by the political press) prefers candidates not only with a balance of offensive and defensive political skills during the campaign, but those who stand a chance of pushing their agenda through once they reach office. To take just one example, Mr. Nader, paragon of civic virtue, never seemed to possess the patience (or gall) to reform a badly damaged system from within. And had the decency not to pretend that he could. His only non-option then was to run as a revolutionary (a real turn-off to the middle-aged and senior pragmatists who actually do the electing). Thus our political system easily marginalizes third party candidates to any of a number of extremes.
In the light of this reality, Americans may actually be engaging in critical thinking to a greater degree than you imagine, though not in the direction you might prefer; pragmatism becomes an exercise in projecting the optimal outcome within a set of imperfect political parameters. I know a lot of kids in school who have absorbed this and have no misconceptions about the way things are. They may have just reached a different conclusion on how to right the wrongs.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You raise some interesting points that merit a response.
I consider myself a fairly pragmatic person. I do not care if the Greens have a good idea or the Libertarians or even the Democrats or Republicans. What I care about is that the good ideas get implemented!
I was a registered Democrat for the first 7 years of my voting-hood and have been a Green for the last 10. I did not do so because I'm masochistic. I did so because I felt the Democratic Party had become so corrupted by corporate influence that it no longer reflected the interests of the ordinary voter.
I felt like the choice between a party taking toward the edge of a cliff at 35 mph and one that took you there at 60 mph was insufficient. I wanted to help build a choice that would apply the brakes and maybe even get you going back up the hill.
I maintain my position that I will vote for the best candidate regardless of party. I have voted for Democrats recently and even the occasional Republican. There are some good individuals within fundamentally corrupt parties.
You state that Nader was never able to reform the system from within. He did have quite an influence on consumer safety legislation in the 60s and 70s. But Nader was never elected or appointed to federal office. He wasn't able to reform the system from within because he was never actually within.
You hypothesize that perhaps Americans are consciously rejecting smaller party and independent candidates as a matter of pragmatism. I suspect that's true for a small number of people but I have no reason to believe that's true on a large scale.
When I discuss electoral politics with people (from all parts of the country, of all political persuasions), it's not like most people say "I'm not voting for the Green, Libertarian or whomever because of x, y or z reasons."
Most people don't even mention anyone else besides Democrats and Republicans in their discussions. It's one thing to reject 'third party' candidates but at least rejecting them means taking them into consideration. Most don't even do that. And in fact, I can't even blame them in all cases because the media rarely reports on such candidates so most people aren't even aware that there is a third (or more) option to consider.
For those who do, I view pragmatism differently. To me, pragmatism and common sense suggest that Democrats and Republicans have badly screwed up the country for decades so how can either possibly be trusted to fix it, especially as their corporate sponsors have become more entrenched?
Despite years and years of evidence to the contrary, most people believe differently. That's their choice but they have no right to complain. So I ask: is it really pragmatism to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result? To me, pragmatism means that a path is a proven failure by your own standards, then you ought to explore other options.
If after 4-8 years of Obama, we have single payer health care, an end to (or at least significant weakening of) corporate control of government and a a seriously downsized military-industrial complex, I will hold my hand up, say I was wrong, praise Obama and his team to the hilt, kiss one of those Change posters and happily submit myself the flagellation that accompanies any public admission of error. I don't, however, expect to have to do it.
I want these things done. I don't care who does them.
A couple points in response:
By speaking of the electorate, I am naturally speaking of the fraction of the population who actually cast ballots. Regrettably small. When I suggested they are partially conditioned by the political press I mean that the press has digested the history of third parties in this country and pretty much concluded that there's little point in covering them because they rarely amount to much. Mind you, I am not an apologist for the political press. I think they are indeed influential and are totally shirking their responsibility here. What they clearly miss is how fluid party affiliation is particularly in sour economic times. And so long as they refuse to cover other candidates the dependent share of their audience has nowhere else to turn. And so long as they refuse to cover the ideas those candidates promote, the whole debate goes stale (and with it campaign promises and eventually policy). A formula for ideological inbreeding.
But the press is not entirely wrong here. Particularly in an age where campaign consultants have such a huge arsenal at their disposal with which to marginalize, stigmatize and obliterate their opponents. This scorched earth capacity will probably be the last surviving function of the Republican and Democratic parties long after they have been stripped of principle and ideas. The sad fact is (at least from my perspective) that third party candidates stand little chance of reaching office with or without press coverage.
Of course I have always had a soft spot for underdogs and threw my vote to alternate parties (most often the Greens) for my first eighteen years voting. But doing so only when I knew it was safe to throw my vote to a lost cause. In 2000 I voted with the Democrats for the first time ever in a presidential race. I did so because the environment was absolutely at stake, Mr. Nader did not have a prayer, and the difference between the dominant parties on this critical issue was as stark as night and day. I really hope we do not need to discuss this particular point.
As for doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, I would suggest what is missing in your analysis is the time factor. To paraphrase the adage, "you can never step into the same voting booth twice." In other words, party platforms do shift over time--time measured in generational cycles (sometimes faster when the press reports on new ideas). Having come into an early political consciousness during the civil rights and environmental movements of the 60s and 70s, I was tremendously proud and encouraged to see Mr. Obama elected. It opened up vast landscapes of hope for everything else that is wrong and needs repairing in our democratic system.
Sometimes patience pays off.
Mark, I don't want to belabor this issue partly because it's ancillary to the main point of this essay and mostly because I've discussed this topic ad nauseum with various people this weekend.
But one point I did want to address is this. You are correct to state the the two major parties just attack and smear and slime each other. I contend that lack of effective multipartyism is why they can get away with it.
For people only who consider options A and B... if an ad campaign successfully convinces you that B is evil, then by default you are probably going to vote for A (if at all). But with an option C, agreeing that B is evil does not necessarily push you to vote for A. That means that A will at some point have to convince you to vote for him/her. That doesn't mean A can't run a smear campaign against C as well, but it's more difficult because effective smear campaigns need to be focused. That's why countries with real multipartyism, while not seeing a complete absence of negative campaigning, see less of it and much more discussion of the issues.
I also think that a lot of people don't vote because either they think that no candidate (that they are made aware of) represents anything close to their point of view or they agree with me that there's no point in voting for one of the same two parties that have caused our problems. Effective multipartyism connects those disaffected masses with someone who represents their point of view. That's why countries with real multipartyism have much higher voting rates.
Personally, I didn't vote for Nader because I knew it didn't matter. I voted for him precisely because I wanted it to matter. If Nader wasn't going to get elected, I at least wanted the Dems to notice all these millions of progressives who voted for him and think, "What do we have to do to get their votes?" And of course the answer would be to re-attach itself to progressive actions.
Post a Comment