Unfortunately for all of us, hostility has become the starting point for our discussions as we debate the issues of our time. We are so accustomed to the elevated volumes and agitations that we consider them normal communication. Watch the television coverage of the various town hall meetings about the highly publicized health care proposals if you want a quick example, or read the blistering litany of accusations, insults, charges, and countercharges that almost instantly fill the blogs beneath just about any news article that foolishly (deliberately?) includes terms like "global warming," "climate change," "race relations," or whether this or that pro athlete should be barred from competition for substance abuse or some other "criminal" act.
One of the enduring ironies related to this is that the same guy who will flip you the finger from behind the wheel of his car will usually mutter a timid "excuse me" after being bumped in an elevator. Perhaps it has just become too easy for us to leap to the role of judge, jury, and executioner from the comfort of our home office chairs and from behind the skirts of the safe anonymity of our login identities and passwords.
With the whole wide world as our potential audience and the bright screens of our computers shining the light of righteousness to illuminate our path, we have become emboldened. Suddenly, we are all experts.
I'm pretty angry myself after hearing the revelation that yet another member of Congress got sweetheart deals from a giant mortgage lender and that, worse yet, he happens to have the authority to refuse to respond to a subpoena intended to shed light on the whole dirty affair. I'm also not too pleased to hear that the Administration has reportedly cut backroom deals with the major drug companies to protect their profits by throwing seniors who depend on prescriptions under the bus in exchange for support from these companies for the proposed national health plan. Somehow this is not the "change" that I was envisioning.
But I don't assume that this gives me the right to scream at anybody. More important, I'm not convinced that the screaming will make a difference anyway. In fact, I think a good argument can be made that such a response often results in the exact opposite of the desired effect. The act of venting may be positive in some ways, but it is a poor substitute for actually finding ways to bring about change to things we're not pleased with.
I've observed folks from both ends of the spectrum get worked up as they soak up every word from their favorite broadcaster while belting out hymns and "amens" like front pew believers at a tent revival, only to turn their attention elsewhere until the next day's episode is teed up to slake their collective feeding frenzy.
Meanwhile, the carpetbaggers and special interests go methodically and quietly about the business of skimming the cream off the top of every milk pail, leaving the polarized—and paralyzed—rest of us to figure out what just happened, how we are going to pay for it, and who to point the finger at next.
I'm not sure why human nature makes us feel more secure at the edge than in the middle. It seems counterintuitive, but we seem to want to dwell among the exceptions rather than in the company of those things we can agree on. I am convinced of this, though: We must work out our differences sooner rather than later if we hope to leave behind more than a legacy of extinction.
Posted: 8/16/2009 12:00:00 AM by
| with 0 comments