A co-worker of mine once sent an email to the CEO of the (rather large) company that I worked for (and CC-ed it to half of the rest of the company), complaining about working conditions that were unsafe and could potentially harm employees, not to mention costing the company millions of dollars in legal fees, workers' compensation issues and other expenses. The problem was that the email was written in such a manner that there was one spelling or grammatical error for every four words. The worst part was that I agreed with this co-worker: these were issues that needed to be addressed, but now they would be relegated to the inane demands of a drunkard, all because the argumentation was poorly presented and riddled with errors.
As a fiscally conservative individual beset by a socialist administration, I feel much the same way. I am deeply troubled by the problem of attempting to spend trillions of dollars to jump-start the economy, not to mention an unwillingness on the part of the Obama administration to address the problems attendant in the banking industry for fear of upsetting the stock market. And yet, what is my alternative? Rush Limbaugh?! A Republican party that alternately embraces President Bush's spending policies, ridicules those of Obama and refuses to stand up to its own pundits? And what's worse, the current Republican party seems willing to allow itself to play Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly and make ridiculous and inane statements in an effort to "consolidate the base."
As a Christian conservative, this will hardly be the first time that a stalwart attempts to defend the ground upon which I stand and does it so poorly, unconvincingly and with such reprehensible tactics that I am forced to side with opposition in addressing my would-be ally before I can resume my own defense. And this troubles me... after all, while I would argue that I am at least a slightly above-average representative of mental acuity, I'm not that far above the median... and I would like to think that I'm defending an intelligent position. So why is it, then, that I am beset by idiots who occupy my positions? Or is it that there is an equal distribution of idiots and simply that I'm that much more sensitive to the issue because the position they defend is my own?
Posted by Vengeful Cynic at March 4, 2009 11:21 PM | TrackBackA few thoughts, for what they're worth:
1) Your last sentence decapitates the nail (which is to say, it's right on). When it comes to our beliefs (especially beliefs that are so tied up with how we live our lives), it's hard to separate the intellectual from the emotional. You have an emotional investment in your beliefs, and that makes you particularly sensitive both to external attacks on those beliefs and to harmful misrepresentations of them.
2) A related factor is that it's easier to slip into hysteria when you're in the disfavored minority. So even if there is "an equal distribution of idiots" (or if there are more on one side, for that matter), the idiots in power don't have quite as much to shout about, while those out of power have extra anger to fuel their rants.
3) Idiocy and extremism can be entertaining for some (cf. "Jackass," "America's Funniest Videos," and most popular political pundits). So some of the public idiocy is at least partly grandstanding.
4) People will take any excuse to ignore or talk down a position with which they disagree or are uncomfortable. Proper spelling and grammar are important! (/soapbox)
Posted by: Martinez at March 5, 2009 07:32 AMThe administration should settle debates with Guitar Hero battles.
Posted by: Jim at March 5, 2009 03:51 PMSee, I've reached the point where, honestly, I don't mind anyone besides Coulter that much. Why? Because I'm sick, tired, frustrated, and fed up with this administration and government, and it's only month 2. I want my country back. Yeah, that's not the greatest thing, but you know, I'm too ticked to care.
Posted by: Shartpon at March 5, 2009 04:43 PMI have a fun idea.
First, we'll get a lot of people. Let's say about 100, that's a good round number.
Next, we'll talk to each of them. We'll ask them what kind of ice cream they like, and which day of the week they prefer to go to the movies. Good, simple questions.
Now, we're going to pick two days of the week to serve ice cream, and on each day we're only going to serve one flavor.
On Tuesdays we'll have chocolate.
On Sundays we'll have butter pecan.
Out of the hundred people, how many people do you think are going to be 100% satisfied with our choices?
They might like chocolate, but dislike Tuesdays. They might like Sundays but prefer vanilla. They don't even get a day; we're not serving vanilla.
Finally, we'll tell them that the only responsible thing to do is to show up to one of these ice cream socials. If they don't, they don't get to have a say in what we talk about at the ice cream social.
Now, let's say that instead of 100 people we have 300 million.
Instead of two questions we have dozens, even hundreds, and they're tough questions that involve thought and have a real impact on their lives.
But we still only have two ice cream socials.
Why are you surprised?
Posted by: Toad at March 5, 2009 06:21 PMI'll have what Toad's having.
But seriously, I haven't got the energy for this kind of orgasmic outrage anymore. It's political pornography, and it that interferes with the real business of civic life. Me, I won't be satisfied until the relevant members of the last administration appear to answer charges of torture and violating federal wiretapping law. But that's going to happen exactly never. So let's get on with reality.
Posted by: Wilson at March 5, 2009 09:24 PMSharpton: I have a feeling you're setting yourself up for trouble if you are only willing to exclude Ann Coulter. I can have tons of fun finding self-proclaimed "Conservative Republicans" to saddle you with beyond the obvious answers such as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly
Wilson: I think what we need is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Those things ALWAYS work out for the best.
Toad: Yeah, yeah... could you stop telling all of the morons where and when I'm holding my social?
Posted by: Vengeful Cynic at March 5, 2009 10:28 PMI more just have trouble finding energy to care. Especially if they're ranting.
*Shrugs*
Frankly, I want my country back. That's all. But since there's nothing at all I can do, I'll settle for ranting and dissatisfaction.
Whenever people make statements like "I want my country back," I can't help but have the sneaking suspicion that they have bought into some silly constructed idea of an America that has never really existed (and certainly not in our lifetimes). You want your country back to what? Where is this golden, magical, pre-now place that everyone always seems to want to get to?
Also . . . is "Shartpon" your new nickname now, or did you save a typo as your personal info in Scholl's blog system?
Posted by: Blame Jared at March 16, 2009 01:39 PMDoh! That would have been a typo, it seems.
Posted by: Sharpton at March 16, 2009 01:45 PM