A Consumer Guide to Politics - Abridged Edition

A Consumer’s Guide to Politics (Abridged Edition)

Introduction
Most Americans are not informed consumers of politics and thus are at the mercy of the people who are trying to ‘sell’ politics. Few of us demand clear explanations, convincing evidence, or cooperation. Even fewer of us see ourselves as participants. The people who are ‘selling’ politics aren’t forced to present arguments based in reason and logic, so they don’t. Instead they appeal to fear, anger, and ignorance. The result is that what we ‘buy’ isn’t worth much. If this situation is going to change, the consumers of politics are going to have to be informed. Consumers are going to have to start asking questions. What follows is meant to help consumers ask questions. What follows is a consumer’s guide to politics. It is similar to the ones that help people make every other decision imaginable, from choosing a college to choosing a stereo. It’s just a list of questions someone could ask when they find themselves face to face with a big election decision, an editorial in the local paper, a college student going door to door with a petition, or a discussion at Church about abortion. It’s a list of questions and a helping of common sense. That’s it. No footnotes. No illustrations. No soundtrack. Although pictures and music would have been great, common sense and a smidgeon of critical thinking is all anybody needs to be an informed consumer of politics. It’s really all we need to improve the quality of the politics we are ‘buying.’ We just need more people to ask the right questions before they ‘buy,’ whether the purchase comes from CNN or the UPS guy.  

The List
When do you use this list? You can use it when you hear a speech or read a newspaper article pertaining to anything from the War in Afghanistan to negotiations on teachers’ contracts. You can whip it out during or after a conversation with a colleague at work about immigration law in Arizona or the Tea Party Movement. You can pull it out before you head to the polls. You can reference it when you first hear about a new crisis. You can use it for kindling if you want. Whatever you choose to use it for, here it is:

1. Can I figure this out?
2. Once I figure it out, am I done?
3. What is important to me?
4. How do I feel about this and why?
5. Do I need to be nasty?
6. Who am I listening to?
7. What does “______” mean?
8. Where is the proof?
9. What does the issue look like in color?
10. What is the other side of this issue?
11. What are the possible short and long term implications?
 
1. Can I figure this out?
You only need to ask this question once. Regardless of who you are, the answer is yes. You can figure it out. Didn’t go to Harvard? Doesn’t matter. Didn’t go to college? So what. Haven’t ever left your state? I don’t care. You can figure it out. If you don’t figure it out, you’ve chosen not to figure it out.

Figuring it out doesn’t mean knowing enough to construct your own political system. It doesn’t mean knowing enough to write a book. Think about what you knew before you chose you last flat screen television or new car. Was it enough to build a car or a television? Was it enough to write a book? I doubt it, but I don’t doubt that you knew more about that television than you need to know in order to ‘figure out’ a political issue. Figuring it out doesn’t mean being able to create your own democracy. You just need to know enough to ask a few basic questions, and be able to find and make some sense of the answers.

How does one figure it out? The answer is Google and the rest of the questions on the list.
 
2. Once I figure it out, am I done?
The answer to this question will never change, but you should ask it more than once. The answer will always be no. It sucks, but it’s true. It sucks, but it’s important.

Let’s say you read an article advocating more offshore oil drilling. Maybe you even read it pretty carefully, and you might even Google the topic and spend a few minutes reading a couple of other articles. You might conclude that offshore drilling is a good idea. Later, maybe you come across an argument you hadn’t considered, or maybe there is a huge oil spill endangering animals and hurting the economy of a number of states (I know it’s a crazy idea …). You could decide to cling to your position regardless of what happens or what you find out, and work very hard to come up with reasons why you are right. You could, but you wouldn’t be an informed consumer of politics.

There are three issues here. First of all, things change. That’s life. Second of all, we are all busy people coming up with opinions and positions on less than full information. No one has time to be an expert on every issue. This means that we may run across additional information after we think we have come up with a position. The additional information might undermine our position. If it happens, we shouldn’t be surprised and we shouldn’t pretend that it hasn’t happened. Third, the goal here isn’t to be right, it’s to fix problems. Don’t think of politics as a place of non-stop competition. Think of it as an opportunity for never ending collaboration.

So, unfortunately, you don’t ever figure it out completely. No one does. No one can. You figure it out for the moment the best you can, and then you stay open to changing your mind.
 
3) What is important to me?
You have to ask this question more than once, but not every time you consider a new issue or speech or argument. You have to ask it though. No issue implicates only one principle. And issues overlap with other issues.

Abortion is about life, privacy, control over one’s person, women’s rights, poverty, and sex, among other things. It is easy to imagine someone feeling strongly about the protection of life and about women’s rights, and thus feeling conflicted on the issue of abortion. You may oppose wars but believe in a responsibility to fix your messes, and if so our current involvement in Afghanistan would pull you in opposite directions. An intelligent position on the war in Afghanistan or abortion will require you to have thought about what is important to you.

The bottom line here is simple. Every so often, take a moment to really think about what is important to you. Make a list. Give it a little thought, at least as much thought as you would a grocery list.

For what it’s worth, my list would look something like this:
1) tolerance/respect for others beliefs/practices/values/etc.
2) Freedom from oppression
3) Freedom of expression
4) Economic rights (like the right to a living wage)
5) Efficient (not small or large) government
6) Safety for self/family
7) Making sure we don’t destroy our planet
8) Protecting life

4) How do I feel about this and why?
When you hear a news story, a political commercial, or even an argument from a friend on a political issue, you should ask this question immediately. When you watch a news story on the President’s last vacation, how do you feel? Are you angry? If so, why are you angry? Every time I read an article that is critical of President Obama, my first reaction is to get angry and be defensive. I voted for Obama, and I felt like his election was a historic moment for this country. I want him to succeed. This is why I don’t like to see him criticized. This isn’t, however, a logical reaction. I risk the dumb ass label if I don’t stop and ask how I feel about an article that is critical of Obama, why I feel that way, and whether my reasons are legitimate.

 
5) Do I need to be nasty?This one only has a single answer too. No, you don’t need to be nasty, though it is certainly possible. It can be pretty satisfying too. Unfortunately, it gets in the way of solving problems.

Glen Beck might be a buffoon. Al Sharpton might also be a horse’s ass. They might both be racists too. Sarah Palin might be learning disabled. Nancy Pelosi might be the queen bitch. So what? Does any of this get us any closer to solving a single real problem? If true, would any of it necessarily cancel out everything the buffoons and bitches ever did or said?

The person who reads (or doesn’t read) a news piece on line and then posts a comment that you disagree with probably isn’t an idiot, a moron, and/or a faggot. But even if they were, how does any of that form a basis for a real discussion? How does that accomplish anything?

Save the put-downs for the playground. If you can’t, then stick to sports radio or tabloid television or whatever. Political discourse should not sound like your favorite weekly sports radio show. This is important stuff that merits serious and respectful discussion.
 
6) Who am I listening to?
You need to know who you are listening to, reading, and watching. If you are getting your information from Glen Beck or Rachael Maddow, you should be aware that both are advocating a position rather than presenting unbiased information. You need to know the difference between Fox News, CNN, PBS, and the BBC. People and organizations have agendas, and you should know something about what those agendas are before you accept their logic on political issues.

Would you collect ten random strangers, ask them where you should go for summer vacation, have them write down the answers and place them in a paper bag, select one from the bag, and then hurry home to book your airplane tickets? Would you have them each select a new outfit for work for you, and then go with the selection of the person who can come closest to guessing the number between one and ten that you are thinking about? What about if the question was what school your kid should go to? No. Well, then why is it OK to do when deciding who to vote for President or whether or not we should be at war?

If you were buying a computer, would you only seek advice from someone who works for Apple? Would you only seek advice on oil heat from the representative of your local oil company? Would you accept the opinion of a Cowboy fan on the Eagles chances to win the Super Bowl? Would you consult only a drug dealer before deciding whether or not Marijuana should be legalized? If you answer no to any of these questions, or the dozens of others you can easily imagine, then why would you accept Rush Limbaugh’s viewpoint on whether a mosque should be placed near the former site of the World Trade Center in New York without seeking out other opinions?

The bottom line is that you should know who is making an argument and what biases they might have. 

7) What does “______” mean?
Before you disagree or agree with an argument, you should be sure you know what all the words in the argument mean. It’s not enough to know just the dictionary definition either. You need to know something about what the author of the argument means by that word. You really shouldn’t get too hot under the collar about something if you don’t know what it is you’re getting hot under the collar about.

If you are going to get stirred up against big government by the speeches at a Tea Party gathering, you ought to know what the speakers mean by big government. You ought to know what you mean by big government. If you are willing to risk arrest to protest for peace, I hope you have an idea of what peace is. If you think Obama is a socialist, it would be good to know what a socialist is. If you think he is a fascist, it would be good to know what a fascist is. Before you laugh and say that everyone knows what these things are, take a moment and try defining one of them. You can’t use peace in a definition of peace or big in a definition of big government. Peaceful and bigger are off limits too.

Something else you ought to know is that the author of an article accusing someone of being a socialist might mean nothing more than whatever it takes to get you to be frightened enough or angry enough to join them in disagreeing with/fighting against the ‘socialist.’ Of course, if you take the time to figure out what a socialist is for yourself, it won’t matter.

 
8) Where is the proof?
If someone grabs you by the shoulder and says, building a mosque near the old site of the World Trade Centers is un-American, you have not been presented with an argument. An argument requires a conclusion along with premises that support it. An argument requires evidence.

It is one thing to say that encouraging abstinence is an effective approach to preventing teen pregnancy and abortion. It is easy to say it. It isn’t so easy to prove it. You don’t want to go easy on people who are trying to get you to believe something. You want to be hard on them. You want to make them prove it.

If someone fails to fully explain their reasoning, makes an appeal to your fear or anger, and/or tries to convince you to go along with them for some reason unconnected with the issue … then they don’t think you are smart enough or they don’t want you to think you are smart enough. They think you are a dumb ass. They want you to be a dumb ass. They don’t want to have to explain themselves. They want you to just accept their judgment on health care or oil spills or whatever. They hope you will live up to their judgment about your worth, or lack thereof. I hope they are disappointed. I want you to be able to disappoint them.
 
9) What does the issue look like in color?
In 2010 you don’t have to specify that you own a color television. We’re on to high definition, 3 D, and who knows what else that I can’t afford. When it comes to issues of national and international importance, however, we haven’t come so far. There is an axis of “evil.” Any increased government involvement in health care is socialized medicine. Abortion is wrong, because it’s murder. People shouldn’t eat animals, or ever use them to test products that could save human lives. In politics, people are still willing to accept presentations in black and white. Politics, however, really isn’t much different than television. The world portrayed by both is in color. So, any time you are presented with an argument framed in black and white (like Islam is evil or America is always right) you should reject it, and/or you should find out for yourself what the issue looks like in color.

 
10) What is the other side of this issue?
Do you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? I do. I don’t, however, think you are a dumb ass if you don’t agree with me. I also don’t think you’re evil, wrong, have nothing to say I could learn from, or have nothing to offer to help address the issue. In fact, there is a lot of common ground between people who sit on opposite sides of any issue, even abortion. No one is in favor of abortions. Most of us could agree that there are steps that could be taken to reduce the number of people who would choose to have an abortion. If we really thought about it and asked a few hard questions, many of us would agree to take those steps, even if it wouldn’t be our ideal approach. Fundamentally, no one’s ideal approach to anything is really feasible. Plus, abortion is not an easy issue. Most issues aren’t. Do you know of a clearly superior way to respond to Iran’s nuclear ambitions? What about the right response to China’s industrial growth and the pollution that comes with it? Do you know how to stop the creation of new terrorists? Do you know how to keep illegal immigrants out or how to deal with those that are here? Do you even agree that these are the right questions? Only an idiot would think that these are easy issues. Only an idiot would call someone a an idiot for disagreeing with them on these kinds of issues, and then cling defensively to the correctness of their own positions. Only an idiot would refuse to ask, or answer, questions about or from the other side on these issues.
 
11) What are the possible short and long term implications?
If you decide not to go out to the bar with your buddies this Friday night something will happen that wouldn’t have happened had you gone to the bar. You might be hit by a train. You might watch a real life crime drama. You might miss meeting the love of your life. You might miss out on a hangover. It might only mean less time spent picking up puke, but something will be different.

Every decision has an impact and carries with it implications. The burning of a Quran or the drawing of a cartoon about the Prophet Muhammad might result in deaths in the short term … and hard feelings, intractable conflict, and more deaths in the future. Torturing suspected terrorists by American authorities might hurt American diplomacy for decades and actually increase the threat of terrorism. Creating strong Unions might hurt corporations’ ability to respond to foreign competition.

If you are going to weigh in on decisions, whether by voting or voicing your opinion in another way, you should be aware of some of the possible implications of your chosen position. If you don’t want to be bothered with that, then don’t weigh in. If you can’t be bothered to ask these questions, then don’t be bothered with any of it. Don’t be a consumer of politics. Leave it to those of us who do care to take a little time to ask these questions.

Correspondence from Patrick Murphy

Imagine if you will that you have a supervisor that hardly talks to you. He isn’t your direct supervisor, so there isn’t a need, but the opportunity arises from time to time and you don’t run away, still it never happens. It never happens, until the company announces that since times are hard there aren’t as many bonuses for executives, so only those with a certain approval rating among employees will be eligible to receive bonuses. Immediately he begins not only talking with you, but buying you muffins once a week and sending you encouraging texts. Certainly you will enjoy the muffins, and maybe even the texts, although they are a little creepy, but you won’t see the gestures the same way as you would have had you been chatting with him over a blueberry muffin since you started working with him. It’s just common sense. Which is why I’m not sure why my Congressman, Patrick Murphy, has sent me five or six letters on official Congress letterhead over the last four or five weeks. Now don’t get me wrong, I love receiving official mail from Congress as much as the next guy, and the letters were full of great stuff, but is soured a bit by the fact that they were the first five letters I’d received since he was elected in 2006. It’s a great idea to check in with constituents once in a while, but not as great an idea if you do it only before an incredibly close election when incumbent Democrats are about as secure as passenger pigeons at the dawn of the Twentieth Century. I don’t mind having taxpayer money spent on reaching out to constituents, but I’d rather not have it seem quite so crass and self serving. I’m still voting for him, because he’s the best candidate, but I’m a little disappointed to see such a glaring absence of common sense and respect for constituents.

A Consumer’s Guide to Politics OR How Not to Act Like a Dumb Ass

A Consumer’s Guide to Politics OR How Not to Act Like a Dumb Ass

Preface
Americans need to stop acting like dumb asses and start using common sense when it comes to politics. I’d apologize for the crass language, but this isn’t a love letter. I’d apologize for appealing to common sense, but this isn’t a research paper. In this country we have a real problem. Many of us are acting like dumb asses when it comes to politics, all of us are being treated like dumb asses, and decisions are being made out of fear, anger, and ignorance. Most of us are not informed consumers of politics and thus are at the mercy of the people who are trying to ‘sell’ politics to us. Few of us demand clear explanations, convincing evidence, or cooperation. Many of us have accepted that we are fans rather than participants. All of us, as a result, are getting what most of us are asking for. All of us need to find a way to help ourselves out of this predicament. Love letters and research projects aren’t going to cut it. We need a consumer’s guide to politics similar to the guides we have to help people make every other decision imaginable, from choosing a college to choosing a stereo. We might need more, but a consumer’s guide to politics is a good, and simple, place to start. It’s just a list of questions someone could ask when they find themselves face to face with a big election decision, an editorial in the local paper, a college student going door to door with a petition, or a discussion at Church about abortion. It’s a list of questions and a helping of common sense. That’s it. No footnotes. No illustrations. No soundtrack. Although pictures and music would have been great, common sense and a smidgeon of critical thinking is all anybody needs to understand politics well enough to avoid acting, and more importantly being treated, like a dumb ass.

If you want to be an informed consumer of politics, ask these questions. If you know someone who needs help becoming an informed consumer of politics, give them these questions.

Introduction

The Bottom line
You are acting like a dumb ass if you take a position on an issue without asking any serious questions. If you don’t ask the kind of questions a person asks when he or she wants to learn something, then you are acting like a dumb ass. You may be too busy. You may be comfortable taking someone else’s word for it. You may be subconsciously making reality fit into an understanding of the world you are comfortable with. You may not know that you can ask questions and form your own opinion.

Whatever the reason, too many people who vote or weigh in on political issues are too unlikely to seek to learn anything new or unexpected. Because we are human beings, some of us take advantage of this fact. These folks count on there being a lot of people who won’t ask questions; who can be motivated to take a side on an issue by fear, anger, nostalgia, or apathy; and who won’t demand an argument that would stand up to reason and logic. They don’t need to burden themselves with compromise, collegiality, or stability. Everyone else gets screwed.
The key to avoiding getting screwed is to get people to stop acting like dumb asses and to start asking questions. Any questions at all would be a good start, and the right questions would be phenomenal. Who is telling me I should think this way? Who profits from having me think this way? What is their motivation? What are they really saying? Why do others disagree? If you ask the right questions, we’ll all get the right answers.

What is a dumb ass?
The first thing to understand about acting like a dumb ass is that you aren’t a dumb ass, you just act like one and you don’t even do that all the time. You might believe peace is the only choice, and conflict among nations is never a solution. That doesn’t, however, have to mean that you act like a dumb ass when it comes to abortion or health care. It also doesn’t mean you forgot your wife’s birthday, or yelled at the referee of your six year old daughter’s soccer game. There may well be dumb ass overlap, but it is far from guaranteed.

Second, this is not an exclusive club. Sometimes, it’s me. Sometimes it’s you. It could be everybody and anybody from Obama to your mama. Obama trusted BP to fix its oil spill and Congress to deal expediently, compassionately, and intelligently with health care. Your mama might have trusted that her new friend wouldn’t take advantage of an older widow. You might have trusted yourself and run the wrong way with the football and scored a touchdown for the other team.

Third, acting like a dumb ass doesn’t make you unlovable. People still love, respect, and even want to hang out with people who sometimes act like dumb asses. After all, every single person on the planet has.

Fourth, you need to understand that you can stop acting like a dumb ass. It is not a permanent or terminal condition. There is no need for dumb ass to be written on your grave.

Fifth, acting like a dumb ass is not the same as being uneducated. It doesn’t take an Ivy League degree to be able to act like a dumb ass. In some circumstances, though, it might help.

Sixth, this isn’t limited to just one political party. Your garden variety peace rally is as likely to be full of people acting like dumb asses as a Tea Party gathering. It isn’t as much about what you think as it is about how and why you think what you think.

Lastly, and most importantly, having acted like a dumb ass is not anything to be ashamed of, unless you aren’t willing to own up to it and do something about it. It is far worse to know that people around us are acting like dumb assess and let them keep on acting like dumb assess, a sin many of us have been guilty of for far too long. And the true sin is to take advantage of this situation to pursue a political agenda. The dumb ass is not the one to blame or ridicule. Dumb ass really isn’t the worst label to wear, which is good because we have all worn it. A friend who does something stupid is often a dumb ass: “dude, you’re a dumb ass … what were you thinking?” Friends often point out to one another when they are behaving like dumb asses. In fact, it may be a friend’s responsibility to do so. This list of questions is motivated by a similar responsibility that we as Americans have to our fellow Americans.

What is politics?
I don’t care that you made an insensitive comment about May-December romances to your fifty year old friend who is dating a 30 year old woman. I am, however, concerned if you told your fifty year old friend that he shouldn’t be dating a 30 year old man because their relationship represents a threat to American family values. I am concerned, because politics and dumb asses is a kind of very dangerous anti Reeses Peanut Butter Cup scenario. Before I explain why, I need to define what I mean by politics.

When most of us in this country think about politics we are much too focused on politicians, political parties, and rivalry. Politics in America is presented as if it is a football game, or a number of football games. Only a few of us think we are playing the game. Some (enough) of these few either see themselves as combatants engaged in a winner takes all contest, or at least they present themselves that way to the rest of us.

The rest of us are seen, and see ourselves, as (at most) fans, at least when we remove ourselves from our intramural teams (aka local politics) and turn our attention to the major leagues (state or national politics). Most obvious are the rabid and fanatical ones, in the mold of the stereotypical soccer hooligan or Eagles fan. These fans frequent real or virtual pep rallies, and are frequently worked up into a rage. Anyone who is on the other team, or roots for the other team, is the enemy. Everything they like must be hated. If someone wears the wrong jersey into the porta potty, he or she, should be pushed over. After all, the enemy isn’t like us. Their values are out of whack. They want to kick our asses and put us into work camps. It’s really very simple, very black and white. They are evil and we are good. If we score, it hurts them. If they score, it hurts us. If they win, we lose. It’s a competition. There is little room for compromise. Any of us can drawn in by the simplicity of it. Why wouldn’t we, we’re just fans after all. We are just fans, and dumb asses, something a lot of important people count on.

The truth is that politics is nothing like a football game. There are no fans. We are all players. We are all contributors. We aren’t all, however, engaging in a competition. And all of us are doing more than competing. We, the ordinary people, are involved in politics all the time and in a lot of important ways. There is voting. There are lots of offices people run for, and even the most local of positions influence national politics in some way. People attend rallies, marches, and vigils all the time. People go door to door distributing pamphlets. Others write letters (or e-mails if you are under sixty three) to the editor, or your elected representative, or your favorite documentary filmmaker, or even your favorite actor or musician. Lots of folks donate money to political parties, political candidates, or special interest organizations. Some are even patient enough to complete a survey on a political issue. A lot of folks, unfortunately, comment on on-line news stories. Some of us even talk to our neighbors, the mailman, or a spouse about politics. And many of us, although not nearly enough of us, ask questions. Each one of these examples, and many more besides, are politics and great opportunities for you to not act like a dumb ass.

What happens when dumb asses meet politics?
What happens when people acting like dumb asses meet politics is the Birther Movement. What happens is the internment of Japanese Americans. What happens is talk of death panels and amending the Fourteenth Amendment to restrict citizenship. What happens is that an absurdly high percentage of Americans think Obama is a Muslim. What happens is people turn the placement of a mosque near the site of the World Trade Centers into a debate on the merits of Islam. Essentially, when people make decisions like dumb asses they allow politicians to gain support for themselves and their initiatives by preying upon fear and anger and referencing boogey men like “big government,” “family values,” “sweatshops,” “outsourcing,” higher taxes,” “evil,” “socialism,” or “radical Islam.” There is no need to meet people’s needs or to attack problems with the idea of solving them. The Republican Party’s response to Obama’s health care initiative wasn’t to critique the plan’s ability to improve health care in America or to counter with detailed proposals and suggestions, but rather to label it as socialist and connect it to death panels and the spread of homosexuality. What this did was to deprive the American people of a real debate on health care, and weaken the final product. The people to blame are not the leaders of the Republican party, however, but everyone who responded to these tactics … and everyone who made fun of the ‘ignorant’ people that really believed that Obama wanted to execute old people. The way to deal with someone who acts like a dumb ass is not to ridicule him but to help him see what is really happening. After all, we’ve all been there ourselves, and when we were there we would have appreciated help rather than ridicule. We would have wanted someone to help us figure it out for ourselves.

What can we do about it?
The ultimate solution will involve a political system based on compromise, critical thinking, and transparency. Politics is, or at least should be, a process by which people make collective decisions. The first step towards this pie in the sky goal is to reduce the number of people acting like dumb assess by encouraging people to ask more questions. We need fewer fans and more informed participants. We need informed consumers. What follows is a first step towards that goal. What follows is a list of questions that people can ask before they buy ‘any’ political argument, whether it comes from CNN or the UPS guy.  

The List

When do you use this list? You can use it when you hear a speech or read a newspaper article pertaining to anything from the War in Afghanistan to negotiations on teachers’ contracts. You can whip it out during or after a conversation with a colleague at work about immigration law in Arizona or the Tea Party Movement. You can pull it out before you head to the polls. You can reference it when you first hear about a new crisis. You can use it for kindling if you want. Whatever you choose to use it for, here it is:

1. Can I figure this out?
2. Once I figure it out, am I done?
3. What is important to me?
4. How do I feel about this and why?
5. Do I need to be nasty?
6. Who am I listening to?
7. What does “______” mean?
8. Where is the proof?
9. What does the issue look like in color?
10. What is the other side of this issue?
11. What are the possible short and long term implications?
 
1. Can I figure this out?
You only need to ask this question once. Regardless of who you are, the answer is yes. You can figure it out. Didn’t go to Harvard? Doesn’t matter. Didn’t go to college? So what. Haven’t ever left your state? I don’t care. You can figure it out. If you don’t figure it out, you’ve chosen not to figure it out.

Figuring it out doesn’t mean knowing enough to construct your own political system. It doesn’t mean knowing enough to write a book. Think about what you knew before you chose you last flat screen television or new car. Was it enough to build a car or a television? Was it enough to write a book? I doubt it, but I don’t doubt that you knew more about that television than you need to know in order to ‘figure out’ a political issue. Figuring it out doesn’t mean being able to create your own democracy. You just need to know enough to ask a few basic questions, and be able to find and make some sense of the answers.

How does one figure it out? Google and the rest of the questions on the list.
 
2. Once I figure it out, am I done?
The answer to this question will never change, but you should ask it more than once. The answer will always be no. It sucks, but it’s true. It sucks, but it’s important.

Let’s say you read an article advocating more offshore oil drilling. Maybe you even read it pretty carefully, and you might even Google the topic and spend a few minutes reading a couple of other articles. You might conclude that offshore drilling is a good idea. Later, maybe you come across an argument you hadn’t considered, or maybe there is a huge oil spill endangering animals and hurting the economy of a number of states (I know it’s a crazy idea …). You could decide to cling to your position regardless of what happens or what you find out, and work very hard to come up with reasons why you are right. You could, but you’d be acting like a dumb ass.

There are three issues here. First of all, things change. That’s life. Second of all, we are all busy people coming up with opinions and positions on less than full information. No one has time to be an expert on every issue. This means that we may run across additional information after we think we have come up with a position. The additional information might undermine our position. If it happens, we shouldn’t be surprised and we shouldn’t pretend that it hasn’t happened. Third, the goal here isn’t to be right, it’s to fix problems. Don’t think of politics as a place of non-stop competition. Think of it as an opportunity for never ending collaboration.

So, unfortunately, you don’t ever figure it out completely. No one does. No one can. You figure it out for the moment the best you can, and then you stay open to changing your mind.  

3) What is important to me?
You have to ask this question more than once, but not every time you consider a new issue or speech or argument. You have to ask it though. No issue implicates only one principle. And issues overlap with other issues.

Abortion is about life, privacy, control over one’s person, women’s rights, poverty, and sex, among other things. It is easy to imagine someone feeling strongly about the protection of life and about women’s rights, and thus feeling conflicted on the issue of abortion. You may oppose wars but believe in a responsibility to fix your messes, and if so our current involvement in Afghanistan would pull you in opposite directions. An intelligent position on the war in Afghanistan or abortion will require you to have thought about what is important to you.

The bottom line here is simple. Every so often, take a moment to really think about what is important to you. Make a list. Give it a little thought, at least as much thought as you would a grocery list.

For what it’s worth, my list would look something like this:
1) tolerance/respect for others beliefs/practices/values/etc.
2) Freedom from oppression
3) Freedom of expression
4) Economic rights (like the right to a living wage)
5) Efficient (not small or large) government
6) Safety for self/family
7) Making sure we don’t destroy our planet
8) Protecting life

 
4) How do I feel about this and why?
When you hear a news story, a political commercial, or even an argument from a friend on a political issue, you should ask this question immediately. When you watch a news story on the President’s last vacation, how do you feel? Are you angry? If so, why are you angry? Every time I read an article that is critical of President Obama, my first reaction is to get angry and be defensive. I voted for Obama, and I felt like his election was a historic moment for this country. I want him to succeed. This is why I don’t like to see him criticized. This isn’t, however, a logical reaction. I risk the dumb ass label if I don’t stop and ask how I feel about an article that is critical of Obama, why I feel that way, and whether my reasons are legitimate.

 
5) Do I need to be nasty?
This one only has a single answer too. No, you don’t need to be nasty, though it is certainly possible. It can be pretty satisfying too. Unfortunately, it gets in the way of solving problems.

Glen Beck might be a buffoon. Al Sharpton might also be a horse’s ass. They might both be racists too. Sarah Palin might be learning disabled. Nancy Pelosi might be the queen bitch. So what? Does any of this get us any closer to solving a single real problem? If true, would any of it necessarily cancel out everything the buffoons and bitches ever did or said?

The person who reads (or doesn’t read) a news piece on line and then posts a comment that you disagree with probably isn’t an idiot, a moron, and/or a faggot. But even if they were, how does any of that form a basis for a real discussion? How does that accomplish anything?

Save the put-downs for the playground. If you can’t, then stick to sports radio or tabloid television or whatever. Political discourse should not sound like your favorite weekly sports radio show. This is important stuff that merits serious and respectful discussion.
 
6) Who am I listening to?
You need to know who you are listening to, reading, and watching. If you are getting your information from Glen Beck or Rachael Maddow, you should be aware that both are advocating a position rather than presenting unbiased information. You need to know the difference between Fox News, CNN, PBS, and the BBC. People and organizations have agendas, and you should know something about what those agendas are before you accept their logic on political issues.

Would you collect ten random strangers, ask them where you should go for summer vacation, have them write down the answers and place them in a paper bag, select one from the bag, and then hurry home to book your airplane tickets? Would you have them each select a new outfit for work for you, and then go with the selection of the person who can come closest to guessing the number between one and ten that you are thinking about? What about if the question was what school your kid should go to? No. Well, then why is it OK to do when deciding who to vote for President or whether or not we should be at war?

If you were buying a computer, would you only seek advice from someone who works for Apple? Would you only seek advice on oil heat from the representative of your local oil company? Would you accept the opinion of a Cowboy fan on the Eagles chances to win the Super Bowl? Would you consult only a drug dealer before deciding whether or not Marijuana should be legalized? If you answer no to any of these questions, or the dozens of others you can easily imagine, then why would you accept Rush Limbaugh’s viewpoint on whether a mosque should be placed near the former site of the World Trade Center in New York without seeking out other opinions?

The bottom line is that you should know who is making an argument and what biases they might have. 

7) What does “______” mean?
Before you disagree or agree with an argument, you should be sure you know what all the words in the argument mean. It’s not enough to know just the dictionary definition either. You need to know something about what the author of the argument means by that word. You really shouldn’t get too hot under the collar about something if you don’t know what it is you’re getting hot under the collar about.

If you are going to get stirred up against big government by the speeches at a Tea Party gathering, you ought to know what the speakers mean by big government. You ought to know what you mean by big government. If you are willing to risk arrest to protest for peace, I hope you have an idea of what peace is. If you think Obama is a socialist, it would be good to know what a socialist is. If you think he is a fascist, it would be good to know what a fascist is. Before you laugh and say that everyone knows what these things are, take a moment and try defining one of them. You can’t use peace in a definition of peace or big in a definition of big government. Peaceful and bigger are off limits too.

Something else you ought to know is that the author of an article accusing someone of being a socialist might mean nothing more than whatever it takes to get you to be frightened enough or angry enough to join them in disagreeing with/fighting against the ‘socialist.’ Of course, if you take the time to figure out what a socialist is for yourself, it won’t matter.

 
8) Where is the proof?
If someone grabs you by the shoulder and says, building a mosque near the old site of the World Trade Centers is un-American, you have not been presented with an argument. An argument requires a conclusion along with premises that support it. An argument requires evidence.

It is one thing to say that encouraging abstinence is an effective approach to preventing teen pregnancy and abortion. It is easy to say it. It isn’t so easy to prove it. You don’t want to go easy on people who are trying to get you to believe something. You want to be hard on them. You want to make them prove it.

If someone fails to fully explain their reasoning, makes an appeal to your fear or anger, and/or tries to convince you to go along with them for some reason unconnected with the issue … then they don’t think you are smart enough or they don’t want you to think you are smart enough. They think you are a dumb ass. They want you to be a dumb ass. They don’t want to have to explain themselves. They want you to just accept their judgment on health care or oil spills or whatever. They hope you will live up to their judgment about your worth, or lack thereof. I hope they are disappointed. I want you to be able to disappoint them.
 
9) What does the issue look like in color?
In 2010 you don’t have to specify that you own a color television. We’re on to high definition, 3 D, and who knows what else that I can’t afford. When it comes to issues of national and international importance, however, we haven’t come so far. There is an axis of “evil.” Any increased government involvement in health care is socialized medicine. Abortion is wrong, because it’s murder. People shouldn’t eat animals, or ever use them to test products that could save human lives. In politics, people are still willing to accept presentations in black and white. Politics, however, really isn’t much different than television. The world portrayed by both is in color. So, any time you are presented with an argument framed in black and white (like Islam is evil or America is always right) you should reject it, and/or you should find out for yourself what the issue looks like in color.

 
10) What is the other side of this issue?

Do you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion? I do. I don’t, however, think you are a dumb ass if you don’t agree with me. I also don’t think you’re evil, wrong, have nothing to say I could learn from, or have nothing to offer to help address the issue. In fact, there is a lot of common ground between people who sit on opposite sides of any issue, even abortion. No one is in favor of abortions. Most of us could agree that there are steps that could be taken to reduce the number of people who would choose to have an abortion. If we really thought about it and asked a few hard questions, many of us would agree to take those steps, even if it wouldn’t be our ideal approach. Fundamentally, no one’s ideal approach to anything is really feasible. Plus, abortion is not an easy issue. Most issues aren’t. Do you know of a clearly superior way to respond to Iran’s nuclear ambitions? What about the right response to China’s industrial growth and the pollution that comes with it? Do you know how to stop the creation of new terrorists? Do you know how to keep illegal immigrants out or how to deal with those that are here? Do you even agree that these are the right questions? Only a dumb ass would think that these are easy issues. Only a dumb ass would call someone a dumb ass for disagreeing with them on these kinds of issues, and then cling defensively to the correctness of their own positions. Only a dumb ass would refuse to ask, or answer, questions about or from the other side on these issues.
 
11) What are the possible short and long term implications?
If you decide not to go out to the bar with your buddies this Friday night something will happen that wouldn’t have happened had you gone to the bar. You might be hit by a train. You might watch a real life crime drama. You might miss meeting the love of your life. You might miss out on a hangover. It might only mean less time spent picking up puke, but something will be different.

Every decision has an impact and carries with it implications. The burning of a Quran or the drawing of a cartoon about the Prophet Muhammad might result in deaths in the short term … and hard feelings, intractable conflict, and more deaths in the future. Torturing suspected terrorists by American authorities might hurt American diplomacy for decades and actually increase the threat of terrorism. Creating strong Unions might hurt corporations’ ability to respond to foreign competition.

If you are going to weigh in on decisions, whether by voting or voicing your opinion in another way, you should be aware of some of the possible implications of your chosen position. If you don’t want to be bothered with that, then don’t weigh in. If you can’t be bothered to ask these questions, then don’t be bothered with any of it. Leave it to those of us who do care to take a little time to ask these questions. That is the only other way to avoid being a dumb ass.

Meaningless Testimonials

Politicians love to have commercials where an ordinary person tells us why we should support them, or more frequently, why we should vote against their rival. Almost 100% of the time we should ignore these ads. What does it mean if one lifelong Democrat is going to vote for a Republican candidate for Senate? Is it important if one person who lost their job blames the Republican Congressman who voted to approve a free trade pact with Central America? The answer is no, or at best not really. It also doesn't matter if the newly unemployed person is standing in an empty factory looking sad. This is smoke and mirrors, and we should ignore it.

Taking Back America

“We’re taking back America” is a popular refrain these days. Popular, but nonsensical. What is America? Who took it? Who exactly is the country being taken back from? What did they do with it?

The perpetrators of this travesty of logic never explain what they mean by America. Was the country physically taken? Did someone abscond with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Grand Canyon? Is it a copyright issue? Did someone take the name from us? Did we have it to begin with? Maybe we have ceased to be a democracy, and these kind folks running as Republicans are going to take it back. But aren’t they taking it back in an election? Aren’t elections usually found in democracies? Maybe someone has absconded with a symbol, like the flag. A lot of Americans do seem to think that the flag is the backbone of democracy rather than just a symbol. They often give it more reverence and protection than the freedoms and people it is supposed to symbolize. Maybe this is about the Constitution. Maybe the Constitution itself, and/or the freedoms protected by it have been taken away. I had thought all that Tea Party bluster about the Constitution was empty talk to get people riled up. Whatever it is, I guess I should be upset that it has been taken.
Who should I be upset at though? I guess the Democrats did it, so I should be upset at them. Those damn liberals. I’m not sure what a Liberal is, but I know that I should probably hate them. They must be like Nazis and Satan’s spawn the way they are talked about. There is no possibility that they are just Americans who want to the country to do well and just have a different opinion of how to do it. It’s a good thing the Republicans have refused to work with them to solve the problems facing the country.

So the evil Liberals have stolen something important from us, but who are us? Are we real Americans? Are they fake Americans? Does America belong only to us? Maybe we are the people, and they are just a few Liberal, unionized, communist teachers. What made them think they could have America? It’s not like they are citizens. Even if they are citizens, they’re not real citizens. They’re all Muslims. They all want to build their own house of worship in the country where they live, work, raise families, and were probably born. They have some nerve.

Before we get America back, I want to know more about what they did with it. They must have savaged it terribly. Obviously it was in great condition when they took it. I’m sure they did awful stuff like try to extend health coverage, bail out failing industries, and attempt to reform a financial sector that had just helped to usher in the worst depression in recent memory. How dare they!

I get it now. Count me in! Let’s get America back. While we’re at, it let’s take it way back. Let’s go back to when only white folks could vote and women stayed at home. I’m nostalgic for slavery and Polio too. Whatever we do, let’s not engage in real debate on the issues. Let’s avoid give and take and compromise like it was Polio. Let’s call each other names, and spend a lot of money doing it. Time’s a wasting we’ve got a country to take … back.

Smile ... You're on Candid Camera

J.D. Mullane, a news writer and columnist for the Bucks County Courier Times, has written two columns in the last week about hidden surveillance cameras that are being installed in Bristol, Pennsylvania. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/opinions/columnists/news_columnists/jd_mullane.html) He is concerned that more cameras mean fewer cops. He worries about terrorists using them to plot attacks, as one did recently in New York. He is concerned about ominous Orwellian consequences. Most of all, he is concerned that this is another insidious tentacle of Big Government. I’m not about to belittle anyone who is fixated on the size of government rather than its effectiveness, who is trying to hide from or fight government rather than taking control and ownership over it, at least not much … right now. Right now, I kinda almost agree with the unreasoned reactionary. I am troubled by hidden surveillance cameras in parks, on busy street corners, and in dark alleys. I’m not worried that the Mayor of Bristol is trying to micromanage my life or that a godless and un-American Muslim is going to blow up something on Radcliffe Street. I’m a Liberal, so my concern is more emotional and romanticized. A camera in a public place means that I can’t step out of character anonymously. Like most intellectuals, I’m not really worried about losing the right to do something I actually do. I am worried about losing the possibility of doing something I would almost assuredly never do. But, what if I wanted to slip a few dollars to a known fugitive, clandestinely plot to overthrow the Mayor, innocently sneak a swig of some potent and frowned upon beverage or a drag on a cigarette, wear a Metallica shirt, or have a dangerous liaison of some sort? What if I just wanted to go to a public place and be a little less me, and have no one know about it? I think, whether we take advantage of it or not, we all need the possibility of retreating to the margins of our lives and acting out of character. Maybe if we had more of those places, we’d have fewer J. D. Mullane’s bringing their faulty, fallacy laden, and unsupported arguments to the masses.

Political Advertising

The advertising put out by political candidates is unlikely to represent a good use of money, public or private. It might be effective in helping candidates win. It might be a complete waste of money. The sheer annoyance created by mailers, phone calls, and television ads might overwhelm any perceived value. I don’t really know about any of that, or at least I don’t really care. One thing I am fairly certain and care about, however, is that political advertisements have little value when it comes to assisting voters in making logical decisions at the polls or anywhere else. These advertisements play to anger, fear, and jealousy. They do not appeal to reason or logic.

To illustrate how little value these advertisements have for voters who feel like relying on reason and logic rather than fear and anger, I will examine a mailer that found its way into my mail box. This one is for Republican Mike Fitzpatrick, who is trying to reclaim the Congressional seat he lost to Patrick Murphy four years ago. It might, however, have been from any candidate from either party.

I’ll start by examining the layout. This mailer has two sides. The good side has a photograph of Mike Fitzpatrick. He is wearing a Polo shirt and smiling against a soft and fuzzy back ground, and angelic glow around his head. The bad side has a grainy picture of Patrick Murphy in a suit, mouth open in conversation. His picture is placed leaning to the outside frame. Some of the font on the bad side is blood red. This is designed to make you feel comfortable with Fitzpatrick and angry or afraid of Murphy, and has nothing to do with issues.

Both sides of this advertisement contain claims. There are four bullet points on the good side. The first is: “Mike Fitzpatrick will fight to end Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi’s spending spree.” This tells us very little. Nancy Pelosi is not running for this seat, and we know nothing about this “spending spree.”

The second bullet point reads “Mike Fitzpatrick opposes all efforts to raise our taxes.” This appeals to a primal fear of taxes. It has little basis in reality, however. He opposes all efforts to raise taxes? Every single one? It doesn’t matter why? Most of us, when we take a deep breath and think about what taxes can be used for, would be willing to pay higher taxes in at least a few scenarios. Most of us will also concede that anyone who tells you that he or she opposes all of anything is stupid or thinks you are stupid.

The third bullet point gives us this gem: “Mike Fitzpatrick will protect our children by reducing the national debt.” “Protect our children?” Where did the kids come in? Is Murphy’s goal to massively and permanently increase debt in order to harm future generations?

Finally, the reader is left with this: “Mike Fitzpatrick supports policies that keep our jobs in Pennsylvania.” What policies would these be? What jobs? Is Murphy trying to move jobs out? How?

The bad side continues where the good side left off, but does it with more drama. There is still little real information and plenty of fear mongering, but now some of it is done in blood red. And the bullet points are gone, replaced by blood red check marks. Around these check marks Murphy is called “Liberal Patrick Murphy.” Calling someone a Liberal is about as instructive as blood red font when it comes to telling people about someone’s record, views, or anything even remotely substantive. It plays on people’s conceptions of Liberals, and on their own fear and angry.

The first check mark is as close as it gets to substantive: “Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for a trillion dollar Stimulus Plan that has failed to create jobs and stimulate the economy.” It would be interesting to know what they mean by “create jobs” or “stimulate the economy.” It would be nice to know what Fitzpatrick’s plan is. It would be nice to know why we are resorting to name calling.

“Since Liberal Patrick Murphy took office, our national debt has grown to 55%, to 13.4 trillion.” Is Liberal his first name? Was he the only one in government over that period of time? Wasn’t there a Republican President for his first term? Wasn’t Fitzpatrick the guy who came before him?

“Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for the government takeover of healthcare that will raise our taxes by over $500 billion.” Liberal is a common first name, apparently. Does everyone think of it as a “government takeover”? What makes it a “government takeover”? Is $500 billion going to be billed just to me? Is it the only estimate? Over what period of time? In the absence of the health care reform, what would the costs be?

Lastly we get this gem: “Liberals Patrick Murphy and Nancy Pelosi voted for 1.2 trillion in new spending in the first 50 days of this Congress.” They probably spent every dollar by themselves. Just the two Liberals. It doesn’t matter what it was spent on. Doesn’t even matter if it was actually passed, just that it was “voted on.” What does that really mean?

The bottom line is that lots of money is spent in order to make us angry and afraid, no money is spent to educate us on issues or positions, and this set of circumstances sucks.