'We should demand a higher level of dialogue'

GUEST COMMENTARY

By George Templeton
Payson, Ariz.

In the 50’s, the sensational news gossip magazines that we saw while waiting to check-out at the grocery store were unbelievable and humorous. In the 80’s, T.V. talk shows featured ladies engaged in fist fights, hair pulling, marital infidelity, and stripping. These shows focused on the sensational and disgusting. Now news talk show and political leaders appeal to fear and prejudice, demonize those with differing views, omit, misrepresent and lie about the facts in order to promote their agenda. We have potential presidential candidates using coarse language. Our dialogue has become superficial and emotional. Is it irresponsible to advocate “reloading”or the removal of our president from office by an “act of god” or to give national TV exposure to acts of vandalism for the purpose of showing how bad those other guys are?

Propaganda techniques have long been used in marketing and sales and are ethically accepted though they sometimes deceive and do not always have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Emotional arguments presented out of context without historical perspective and without potentially contradictory facts are suspect. For example, it has been stated that “taxes are un-American”. How many of our presidents were un-American because they raised taxes?

We are in a time of ceaseless campaigning where large amounts of money are spent for the purpose of indoctrination rather than presenting valid information. We distrust our government officials and want “virgins” who are “just plain folks” lacking experience in education, government, law, and the sciences. We should question the efficiency of this. What is the price of ignorance? Considering the present need for frugality could these political campaign dollars be better spent?

Democracy relies on the informed electorate. Propaganda is efficient at creating “true believers” but very poor at presenting the trade-offs and shades of grey inherit in the depths of many controversial issues. Propaganda threatens democracy at its core. It is difficult for the layman to sort out the distortions from the facts.

A demagogue is one who leads by appealing to prejudice and emotion. A senator alleged that Obama’s health care plan is “Russian Gulag” health care. This has connotations of Communism, imprisonment, punishment, and deprivation. No measureable or quantifiable facts are given. On a news program a commentator asserted that Obama’s statement that the rich should carry their fair share of taxes was “wealth redistribution demagoguery”. Rich and fair are undefined but are not strongly emotional. However, the word demagogue has negative emotional weight. Referring to differences of opinion in this context is an act of demagoguery. The accuser is guilty of the practice that he accuses his opponent of. Negative emotional words are not going to help us engage in intelligent discussion. They lead to further polarization and less necessary compromise. The decisions that we must make influencing the future of our country are complex and require rational contemplation of the facts in addition to our gut feeling.

We should demand a higher level of dialogue. Democracy would be better served by debate based on asking and answering questions. It would stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. For example, the senator who made the Russian Gulag comment refused to defend his statement in a debate. He claimed that he only said this to get the attention of the public.

Debates could be broadcast as an alternative to old tired programming ideas and news programs that are nothing but spin. Then we would find “the will of the American people” instead of the bandwagon crafted by influential elites and special interest groups