My response said,
I really hate this kind
of thing. This article is patronizing and demeaning to millions of people, and
statements of this kind offend them and turn them away from progressive
political action. People know when they are being looked down on, and it makes
them angry. It does not persuade them to adopt the views of those who look down
on them. Moreover, while it is true that right wing media distort the news, it
does not follow that people on the right are stupid or uninformed. Issues like
abortion or gun control revolve around genuine moral and political dilemmas,
and the Republicans have exploited those dilemmas very intelligently. We
progressives have not been nearly as clever in our approach to these issues, and
the recognition of our clumsiness should make us feel a little humble. We need
to learn that we can support progressive political positions without
denigrating those who oppose us.
We have to stop talking about our political
opponents as if they were stupid and engage their concerns directly if we are
to succeed in engaging them in dialog or in persuading some of them to change
their minds. For example, we have no dialog with our opponents over the issue
of abortion. Instead, we have competing monologs. We on our side frame the
issue in terms of “a woman’s right to choose,” while our opponents frame it in
terms of “a child’s right to life.” There can be no easy compromise between
these two views.
If we are to make progress, we must find a
way to do an end run around the confrontation. One way to do that might be to
refocus the discussion on birth control. Those who oppose both abortion and
birth control are vulnerable to the accusation that they increase the
likelihood of women being injured or killed by illegal abortions. If one is “pro-life,”
one must be concerned about the life of the mother as well as that of the
child. If we can engage people in this kind of a discussion, we may have a
chance of changing some people’s minds, and along the way, we may reduce the
need for abortions, too. The issue of gun control is another one where we have competing monologs instead of dialogs. Those who favor gun control cite the horrendous damage that is done by people with guns every day in this country. Those opposed to gun control root themselves in the established, American tradition of the use of guns by citizens to defend their rights and their safety. This tradition is deeply rooted in American culture. It is a part of the mythology of the Old West, and hundreds of films and novels tell stories about law-abiding citizens who had no choice but to use their guns to defend themselves from evil-doers. In addition, the use of guns by citizens to defend themselves against an oppressive government occupies a respectable place in our culture that goes back to the “embattled farmers” of Lexington and Concord.
If we are to make progress toward better control of guns in our society, we must find a story that resonates in our culture in the way that the stories of the Battle of Lexington and the mythology of the Old West do. One such story might cite the struggles of farmers and ranchers in the Old West too free themselves from the dominance of hired gunmen. For example, the story of the Battle at the OK Corral may be seen as a story of legitimate law-enforcement ridding a community of private gunslingers. Today, people in the West do not need to carry guns because our western towns and states have effective law-enforcement.
These are a couple of examples of the kinds of things that we could do if we took seriously the views of our opponents and tried to find ways to engage them in dialog on our terms. I don't know whether they do what I hope they will do, but I am sure that if we were to put our heads together, we would be able to find more ways to turn the current pointless, competing monologs into useful dialogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment