As I worked through the topics we discussed in this class, a difficult theme arose. It is a theme that one has to work hard to avoid in this country today: the battle between polar opposites. It is characterized by groups encamped at the two extremes of any issue, both unwilling to budge, both unwilling to hear and consider the other viewpoint. This class forced me to pay attention to the news, something I normally avoid, and I was confronted with this issue once more. I struggled for most of the last five weeks, wondering how we can move away from talking at each other to talking to each other and working together to face our collective challenges. I was therefore encouraged to see this article on CNN about the passage of Proposition 14 in California, which replaces closed partisan primaries with open primaries.
I am hopeful that this new system will allow more choice for voters. Although ultimately there will be only two candidates for governor, they will no longer automatically be one Democrat and one Republican. Those of us who do not belong to a political party will have a voice in the preliminary selection of candidates for office.
We support Intellectual Freedom because learning about various topics allows us to grow as individuals and be more informed citizens. However, in order for that to be effective, the reader or viewer must begin with an open mind. We must be open to change and new ways of doing things. We need to listen to what others have to say. I believe the marketplace of ideas requires an exchange of ideas- a conversation, not a war of words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great blog, Jennifer. I'm happy to know that someone with your intellect makes an effort to hear all sides. Maybe someday, that terrific quality will be displayed wearing a judge's robe.
ReplyDeleteI get the feeling that people in power have financial and control interests in keeping the country divided. That is why I force myself to listen to other arguments, even if I fundamentally disagree with them. It is best way to work out issues. For example, as a conservative news junkie, I watch MSNBC as much as any channel. Tonight, I will tune into Chris Matthew's "The Rise of the New Right", even though I am pretty sure that he will portray people who attend "tea party" speeches as a cross between a satanic cult and a "hate-fueled" violent militia. Oh, and also racist....very, very racist. I will try to keep an open mind and attempt to be honest about my own beliefs to see if I need to change. Unfortunately, all I'll probably end up realizing is that I don't dislike Chris Matthews enough.
Still, I'd rather watch some fear and hate-mongering propaganda by a left-wing guy who constantly accuses conservatives of spreading those very things than anything involving Joran Vandersloot, and that's pretty much all the other news networks want to talk about.
Theoretically, I think Prop. 14 is a good system. I'm pretty sure that they already do something very similar in at least one or two other states (Louisiana?). I just don’t see how it will really change anything with money usually proving to be such a deciding factor. I wish that there would be a set-up in which, 1. Ads are eliminated, and 2. Anyone who wanted to run for office would be put into some type of game show format where they could have their intellect inspected and then people could vote on the best candidate.
Hey, that kind of sounds like American Idol or something. Back to the drawing board.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI think you may be on to something with the financial and control interests of keeping people divided. Although I also have financial and control interest theories associated with American Idol and professional sports. If we keep people distracted long enough, they will not see what is going on behind the curtain.
I give you a lot of credit for listening to the other side; it is not easy to do. I like listening to Glenn Beck when he's not on his own show; he usually calms down a little and is very rational. However, I have a very difficult time dealing with the fear mongering and yelling from any side, liberal or conservative.
I agree that Proposition 14 by itself probably will not be enough, but I think it's a step in the right direction. The money factor is problematic. On one hand, it is common sense that the person with the most money will be able to put his or her face out there with the greatest frequency, and be able to win based on recognition. As we have seen with the Citizens United decision, the United States Supreme Court is taking a dim view of limiting free speech in the form of financing political messages. However, I see some hope in the Internet. President Obama was able to utilize online advertising (which is less expensive than television advertising) and social networking sites to appeal to my generation, the age demographic that traditionally has a very low voter turnout. More and more people are turning to the Internet as their main source of information, and that may help reduce the importance of finances in political campaigns. I do not pretend that money will not matter, but it may be less determinative than it has been.
Because there are so many opinions and sources out there, any of us can find support for anything we believe in, irregardless of the reliability of the source. Colbert was right; we no longer seek truth. Instead we seek the validation of "truthiness".
ReplyDeleteAnd heaven help you if you move away from those beliefs. That makes you a flip flopper or a traitor, not a thoughtful person. For example, while I think Mitch's call for a truce on social issues is really just another step in his presidential bid, he's being pilloried by the right.
Linda,
ReplyDeleteI agree that many people want support that says they are correct. However, when it comes to "truth" and reliability, some of my relativism kicks in and says, "well maybe that idea that seems less reliable because it was proposed by a 15-year-old who hasn't gone to college is right. Sometimes a different perspective is what is needed." It probably depends on what the idea is about though.
I am so glad you raised the point about the fact that when politicians change their mind after introspection it is seen as a negative quality. I will never forget the labeling of John Kerry as a flip-flopper and the question Bush supporters kept asking: "Don't you want a President who knows his mind and once he makes decisions sticks to them?"
Everyone makes mistakes, including our political leaders. We need people who are really thinking about all aspects of important decisions and are willing to admit when they were wrong so that they can try to move in a better direction. We as a country cannot afford to keep putting money into projects just because our leaders are too proud to admit they made a mistake or did not have enough information at the time to make the right decision.
I particularly agree with what you said about learning, growing as individuals, and being understanding about mistakes. One thing that bothers me in society today is how fearful we are of making mistakes, when in fact that’s a great way to learn.
ReplyDeleteEspecially at work, we’re often encouraged to play the blame game and not take responsibility for our actions for fear of losing our jobs or severe reprimands. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be held accountable, but unless the mistake is a truly malicious one, it should be used as a learning experience and not as a way push fear.
I agree with Tonya as I too liked what you said about learning , and growing as people and being able to understand the mistakes of other and ourselves. I believe that I have learned from my mistakes and I move on. I always say that I would never go back and change things because my mistakes have made me the person I am today.
ReplyDeleteLadies-
ReplyDeleteI agree the blame game is very destructive. Some of us are perfectionists (unfortunately including yours truly), but we should not hold others to those expectations and beat up on them as much as we beat up on ourselves when something does not go quite right.
In the workplace, a mistake often signals that more training is needed. Maybe a refresher is needed on the privacy policy. People make mistakes, but I don't think they're usually intentional. If management uses mistakes as opportunities to remind staff of policies and correct procedures, one person's mistakes may result in improved performance by the entire department.
I agree that we need to be less partisan and more focused on how to collectively solve our country's problems. But if it were that easy it would already be done by now. Under our political system, the party out of power has an incentive to be obstruct legislation.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if an open primary system is the answer. An open primary presents the opportunity for the rival party to engage in political mischief. For example, South Carolina has an open primary and there are questions whether the Democratic Senate nominee is really a Republican plant.
You are right that this class has opened our minds to alternative perspectives. We do a disservice when we only listen to people we agree with. If two people always think alike one person isn't thinking.
It has been a struggle during the last 6 weeks to not allow my political beliefs to become part of the topic. I purposely abstained from commenting on certain topics because I knew that my politics would influence my posts. That said, I think that limiting primary votes only to those registered to a specific party, is disenfranchising a large portion of the population.
ReplyDeleteBill- I was under the impression that Proposition 14 provides for completely open primaries, not an open democratic primary and an open republican primary. I agree that the latter cause more trouble than anything else.
ReplyDeleteKathy- I have noticed a few people have mentioned trying to avoid talking about political beliefs over the course of this class, and I wondered why. I know somewhere along the way talking about politics became this controversial thing that we should try to avoid, but if we do not talk about these issues, who will? Intellectual freedom is intended to allow people to learn different perspectives so that they can contribute to the debate on these issues in an intelligent way. If we are going to spend the time learning about and protecting intellectual freedom, we should put it to good use.
Indeed... Simply put, intellectual freedom is a two-way street. We all want to express ourselves freely, but we must also be willing to listen to others as they express themselves. Otherwise, it just doesn't work. This is something very obvious, when you think about it objectively. Unfortunately, many of us can't or don't think objectively when we are in whatever particular situation.
ReplyDelete