One cannot follow the events of the day, especially those surrounding the current turmoil over health care, without being bombarded by hyperbole and dishonest rhetoric. It is not the healthy debate, varied opinions and concerns regarding health care, our government, life, liberty, freedom and our future as a nation which is so objectionable. It is the dishonest and tyrannical way many people approach these subjects. The behavior exhibited by our leaders and the people when addressing any important issue of the day.
Hyperbole: literally means an exaggeration and pretty much everybody uses hyperbole every day. When I say "I worked my fingers to the bone" , I do not mean I literally worked until the skin of my fingers fell away. I am simply using harmless exaggeration to emphasize that I worked very hard. Not only does everybody use hyperbole, you might even find it hard to eliminate it from your daily conversation as it is simply a part of the way we communicate in our everyday life.
The key word here is exaggeration. When my wife says something I said or did made her 'die of embarrassment', its quite apparent she didn't actually die. It is plainly obvious to all that she was exaggerating. Mixing fact she was so embarrassed with an extremely exaggerated outcome resulting from that embarrassment, she died. Its all a harmless and transparent rhetorical device.
Hyperbole is far less benign when employed in the sociopolitical arena, a world ripe with a wide variety of opinions and beliefs competing with one another. It becomes dishonest rhetoric. It becomes a tactic. It becomes a weapon deployed by politicians, and pundits and echoed by many of those whom they reach from thier soapboxes.
These tactics hit a fevered pitch when there is fear. Fear of foreign threats or a fear of social, political, and/or economic upheaval. In times of crisis or change. Whether the change be good or bad is not relevant. One will always point the finger of blame at the other. All change is not good and even when good, change will always be opposed as will the perceived status quo. Whether a course of action is beneficial or not is often far less important than an ideological and political victory.
By change I do not refer to an empty political slogan or shifts in political and societal norms but the inevitable change that all societies go through as generations pass. In the last century, mankind has arguably witnessed what could be the most drastic change in our collective ways of life than during any other time in history. Advancements in education, science, medicine, technology and human rights alone during the last 100 years have changed the very way we live, work and interact with the world. A world that has become a lot smaller.
It seems an unfortunate weakness of humanity that during trying times, when there is such a need for level headed, logical and honest men offering realistic assessments and solutions, so often there are so few forth coming. Instead of unity in the face of adversity, we fracture. Instead of honest criticism we use unfavorable and often outrageous generalizations, predictions of catastrophic futures and of course negative associations. Such tactics are pages in all partisan political play books. This is how George Bush was associated with Hitler as Obama is, in turn, being compared to Stalin. Bush becomes a Nazi, Obama a Communist.
These two men have regularly been compared to two of the most tyrannical leaders in history, men who sent millions to their death for having a different religious or political view. Such gross and absurd exaggeration is no different than when a person who missed breakfast says he is 'dying of hunger.' We know that person isn't literally dying of hunger and we should know that to compare George Bush to Hitler, or to compare Barrack Obama to Stalin is a tactic employed for only one reason, to associate them with historical figures who were almost universally condemn as monsters. Such characterizations need not have any real basis in reality, as long as people accept the comparisons, as long as their names are mentioned in the same sentence, they have served their ultimate purpose.
If someone thought George Bush was overly aggressive in attacking Iraq, there are countless other overly aggressive leaders through history who DIDN'T murder millions of people for simply being the wrong religion or race one could compare him to. It's clear the purpose is not to put forth an honest comparison but to simply associate them with the worst tyrants in history for propaganda purposes.
Of course comparing an American president to mass murdering tyrants is only one of the more transparent in a long list of such dishonesty spewed forth from the mouths of politicians and pundits on a daily basis. These tactics are not born in genuine concern for the well being of the country and its citizens. More often than not these tactics are employed for far more selfish reasons. Politicians use these tactics for purely partisan reasons, to advance their party and to protect their positions. They unleash armies of brash, highly opinionated talking heads, who have in recent times replaced real news. who will employ these tactics to keep people watching and listening. Its their job.
One does not get elected (and donations) or garner high ratings (and advertising dollars) by simply and calmly stating facts and well thought out opinions and allowing them to stand on their own merits. If pundits cant get you to tune in and stay tuned in, they don't get paid. If politicians don't get reelected, they lose their source of money, power and influence. Their very livelihood depends on you following their every word. They will say anything to insure an audience as more audience = more money and votes. Does anyone honestly think such people have the best interest of the people and the county in mind when they address their audience?
Do you think that a pundit is concerned about you and the country when he maps out a hypothetical course towards American communism with a picture of Mao Zedong on his blackboard for visual aid? When he implores you to realize that the consequences of the health care bill will be the inevitable loss of all freedoms and maybe your life to a death panel. When he predicts an almost certain future where the US will become a communist dictatorship the likes of China or the Soviet Union under Stalin (again, lets not forget Stalin killed millions of human beings for the crime of having opposing views). Do you believe these outlandish scenarios hold any real merit save to frighten people into bitterly opposing whomever he judges to be the enemy of America and freedom?
The main concern of a pundit is his advertisers. How often do you hear such talking heads segue from fear mongering segments where they predict elaborate scenarios of assured economic collapse and worthless devalued currency to a commercial for one of the many buyers and sellers of gold. First they scare you, then they try to get you to sell your gold to, or buy gold from, their sponsor. Whether you choose to buy gold for well over spot or sell gold for well under, they will make money. The paper kind they are warning us is about to become completely worthless. They tell you that gold is the only way to protect your money in this coming economic maelstrom. Why would they lie?
Because they are trying to make a living and a very good living it is. Because in the end, all biased pundits whether conservative or liberal are salesmen and their goal is to get you to buy what they are selling. They are selling not only themselves, but more importantly they are selling their advertisers products. Each person they reel in is more money in the bank and there are wealthy and powerful people who will pay handsomely for a proxy to spread their agendas. With enough money, your agenda can become their agenda. Why would a politician be dishonest? Because he is just as much a salesman. He must sell himself, his and his party's agenda, and his ideology to you. Both are selling and they will use almost any tactic at their disposal. honesty need not play a role.
This is a partisan and ideological issue that reaches across both aisles, there is no one political party, no one ideological movement more guilty than the other. Politics is not about the capable administration of the government, it is not about the welfare of the people, it is about one side winning and the other losing. Politics attract only the vain. Those who will stop at nothing to gain power and fame. Shameless people who have no aversion to self aggrandizement. People devoid of honesty and integrity because no good honest man could lower himself to do what is required of him to run for office and win.
Such dishonest rhetorical tactics are an insult to our collective intelligence. If a person must push his opinions cloaked in over the top rhetoric and hyperbole, it is probably because those opinions can not stand on their own merits.
No comments:
Post a Comment