"Our Founding Fathers were all Christians," a classmate of mine said in 2009 in my Sociology course at East Tennessee State University. "That makes America a Christian nation!"
This is an argument that has been posited by American Christians repeatedly over the last century, and one that is rarely questioned...except by historians and people who have an interest in facts versus fiction.
The problem with the type of arguments often made by Conservative political personalities, parties, and pundits is that they are difficult to combat because they are not based in verifiable fact. The speeches and statements on politically volatile issues aren't designed to inform voters, but to prey upon their emotional connections to said issues.
Since the Tea Party has come into prominence in the political field of play after the 2008 elections, the sheer volume of emotion/faith-based arguments being injected into the political arena has inundated American voters with an endless supply of fact-free positions to consider when going to the ballot box.
You cannot argue with Tea Party adherents, however, because they are, almost without fail, unable or unwilling to admit when they are incorrect. This isn't speculation - this is a fact.
Take, for example, the issue of Death Panels:
In August 2009, the former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, leveled the accusation that the healthcare reform legislation included "Death Panels" whereby bureaucrats would determine whether or not patients were "worthy" of receiving treatment.
This was a bald-faced lie. It was in no way based in fact, and yet, Conservatives and Tea Party supporters jumped on the bandwagon and went forth to sow this false seed into the political soil. Worse yet, it wasn't so much that someone misspoke or made a political gaffe on the air - the people who propagated this fiction honestly believed what they were saying was true. Try to argue with a Death Panel Believer that they were misinformed, and the blinders would go up, the Cone of Silence would descend, and you would be met with every effort to silence the voice of reason and common sense.
This is just one example of how a lie, if repeated enough, can become perceived by the weak-minded as being the "truth." More to the point, Conservatives and Tea Party members have based the vast majority of their arguments and policy positions on their assertion that the "truth is subjective."
Students of Political Science and Communication Studies should be familiar with the concept of "Framing Theory" - the process through which information is filtered to recipients in ways that best appeal to their sensibilities.
News organizations and politicians frequently use framing to appeal to those most likely to support their positions. Faux News and MSNBC are, perhaps, the best examples of how tailoring your reporting to meet the expectations of a particular audience will result in more dedicated followers. The primary difference between these two organizations is the admission of wrongdoing or guilt when the information is shown to be false - MSNBC will admit their mistakes and apologize; Faux News rarely acknowledges their misinformation, and getting them to apologize is like pulling teeth without anesthesia.
The "Death Panel" argument wasn't just an on-air mistake that became popular; it was a calculated effort on the part of Conservatives and Tea Party Patriots to inject a lie, presented as a fact, into the public forum in a way that would play on the emotions of those most vulnerable - the elderly and families with children who have disabilities.
America has yet to receive an apology from the people who spread this lie, nor are they likely to hear one. The admission of guilt would cause their most avid supporters to question every statement from those sources. It is far easier to maintain your base of support by refusing to admit guilt, and to maintain a steady course, regardless of whether or not you are demonstrably lying.
This practice is unacceptable, and should be openly attacked in our public sphere. Lies are lies, and just because people believe the lie does not mean that they should be allowed to continue. It does not lend a network credibility when they invite a liar onto their shows to continue lying, just so that the network can claim to provide balanced reporting.
It is the duty of journalists, constituents, and politicians to actively attack liars in public, on the air, and in Congress without fear of retribution. The fear of reprisal or that supporters will rescind their approval should not stand in the way of those who stand up for truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment