Only You Can Improve America's National Discourse!
Note: This is my latest submission for my parallel writing endeavour.
Over the course of the last decade, some alarming trends have developed in discourse not only in the United States, but also abroad. There is no question that America appears more and more polarized in recent years. Although America has been fortunate to have avoided any recent beatings in the United States Senate, the national debate has still degeneratated from the days when distinguished statesmen answered their detractors with carefully crafted oratory, or documents such as The Federalist Papers. Although there are many examples of this phenomenon, a few prominent ones are worth discussing.
One example is the intellectual snobbery waged against those who advocate the theory of intelligent design. This opposition has become so rabid that the venerable Ben Stein will release a film in February entitled Expelled. Stein's premise has less to do with support for intelligent design, although that is part of the premise the film. His primary focus is the refusal of mainstream science to do so much as discuss the possibility that our universe was created in anything other than a random accident. Not unlike the perceived position of the Roman Catholic Church when dealing with Galileo (which, for the record, was actually much more nuanced and reasonable than is commonly known), the scientific establishment in America today essentially brands those scientists (many of them distinguished and respected in fields including biology and physics) to be heretics, marginalizing them and ignoring any and all attempts to explore evidence suggesting a supernatural influence in the creation of the universe and mankind.
Should all Americans demand acceptance of the concept of intelligent design? Of course not; but all Americans should demand that science respect and explore viable courses of inquiry, particularly when American scientific activities are often funded by the tax dollars of citizens who overwhelmingly believe in the influence of a higher power in the creation of the universe.
For another example of this degeneration of American debate, we can look at the issue of global warming or climate change. Distinguished author Michael Crichton made an excellent speech about this topic in his presentation "Aliens Cause Global Warming" in January of 2003. There are several schools of thought on the issue of climate change, but unfortunately, very few prominent figures in the discussion of this issue approach it with much decorum. Most notable among these is former Vice President Al Gore, whose rhetoric surrounding the issue has grown and grown until it has resulted in veritable scare tactics. While scientists agree that the earth has experienced a very slight warming trend over the last century, the data and its interpretation is highly disputed, even among climatologists; and yet, an increasingly militant cadre of climate change activists demonizes anyone who doesn't embrace their agenda. This scathing debate has made its way into global politics and the global economy, and has become more and more heated as the years have passed.
Should all Americans make drastic changes to their lives in a futile effort to stave off the process of global warming? No, particularly since scientists in all camps seem to agree that if humans are impacting the global climate, they are only a fraction of the overall cause. Should all Americans reject the possibility completely, and make every attempt to destroy the planet? Of course not; we should all be able to agree that good stewardship of natural resources makes sense from both environmental and economic viewpoints. The point is that, particularly in light of the amount of dispute over both the data and its interpretation, no justification exists for the demonization of either side. As Crichton notes in his speech, further research and discussion from both proponents and critics is appropriate; demonization and denigration are not.
Where does this issue of the decline in American discourse come into the realm of security? It's simple: the exodus of decorum from the overarching sphere of American rhetoric and discourse has bled its way into the debate about national security and foreign policy. This politicization of American military operations has at times threatened to derail ongoing operations abroad. In most situations, these heated discussions tend to go so far as to completely ignore important facts and events, all the while reducing topics that concern the physical security of American citizens, and the long-term survival of the Republic, to a battle of screaming sound bytes. Those who refer to themselves as "progressives" should hold themselves to a higher standard in the interests of progressing the maturity of American discourse. Those who refer to themselves as "conservatives" should hold themselves to a higher standard in the interests of conserving the great traditions of the American debate. In spite of the fact that conservatives currently have stronger positions on national defense than liberals, the bottom line is that with the exception of those on the political fringes, national security should be a bipartisan issue.
What is the solution to this problem of the degenerate state of discourse in America and abroad? The possibility exists that there may be no solution; after all, these problems are caused by some of the character flaws that have defined the human experience for thousands of years. On the other hand, the increasingly cliche words of Gandhi may be apt in this case: "Be the change you want to see in the world." While this quotation is overused and underpracticed, perhaps it can inspire a grassroots effort to improve the sorry state of American dialogue (while acknowledging that a cure is probably impossible). Perhaps Americans, who are the most innovative people in the world, can decide one by one to reject the viral sound byte culture of the mainstream news media, and instead learn about important issues in a more comprehensive sense by using the astonishing volume of information on the Internet and other media to absorb both facts and opinions, and make an accordingly informed judgment. Perhaps Americans can reject empty slogans and ignorant protesting, and come together for civil, respectful discussions in a variety of open forums that exist throughout the country. The possibility even exists that a groundswell of both progressive and conservative citizens could engage in a massive campaign to inform America's political "talking heads" that the partisan bickering from both sides of the Congressional aisle will no longer be tolerated by the electorate; maybe the citizen body can force elected officials to engage in responsible, informed debate on such important issues as a decisive victory in Iraq or securing America's ports and borders. Perhaps.
Hey, in the late 1960's a massive letter writing campaign saved Star Trek from cancellation. You may be asking yourself, "Why is that relevant?" Simple: it's proof that stranger things can happen.
Over the course of the last decade, some alarming trends have developed in discourse not only in the United States, but also abroad. There is no question that America appears more and more polarized in recent years. Although America has been fortunate to have avoided any recent beatings in the United States Senate, the national debate has still degeneratated from the days when distinguished statesmen answered their detractors with carefully crafted oratory, or documents such as The Federalist Papers. Although there are many examples of this phenomenon, a few prominent ones are worth discussing.
One example is the intellectual snobbery waged against those who advocate the theory of intelligent design. This opposition has become so rabid that the venerable Ben Stein will release a film in February entitled Expelled. Stein's premise has less to do with support for intelligent design, although that is part of the premise the film. His primary focus is the refusal of mainstream science to do so much as discuss the possibility that our universe was created in anything other than a random accident. Not unlike the perceived position of the Roman Catholic Church when dealing with Galileo (which, for the record, was actually much more nuanced and reasonable than is commonly known), the scientific establishment in America today essentially brands those scientists (many of them distinguished and respected in fields including biology and physics) to be heretics, marginalizing them and ignoring any and all attempts to explore evidence suggesting a supernatural influence in the creation of the universe and mankind.
Should all Americans demand acceptance of the concept of intelligent design? Of course not; but all Americans should demand that science respect and explore viable courses of inquiry, particularly when American scientific activities are often funded by the tax dollars of citizens who overwhelmingly believe in the influence of a higher power in the creation of the universe.
For another example of this degeneration of American debate, we can look at the issue of global warming or climate change. Distinguished author Michael Crichton made an excellent speech about this topic in his presentation "Aliens Cause Global Warming" in January of 2003. There are several schools of thought on the issue of climate change, but unfortunately, very few prominent figures in the discussion of this issue approach it with much decorum. Most notable among these is former Vice President Al Gore, whose rhetoric surrounding the issue has grown and grown until it has resulted in veritable scare tactics. While scientists agree that the earth has experienced a very slight warming trend over the last century, the data and its interpretation is highly disputed, even among climatologists; and yet, an increasingly militant cadre of climate change activists demonizes anyone who doesn't embrace their agenda. This scathing debate has made its way into global politics and the global economy, and has become more and more heated as the years have passed.
Should all Americans make drastic changes to their lives in a futile effort to stave off the process of global warming? No, particularly since scientists in all camps seem to agree that if humans are impacting the global climate, they are only a fraction of the overall cause. Should all Americans reject the possibility completely, and make every attempt to destroy the planet? Of course not; we should all be able to agree that good stewardship of natural resources makes sense from both environmental and economic viewpoints. The point is that, particularly in light of the amount of dispute over both the data and its interpretation, no justification exists for the demonization of either side. As Crichton notes in his speech, further research and discussion from both proponents and critics is appropriate; demonization and denigration are not.
Where does this issue of the decline in American discourse come into the realm of security? It's simple: the exodus of decorum from the overarching sphere of American rhetoric and discourse has bled its way into the debate about national security and foreign policy. This politicization of American military operations has at times threatened to derail ongoing operations abroad. In most situations, these heated discussions tend to go so far as to completely ignore important facts and events, all the while reducing topics that concern the physical security of American citizens, and the long-term survival of the Republic, to a battle of screaming sound bytes. Those who refer to themselves as "progressives" should hold themselves to a higher standard in the interests of progressing the maturity of American discourse. Those who refer to themselves as "conservatives" should hold themselves to a higher standard in the interests of conserving the great traditions of the American debate. In spite of the fact that conservatives currently have stronger positions on national defense than liberals, the bottom line is that with the exception of those on the political fringes, national security should be a bipartisan issue.
What is the solution to this problem of the degenerate state of discourse in America and abroad? The possibility exists that there may be no solution; after all, these problems are caused by some of the character flaws that have defined the human experience for thousands of years. On the other hand, the increasingly cliche words of Gandhi may be apt in this case: "Be the change you want to see in the world." While this quotation is overused and underpracticed, perhaps it can inspire a grassroots effort to improve the sorry state of American dialogue (while acknowledging that a cure is probably impossible). Perhaps Americans, who are the most innovative people in the world, can decide one by one to reject the viral sound byte culture of the mainstream news media, and instead learn about important issues in a more comprehensive sense by using the astonishing volume of information on the Internet and other media to absorb both facts and opinions, and make an accordingly informed judgment. Perhaps Americans can reject empty slogans and ignorant protesting, and come together for civil, respectful discussions in a variety of open forums that exist throughout the country. The possibility even exists that a groundswell of both progressive and conservative citizens could engage in a massive campaign to inform America's political "talking heads" that the partisan bickering from both sides of the Congressional aisle will no longer be tolerated by the electorate; maybe the citizen body can force elected officials to engage in responsible, informed debate on such important issues as a decisive victory in Iraq or securing America's ports and borders. Perhaps.
Hey, in the late 1960's a massive letter writing campaign saved Star Trek from cancellation. You may be asking yourself, "Why is that relevant?" Simple: it's proof that stranger things can happen.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home