I have a friend who sends me political snippets and action alerts. Sometimes a dozen or so a day. And they are all good causes. But it's too much, and too scatter-shot.
I finally made a filter just for her, and once a week or so I look to see what she's sent. And then I delete most of them. She is so outraged, and so willing to find a dastardly conspiracy behind everything, that I have to stop listening. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?
That may be the point. This interesting blog (pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com) proposes that at least some of the outrageous proposed legislation is being proposed just to provoke outrage. Yelling on both sides just makes the uncommitted public tune out the argument. "They're both equally bad, and equally at fault," they think.
If you are a minority party, this is a good, albeit risky, strategy. Risky, because you don't want to energize the uncommitted. You want them so uncommitted that they won't vote.
The committed opponents won't vote for you anyway. But you may fracture their solidarity. You can bring up issues that are contentious even within their ranks. By carefully framing the issues so that some react with extreme outrage, you may get the moderates to distance themselves from the extremists. The moderates may give up in disgust if their colleagues start sounding like conspiracy theorists. Or they may simply become confused by the shouting. Either way, if you can split them, you will be closer to gaining a majority come voting day.
Once in power, you can drop the extreme proposals. You can do it under the guise of being misunderstood at the start, or you can say you are being responsive to the constituency. You never need to say it was all just a ploy to start with.
The moral for us on the other side: don't fall into the outrage trap. If the issues are being provocatively addressed, don't rise to the bait. Recognize that in many cases there is a real concern being addressed. Respectfully consider what is being proposed, and answer intelligently. Point out an alternative solution to the concern, rather than just reacting violently to their proposal.
This isn't a game. It's not a matter of winners and losers. They are not unalloyed evil, we are not unalloyed good. Both sides want what they think is best for this country. I happen to think that their vision is corrupted by entrenched special interests and a selfish lack of empathy for others. They probably think mine is starry-eyed and unrealistic. But in the end, we will all be travelling this road together.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Mother's Day
Today, Mother's Day is a day for pampering Mom, for giving her chocolates and flowers and breakfast in bed.
Its origins, however, lie with Julia Ward Howe, the woman who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The carnage of the Civil War so distressed her that she called on mothers everywhere, as natural peacemakers, to prevent the killing of sons by other women's sons. In 1870 she proposed:
Anna Reeves Jarvis, some years later, recast the holiday as Mother's Friendship Day, in an attempt to heal some of the families split by the Civil War. Instead of being anti-war per se, the emphasis was on reconciliation and healing. But as the need faded with time, so did the holiday.
But then in 1908, after ARJ's death, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis revived a Mother's Day celebration in remembrance of her mother. And third time's the charm.
The anti-war message had been transformed into honoring mothers, something everyone could get behind, and they did. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson declared a national Mother's Day celebration. Commercial interests began exploiting the sentiment. Anna, who had lobbied for the creation of the holiday, now began to fight its commercialization. She wrote,
Perhaps I am cynical, but I think the success of Mother's day is entirely due to that commercialism. Sentiment is easily commercialized. Reconciliation is tougher. Our society treats reconciliation with suspicion; victims and perpetrators are kept apart, and divorce lawyers assume unending hostility between the parties. "Closure" is assumed to mean punishment, not reconciliation. Not something that lends itself to commercialization.
And the original proposal, that mothers settle differences to keep their sons from killing each other, is downright unsettling; it completely upends the political and economic order. Politicians don't WANT mommy telling them they should play nicely.
A sentimental Mother's day needs no importance other than remembering and honoring Mom. And, in true American style, just maybe spending a lot of money on her.
Its origins, however, lie with Julia Ward Howe, the woman who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The carnage of the Civil War so distressed her that she called on mothers everywhere, as natural peacemakers, to prevent the killing of sons by other women's sons. In 1870 she proposed:
"That a general congress of women, without limit of nationality, may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace."Needless to say, this general congress of women (a good 50 years before women were given the right to vote) never occurred. Some cities did celebrate the day for a time.
Anna Reeves Jarvis, some years later, recast the holiday as Mother's Friendship Day, in an attempt to heal some of the families split by the Civil War. Instead of being anti-war per se, the emphasis was on reconciliation and healing. But as the need faded with time, so did the holiday.
But then in 1908, after ARJ's death, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis revived a Mother's Day celebration in remembrance of her mother. And third time's the charm.
The anti-war message had been transformed into honoring mothers, something everyone could get behind, and they did. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson declared a national Mother's Day celebration. Commercial interests began exploiting the sentiment. Anna, who had lobbied for the creation of the holiday, now began to fight its commercialization. She wrote,
"What will you do to route charlatans, bandits, pirates, racketeers, kidnappers and other termites that would undermine with their greed one of the finest, noblest and truest movements and celebrations?”Jarvis's opposition did little to stem the tide of commercialism, and today Mother's Day is about a 16 billion dollar industry. The origin of the day as an anti-war effort are mostly forgotten.
Perhaps I am cynical, but I think the success of Mother's day is entirely due to that commercialism. Sentiment is easily commercialized. Reconciliation is tougher. Our society treats reconciliation with suspicion; victims and perpetrators are kept apart, and divorce lawyers assume unending hostility between the parties. "Closure" is assumed to mean punishment, not reconciliation. Not something that lends itself to commercialization.
And the original proposal, that mothers settle differences to keep their sons from killing each other, is downright unsettling; it completely upends the political and economic order. Politicians don't WANT mommy telling them they should play nicely.
A sentimental Mother's day needs no importance other than remembering and honoring Mom. And, in true American style, just maybe spending a lot of money on her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)