One of my recent diaries got some attention because it was a cute story. When my 12 hours of fame was almost up, one reader claimed I was "cheapening the debate" by using a single, humorous anecdote to make my point instead of issues. That tells me it's time to debate debate.
In my progressive life, I'm more of a philosopher than an activist. I have a life and it's not one conducive to making easy money, so it occupies a lot of my time and energy. I am somewhat involved in local politics, but not remarkably so. My strength is in my writing, so that's where I exert myself. The writing I do is not fixed on a particular cause or issue and I frequently write about several diverse issues at once, drawing parallels between them as a literary device. I also slam conservatives at the same time, which makes it fun. As a political commentator, that's all I do. I am, at the core, a writer and I'm good at it.
DailyKos is not my only venue. I have a weekly column in my hometown paper that I gained by bombarding the editor without mercy. He finally replied to me by telephone to ask "What are your intentions?" My intentions are to add another voice to the great cacophony that is American discourse and so my tiny column goes out to about 10,000 readers each week and is read by a small percentage of those.
Once in a great while, I show up in our larger metropolitan paper in Portland, Maine, but they rarely begrudge me any space except as a letter writer. I pound them without mercy for their absurd, hypocritical and ultimately nonsensical support of the Iraq war, an editorial position that has, like our government's justification, evolved over time. When I rip one of their editorials to shreds, they feel like it is graceful of them to give me letter space. It is also very cowardly. The attention my opinion would attract if given op-ed space is far greater. I know this is true because I once had a "global warming" op-ed published by them and it garnered responses from all over the world, including the main characters in that part of the debate and a lot of pseudo-scientific nut cases who were angered by my "ignorance". By relegating me to the letter section, they do their part to keep the public under control. It's not just them; it is what all big media does.
Call it my hobby; it's what I do. I write good stuff and it gets attention, now and then. DailyKos is fairly new to me, but, if I hit a chord, I get a little airtime.
I write in many different styles. The "Have It Out" essay (the cute story I first mentioned) was a purely emotional ploy, as the critic suggested. Thank you very much.
I also do sarcasm and satire under the guise of Stream of Consciousness News, but my favorite schtick is RightWatch where I take a conservative (or occasionally a liberal) writer's op-ed and point out its logical flaws or hidden agenda. I think that particular style is, for me, the most effective vehicle for doing good. I believe that because I NEVER see anyone else doing it in print media and that is because of the rules of the media club.
Nationally syndicated writers, by unwritten law, have to join the media club before they can have their space. The club has rules and the first rule is that you don't ever attack another member of the club. That's how Cal Thomas can get away with statements like "There is no greater good than that a man lay down his life for his fellow man" in the context of American soldiers being blown to bits by roadside bombs. A good satirical writer can nail him to the wall (or the cross, if you will) with raw material like that, but we're not allowed into the club.
The voices in my head are now asking, "What's this got to do with debate?" Or maybe it was your voice.
My critic wanted to debate Immigration Reform. Fine. I'm not against debate, but I have a pretty good idea what it will do about winning others over to whatever side we think we are on - nothing.
You want to change people's minds through debate? You might as well try voodoo dolls. Debate has its uses, the main one of which is to expose those few who have not made up their minds to a point of view. But don't kid yourselves that it has the power to "win". Consider the war. Before the war, did debate do any good? There is a simple argument against this kind of war that draws its power from exquisite simplicity: If you don't have to have a war, then don't. Even if there had been serious political opposition to the war and, even if said opposition had practiced flawless debate, it would have made no difference. When the neocons asked for their war, the majority of Americans said (or were prompted by a complicit media to say) "Well, I guess so. What's on TV?"
How do you fight that? Not with debate. In fact, the reality, as I see it, is as discouraging as it is compelling. You can only fight war mongering by trying, anyway you can, to influence those who can still be influenced. The vast majority of those people are the young.
Young people are adrift in an ethical ocean. They are, for the most part, raised on television and a demanding schedule of events designed to keep them in motion, to push them to meet the arbitrary goals of schools, family, churches, clubs or corporations. They have little close contact with or guidance from parents (present or absent) who are mostly preoccupied with the same distractions. If a father's primary goal is to buy the biggest SUV he can afford or the biggest plasma TV that will fit in the den, then that's what the son or daughter is taught that matters. Whether or not the parent pays lip service to religion or patriotism or any other ethical code makes no difference. Words are cheaper than ever these days. Actions teach.
I sound pretty cynical, but, in one respect, I am not. These children are not lost, but you don't save them from a life of mindless consumerism and corporate obedience by debating them or their parents. You can't change their minds, but you can put ideas out there that they may not have heard before. If they're still looking for a clue about life or wondering if cruise missiles might not be the answer to every crisis, they might listen to a progressive thought. If it makes sense, they might consider it, if not now, maybe someday. Maybe never. We are not destined to win, but we are not doomed to lose. There is an old story about life on Mars. Shortly after the Orson Wells radio panic, Mars was a hot topic. At one point, a news writer cabled a famous astronomer asking, "Please send 500 words on whether there is life on Mars". The astronomer immediately cabled back, "Nobody knows, nobody knows..." repeated 250 times.
Progressives, as well as conservatives, seem to be driven to find answers. Once we find our answers, we are driven to convince others of the answer. There's nothing wrong with that, but my point is that the process will never result in a "win". The debate is a side effect of people convinced they are right. It is the silent ones that matter and I think no one is talking to them.
We are all we've got. God is not going to rescue us. If any religious people or spiritualists want to debate me, don't waste your breath or my time. My mind is made up; I don't need to debate fairy tales. If it's just us, then we have to create a world in which we can live in peace and nurture a future with hope. If we cannot, and that is very possible, we are doomed. If we can, the only way to get there is to agree on what is good and noble and then to invite others to join. That is why I write. Peace to you all.