(From
My Website)
I find myself wishing that I didn't often have to resort to speaking like a kindergarten teacher when attempting to explain issues to certain people. Take the Orrin Judd post from a few weeks ago, for instance, where I had to resort to using terms like "not not any". Nobody should have to do that to communicate with someone over the age of nine.
Communication factors heavily into perception on both sides of the ever-widening Alignment Gap. How we convey our messages across this gaping fissure determines how the other side sees us, and often the message is lost in the tone. One side tends to view the other as technocrat elitists; the second tends to view the first as ignorant pillocks.
Averaging the Average American
Many have spoken recently about the "liberal elite". Some say this perceived "elitism" and condescension is one of the reasons we lost the election, and that we are "out of touch with the Average American".
First of all, who is this "Average American"? Bush didn't win the election by that large a margin. Are conservatives claiming that the Average Americans are the approximately fifty percent who voted for Bush, and that the liberal voters comprise the quantities on either side of this "average" that make it average?
That obviously doesn't make any sense. Average is not whatever half voted for your side. We could just as easily turn it around and apply our own arbitrary logic, claiming that the average voted for Kerry, and that conservative voters comprise the surrounding extremes. For the definition that applies to this scenario, "average" is the median, or "middle point", of all involved. Since there's no real way to quantify personal attributes and weigh them against each other, you have to take the obvious values: half of the voters are democratic, half of the voters are republican.
In any event, when the two measured parts are equal--as in this election, where the outcome was split down the middle--the average is practically meaningless. Pour equal parts water and vodka into a glass and the average is as much water as it is vodka. What is that data supposed to prove? Liberals don't appeal to the average half-vodka-half-water voter? Conservatives have been using an entirely arbitrary value for "average": themselves. Actual averages don't have a lot of meaning in this scenario.
This is yet another example of intentionally misinterpreting data, or giving misleading interpretations of data, in order to further manipulate the American people. Say it enough and it becomes true. "Numbers show Democrats are out of touch with the Average American." It doesn't matter if it's true; it's all in the repetition.
Elitism vs. Ignorance: It's all in the delivery
I'll admit I can be very condescending at times. The thing is, I don't typically start out that way when having a conversation. As I've previously mentioned, I hate it when I have to resort to things like "not not any" to get my point across. I wish people would understand what I originally said and why without my having to break it down and explain each part of it. I'm really not that bad a communicator; I shouldn't have to do that.
The issue I have is with frustration in communication. Often I feel as though I'm shouting at a brick wall when arguing with conservatives, because they tend to be either dismissive of the things I say, or else it seems as though they're just totally incapable of or unwilling to think of things from any perspective but their own. This leads to frustration and anger on my part, which results in the adoption of a condescending tone. I don't want to talk down to anyone, but I almost feel as though I have to treat them like children in order to simplify what I'm saying to a level where I feel they'd understand it. It's not that I view them as stupid, it's that their unwillingness to listen and their smug dismissiveness drives me to angry frustration.
Of course, this lack of communications skills is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum. Neither side seems to have the capacity to communicate with the other on their own terms. Liberals often argue from an external perspective, attempting to introduce a foreign logic to the faith-based world of religious fundamentalists. This doesn't work. The frame of reference for argument exists in a realm outside of their universe. We can't expect to win any argument by attacking their faith system as a whole. Many argue against the Bible, because religious fundamentalists typically use the Bible as the foundation for most of their arguments. This won't work because the Bible is usually the person's entire frame of reference. It's like lobbing missiles at their entire universe.
Intellect vs. Anti-Intellectualism
The problem exists on both sides, but it's worse coming from the conservatives because theirs tends to be very closely associated with rabid anti-intellectualism. I believe this anti-intellectualism stems from the rapid acceleration of technology: in the 1940's and 50's, the people weren't as advanced as we are today, but I believe that more of them were "in tune" with the technology of the time. As the rate of technological growth began to accelerate, most people found themselves unable to keep up. Instead of trying to catch on again, they instead took the lazier route and made it a bad thing to be intelligent. (Look at how so-called "geeks" and "nerds" were treated from the 1970's to the late 1990's.) It's easier to give up, celebrate ignorance and shun intelligence than it is to play catch-up with the bullet train of information.
Thus, attacking Bush's intelligence was one of the worst things we could have done. The harder we attacked his incompetent behavior and dull-wittedness, the tighter the anti-intellectuals clung to him. "Don't attack our Average George! Just because he thinks there's more than one internet and he can't pronounce most of his words correctly doesn't mean he's a bad guy! Screw you, you overeducated nerd!" In a society where intellectuals are treated as elitist pariahs by the anti-intellectual masses, it can actually pay to come across as an idiot. Of course, Bush isn't really as stupid as he seems. It's just a marketing tactic.
In touch
It's important to remember who comprises most of Bush's constituency, and why they are so unswayable. It's important to figure out new tactics for arguing with them on their grounds instead of trying to force our own into their world. It's important to remember that "elitism" is merely the perspective of a smaller group that propogates to the others through repetition. It's important to remember that it's all right to be criticized for being "out of touch" with an extremist right-wing majority.
I'm sure you've seen Sorry, Everybody. There's another site out called We're Not Sorry. Go there and count the KKK members and white power advocates. Scary, isn't it? If that's what's the conservative mouthpieces consider to be the "Average American", I, for one, am glad we're not "in touch" with them.
Funny... I haven't seen any KKK support for Kerry at all. I wonder why that is.