DEMS need to win not just elections, but better shape public opinion

[checks-n-balances]

Without an informed electorate, democracy cannot be sustained. That's one of our problems.

Rethug propoganda has been successful for long enough!

Case in point:

We could have helped the general public know how to react to things like the Nick Berg murder. However it came abaout or whoever is responsible, we can be sure the RW noise machine manipulated public emotion back to their point of view. Sometimes our reaction to things like that is to do the total opposite, which could be seen as not caring. It was so horrible, and because we did not react as strongly with a different way of viewing the situation (i.e., helping people to keep a perspective about it), we look like we're siding with al-Quaeda. Not true of course, but my questions are:

HOW ARE WE OFFERING THE UNDECIDEDS AND RETHUGS AN ALTERNATIVE TO REACTIONARY THINKING, E.G. WITH CRITICAL THINKING?

WITHOUT BEING EXPLOITATIVE, HOW CAN WE USE SITUATIONS BETTER AS "TEACHABLE MOMENTS" TO HELP MORE PEOPLE BE CRITICAL, OBJECTIVE THINKERS??

We have a responsibility to do this. Generally speaking, people just don't know how to think very deeply anymore. The more "dumbed down" our culture becomes, the more it provides a breeding ground for an ignorant populace, some of whom even visit the ballot box. Can you imagine a future nation of MORE Dennis Millers, Rush Limbaughs, and Zell Millers??

BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH JUST TO THINK. The PNAC signatories aren't imbeciles, as insulated, misguided and ignorant-of-other-cultures as they have been. Their ideas, put into practice, have proven to be IMMORAL.

THE OTHER THING WE HAVE TO DO IS TO REDEFINE "IMMORAL" AND "SIN", BELIEVE IT OR NOT!

Let's BROADEN THE PUBLIC'S DEFINITION OF THE WORD "MORALITY". It not all about sex, just as the concept OF "OBSCENITY" isn't just about sex either. It isn't even all about PERSONAL behavior. It's about GROUP behavior (as within legislative bodies) and PUBLIC behavior (as in public policies that treat people as less than human, or that favor one group or nation above another).

EVEN IF WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE IN IT, WE HAVE TO OFFER A BROADER VISION OF WHAT "SIN" IS. What too many church people don't get is that there is not just individual sin, but there's also CORPORATE SIN. Not just the hugs SINS of corporations like ENRON, but "corporate" meaning the sins or wrongdoing of BODIES ("corps") of people - like within systems. SEGREGATION OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WAS CORPORATE SIN. There is CORPORATE SIN within our own government and our elective processes (do I need to point out examples?)

Not only that, WE HAVE TO HELP PEOPLE SEE THAT SOMETIMES OUR COUNTRY HAS MADE MISTAKES AND HAS BEEN WRONG. Loving your country doesn't mean believing that it's totally perfect. We love our country in spite of its faults, even when it comes to foreign policy failures. That should mean we're even more horrified by our own faulty and/or evil actions. "My country, right or wrong" is self-deceiving and not healthy thinking. Part of our crisis right now is in realizing that we are human and (given certain conditions and situations) capable of atrocities, too. Some of us don't want to face that and are in such deep denial and anger that the mirror is being held up to our own collective faces. It's pathological not to deal with this as a nation, folks. The U.S. has to work through this or another Vietnam or Iraq is sure to happen again, to prove how great we are.

LASTLY, HOW IN THE WORLD DO WE LEAD PEOPLE OUT OF BLACK-AND-WHITE, MANICHEAN, DUALISTIC, ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING ("If you're not for us, you're against us")?? Have we just found our problems to be so complex that being simplistic is the only solution we can handle?

In closing, my examples may not be the best, and I don't have the answers to these questions. But we had better work on them if we want to retrieve what's left of our democracy.

ANY THOUGHTS FROM DU FOLKS about promoting CRITICAL THOUGHT THAT LEADS TO MORAL ACTION?

[forgethell]

1. I have a question.

What is the right way to have reacted to the Berg murder? My own reaction was horror and disgust at the people, whoever they are, that did this thing.

[checks-n-balances]

6. Good question, and I'm not sure of the answer...

I'm sure that ALL of us felt the same as you. The problem is that the visceral reaction of lots of people was a reinforcement of the false link between al-Quaeda and Iraq. It's almost like we have to anticipate that people's fears are being played upon and know how to be pro-active. Things like this happen and everyone is disgusted, but some people become more fearful and turn to the rethug line of thinking.

If I knew the answer I could be the Dem's answer to Karl Rove, but thanks for asking the question. I probably could've thought of a better example anyway.

[NMDemDist2]

2. this article was an eye opener for me--some very good points

we need to carry a message of hope and "can do"

Intellectual arguments won't work until we get people feeling empowered again


snip Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate. He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people from feeling they can solve their problems......

Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. snip

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html

[bryant69]

3. Critical Thinking

Would be key. It's problemattic at the same time, though, because the obvious assumption is that people who look at issues, get informed, and have a basic sense of ethics will largely come up with the same answers. In fact that has proven not to be the case in my life.

But i do agree that too often the liberal side of the argument hinges on a certain definition of reality. How do you argue with someone who posits things that simply aren't true? ("Iraq had proven ties to Al-Queada" for example.) A little critical thinking would help a lot in this area. The ability to evalute sources would help quite a bit as well.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[leftofthedial]

4. we need to innoculate Murka

against future brushes with fascism.

Win or lose the "election."

The problem is to overcome the conditioning of our entire mass-media culture to think politically in black-and-white, absolutist terms. (Meanwhile living the most relativistic life imaginable.)

[JHB]

5. Certain ends preclude certain means...

...or else "victory" becomes a meaningless word.

That's another point of ethics and morality that has to be driven home, especially to those follow along with "the ends justify the means".

[checks-n-balances]

7. Thanks for your discussion! MLK's words apply here, too (here's link)

You can almost substitute the word "Iraq" each time he says "Vietnam" It is LONG but excellent! Should be shared (not my words, but his, I mean).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1615173

[opihimoimoi]

8. This will require a small shift in thinking........