Has everyone noticed how banal our politics are? Frankly, it's boring me to death.

[beachmom]

I still like to read the news and uncover interesting stories. But I tell you, that American politics is really at the bottom of the barrel for me in terms of it being remotely interesting or illuminating. This whole Ground Zero Mosque brouhaha is really a pretend story posing as a real story. When I say "pretend" I mean that it is just another culture war story that affects almost nobody. It basically affects the people who want to build the mosque (which is really basically a YMCA with one prayer room) and some 9/11 family members who are upset about it, plus I suppose the neighborhood it is being built in. Other than that it is a completely fake issue. Sure liberals can talk about freedom of religion, which is important, but for me, as far as something that politicians need to deal with right now (not wax on philosophically about but actually DO something), it's not even in my top 50 list of things that are important to me. Let's start with the economy and state budgets being in trouble. How about the environment and how global climate change is affecting us (like what has been happening in Russia and how wheat prices are going up)? What about the war in Afghanistan? What about the national debt and what will happen to entitlement programs in the future? Those are actually important issues that affect us all directly. But are we talking about that now? Nope, it's all this stupid mosque "story" which was manufactured by some GOP pollster who saw something to gain for Republicans.

But . . . can we totally blame Republicans when liberals are falling for it? As boring as I find the Right wing, and "objective" media stories on this, nothing is more predictable than the left's reaction/counterreactions. Case in point: Harry Reid. I guess he caved to the right and broke with the President saying the mosque shouldn't be built. The left erupted in a bunch of cynical quips on Twitter. But to me, the whole thing was pre-scripted. I'm not defending Reid, I'm just saying I really don't care what he thinks about the mosque. He's a politician trying to win a race in a purple state. I DO care what his opponent has had to say about social security and other government programs she wants abolished. THAT actually would affect me. The mosque, not so much. Yet liberals are just as easy to be distracted by this issue as CNN. I wouldn't say all liberals. Maybe just the, ahem, "professional left". Another pointless story that affects no one. Again, I don't care about Robert Gibbs and what he had to say. I am not defending what he said. I am just saying the entire debate was patently so BORING. So irrelevant. Just another distraction.

I feel like there is a game going on where the outcome is preconceived. Which is why I find it so boring. Does anyone learn anything from this mosque story? Nope. It is junk food for the mind. Anyone else finding themselves less enamored with politics these days?

Edit: amazingly, a conservative on Sully's blog feels the same way but in terms of issues he cares about:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing.html

The post is addressed to the Republican base.

Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing
17 Aug 2010 12:31 pm

by Conor Friedersdorf

You've probably wondered why the Republicans you've sent to Congress in the past haven't made any headway on shrinking government. It's largely because a motivated constituency stands ready to oppose any significant cut. But a small part of the blame can be assigned to a base that is forever distracted by whatever irrelevant kerfuffle is thrust before it. Do you remember the last big story that the conservative media brought to national attention? It was a videotape of a speech by Shirley Sherrod, an obscure USDA official in rural Georgia. Andrew Breitbart, proprietor of several Web sites increasingly visited by your fellow conservative Republicans, claims that he published an excerpt in order to demonstrate the supposed racism of the NAACP.

There is precious little that the right could've gained from this kind of story in the best case scenario (which of course didn't happen). Imagine that instead of embarrassing Mr. Breitbart, the episode had proved that a Georgia chapter of the NAACP once hosted a speaker who said objectionable things. Would that help shrink government? Would the freedom of the average American increase? Would our unsustainable entitlements be reformed?

Unfortunately, addressing difficult, consequential issues is no longer required to become a successful conservative entertainer or a hero in the minds of the rank-and-file. ...

...

That brings us back to the so-called Ground Zero mosque. It's the latest battle in the culture war, and soon enough it'll be over. Either the project will be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero, or else the organizers will bow to pressure and relocate elsewhere. Maybe 20 blocks from Ground Zero. And what a victory that would be for the right. The New York Post would get its momentary hike in newsstand sales, its readers would feel 10 minutes of fleeting emotional satisfaction, and the politicians most adept at exploiting culture war issues would be marginally more likely to win a Congressional seat.

And when some Republican member of the ruling class is next faced with an issue where a party whip or a lobbyist wants him to do one thing, and his conservative constituents want him to do another? He'll think to himself, "I wonder if I can afford to lose some support from my base on this vote, and make it up by taking a populist stance on a culture war issue that doesn't cost me anything." In the past, the answer to that question has usually been yes.

Wow, I feel a bipartisan moment!

[wisteria]

1. LOL. And, I agree with everything you have said.

It is obvious nothing will get done until after November, so this is all just a media circus. It is clear why Reid has taken the stand he did, and the media is just pressing this and pressing this. But, I read last night that NJ Governor Christy is not in agreement with his fellow Repubs on the mosque issue, but I don't here the media covering all the discourse in his party because of the disagreement.
Frankly, I am tired of all the silliness. As you said,there are so many more important things that need to be addressed and taken care of, that affect millions of people, but these important things aren't getting any attention. As one of the unemployed, I want to here Democrats talk honestly about what they intend to do about creating more jobs and getting people off of unemployment. I am tired of excuses.
And, as you said,the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans when it comes to emphasizing the small insignificant matters.

[beachmom]

2. Exactly! It's the jobs, stupid.

Frankly, there is a bit of fatalism in me about the economy. There are structural things that can affect it in the long term (I think conservatives' approach of hands off leads to more extreme booms and busts, so I support a more balanced mix of regulation and a safety net coupled with policies to egg on the free market). But I actually think short of extending unemployment benefits and aid to the states (those two categories are the best form of stimulus I can think of), Democrats will be stuck with this economy going into the election. The weird thing is the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. When an economy is bad, typically the governing party is thrown out. However, the GOP has behaved so badly, their numbers have gone down even lower than the Democrats'!

Wishing you good luck with the job search, Wisteria.

[wisteria]

3. Thanks, and as for the economy, I am as pesimistic as you are. n/t

[karynnj]

4. Wonderful post - both your words and Sulivan's really ring true

I don't know what it is, but the darkness and ugliness of American politics really is getting to a point that people lose sight of all that is real. What is scary is that both sides seek to caricature the other which leads to both sides begging their leaders not to work with the evil ones.

On DU, there is a self centered aspect to what resonates here. It is completely idiotic that the Gibbs' comments dominated the boards for about two weeks. In the first place, it is telling that they assumed that the comment included them. (Although, "if the shoe fits....")

Now, I would hate a forum that was the President's fan club, but the inability to take any happiness in the many things which in the dark days of 2005 and 2006, we never thought would pass, leads to the malaise where everyone is angry and dispirited. (On health care, few remember that Dean did not have a public option and his plan was less ambitious than what passed. Edwards, who even then was somewhat a favorite, covered only kids. Yet, in 2004, they were all excited about the possibilities.

On the Mosque, one telling thing is that when there were first articles (just a few) about it 6 months ago in the NY, there was no controversy. There is another mosque relatively close to it. This was completely a ginned up issue - and the fact that they pulled 911 families into it is actually despicable. Blue Mass has a nice video that they link to showing a walk from the site to ground zero. The right wing "optics" to use their word, is completely wrong - and depends on people having no idea what that area is like. They speak of this mosque towering over the hole that used to be the site of the WTC. In fact, you will not be able to see one from the other. That area of NYC has HUGE buildings. So, there can be no picture like their optics, unless it is photoshopped.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/20549/reality-check-cordoba-house-is-not-at-ground-zero

They also have a very good thread on the history of how this became on issue.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/20541/how-the-nyc-mosque-nastiness-began

This timeline shows that this non-controversial project became toxic quickly as the RW echo chamber defined it - with all their tentacles validating each other that this was a cause for outrage. They played right into a large zenophobic vein in America. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/index.html (Every time one of these RW attacks starts, all I can think of was seeing everything pile on in November 2006.)

[beachmom]

5. Thanks for the links. This AJC cartoon nails it:

[karynnj]

6. Love it = I hope that ends up being the opinion of many people.

Though I'm not optimistic because there are people here who have a problem with it.

[TayTay]

7. It feels like deja vu all over again.

The RW operates on emotion-based politics. This is what their evil guru Frank Luntz preaches all the time. They understand the emotional connection between a single issue that doesn't have a lot of complicated moving parts and voters. The "Professional Left" cares about issues in aggregate and doesn't play the emotion card for fear that they won't be taken seriously as intellectuals.

In brief, The RW wants to win at any and all costs. They play dirty, ignore the truth or bend it to their purposes and aim to kill their opponents in every encounter. Nothing is out of order in a debate and they believe that the ends justifies the means.

The Professional Left wants to be "right" and morally justified. It matters more that the appeal is correct on a hierarchical scale of morality and group or issue identification. It also matters immensely that people are in the correct groups and have a long-term history of espousing the correct ideology. (Converts are suspicious on The Left.)

Sometimes it feels like people on the Left don't want to play politics. They hate politics, find it filthy and beneath them and refuse to get their hands dirty by actually engaging in real rock-em, sock-em politics. There are too many intellectual appeals when what is needed is a gut punch. This is how the game is played.

Yes, we have the facts and truth and research and morality on our side. So what? Unless we are able to engage the enemy by deciding to engage on the emotional or gut field, we won't win. All the research done on how people think and come to decisions on political issues indicate that emotional appeal trumps wonky wordiness every time. The Professional Left refuses to do the gut appeal. Personally, I think it's because they don't actually like the very people they are supposed to defend. They hold "We the People" at arms-length because "We the People" are not ideologically pure and might not pass the purity tests that the Professional Left loves to impose on people.

Politics is about taking the intangible and making it personal. (All politics is personal.) The Right understands this. The Mosque non-issue is a case in point. The Right understands that this is an emotional issue and is exploiting it accordingly. (Easy to do if you are without moral principles.) The Left first wants to bemoan the fact that the Right is, shock, gasp, playing dirty politics over an emotional issue. The Left sniffs and decides that only idiots would believe that the Mosque should not be built. The Facts dictate that this is a dry issue of right and wrong and the law and emotion should not play into it. (The Facts are the Holy Grail of the Left, as if an appeal to The Facts should banish the issue, which it never does.)

The Left doesn't trust the very people it needs to enlist to engage on this issue. Instead it trots out "experts" with degrees who are promptly ignored because they are unable to connect emotionally with voters. When this decree from on high fails, The Left decides that "We the People" are too stupid to understand what is going on and can't be trusted. They can't seem to remember that there are countless people with stories, real, emotional, gut-wrenching stories who could issue their own emotional appeals and connect with voters. Such emotion-based politics offends The Left, undermines their intellectual basis and is "dirty." (The Left likes "We the People" in theory, not in practice.)

The result is that the Right wins. The Left is baffled why an obvious thing with The Truth, The Facts and the Moral High-Ground is controversial. You would think someone would have figured this out by now.

We need more people in the Professional Left who understand street fights. We have too many people who show up at a gunfight with what amounts to a calculator. No wonder politics is depressing right now.

I am so sick of reading posts from the self-righteous on DU who hate "We the People." They congratulate themselves on being "correct" and on having a history of always being on the moral and correct side of an issue. They aren't "stupid" like the Great Unwashed in the general voting population. Hello, the Great Unwashed is where the battle is.

This is a difficult time to be involved in politics. The RW is, gasp, playing dirty again. The Left has to decide that being smart involves talking to people on an emotional level and that this doesn't compromise principle.

[TayTay]

8. Case in point

I don't mean to pick on this poster, but this post illustrates what I am saying:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8976864&mesg_id=8976864 (Don't respond to this, btw. I don't have an argument with this poster.)

The gist of this post is a lament that the whole Ground Zero Mosque thing is a stupid non issue that distracts us from "real Stuff" we should be paying attention to at the moment.

Americans are NEVER going to suddenly become intellectuals, get subscriptions to The Nation and sit around and debate tax policy. Not going to happen. Americans pay attention to issues like the Mosque because they pack an emotional appeal. We, as The Left, have to pay attention to this as well. We can't dismiss is as an issue only for stupid people. That is our failing.

Where are the stories from real people from the other side of this issue? Where are the Muslim families who lost loved ones in 9/11 and why aren't they on TV telling their stories? Where are the servicemen or families of servicemen who have fought for American Freedom and believe that a Mosque in that area of NYC is not unpatriotic or unAmerican. Why aren't we telling out side of the story and fighting back, fire to fire?

There are too many cold appeals. They will fail.

[beachmom]

10. Well, what I have written isn't that much different. I also don't get it.

Luckily, I am not a political strategist because I find wonk interesting and emotional BS issues boring. They are also what I call "unsafe" stories. You know, believe it or not, following politics closely when you're not in that line of work is simply a hobby, something to do during times of leisure. It is not my main job. It's something I do on the side. GOP BS emotional issues take all the fun out of politics. An "unsafe" story to me is one that after I read about it, I am very upset and agitated. My thought is, "oh, I could have used this time to read a chick lit book instead." It makes opening up the newspaper, turning the TV on, etc. dangerous. Oh, God, am I going to have my good mood destroyed? It is why a lot of people don't bother with the news at all. Much has been made about people reading the news on line instead of buying a newspaper. What I saw was a larger percentage of people who get NO NEWS at all. Who can blame them when this is the kind of garbage they are treated to on TV.

I guess I don't completely endorse your theory (that Dems should be like street fighters) because parts of the Professional Left have OVERreacted to this mosque story and have blown it all out of proportion. That it trumps everything else. I think Luntz & Co. had that reaction in mind as well. Show a shiny object and the left gets off topic just as easily as the GOP base. My opinion is that no matter what you do, you lose. Whether you fight or walk away. Both are losing propositions.

[TayTay]

11. I am not saying we should not be ourselves

but that we should add a layer on top of that.

How many people know someone out of work right now? That is a story. Every person out of work is a story, one with emotional appeal. It is not exploitative to talk about the fear of being in that situation, the human interest, the desire to have someone in power give a damn. It is what is really going on. There is nothing wrong with grabbing the podium by telling real stories, with real emotion involved in them and then underlying that story with The Facts.

The Left should be on fire right now. People are suffering, yet we are losing the battle.

When I pick up a novel to read, I want to read something that is gripping and retains my interest. I want to know there is a character I can identify with and become invested in as the story goes in. This is what keeps me reading the fiction. A novel that is all about process is not very interesting and won't attract readers. A novel that has a protagonist and that protagonist is "up against something" that is a real interest might just engage my attention.

Same thing.

[beachmom]

14. If we are talking how the American people are suffering, I am with you.

Emotion should be used. A good story. I guess what I was saying was I don't think liberals should be sucked into the Right's games. I actually don't find their "novel" to be remotely interesting or engaging. It doesn't speak to me AT ALL. For me I distinguish between your average Muslim in America and al Qaeda. They are not remotely in the same realm, so I guess to me this whole attack is dumb. It doesn't capture my emotions. It just makes me recoil at the ugliness of the attack. But as far as it being a STORY, it's just not. It feels phony. Certainly, I am not alone. Am I? More importantly, I am no Democratic operative. I'm just a citizen. So my reaction is real, unfiltered, with no agenda.

[TayTay]

15. It is a dumb attack, so then why are we losing it?

Why can't we tell a story that is gripping, true and that catches the attention of the voters. Last poll I saw showed more than 60% of the American people responding negatively to this non-news story.

We should be able to come up with a better way to fight this.

[beachmom]

17. I don't think that's possible because my brain is hardwired differently

than a lot of people. I lived abroad. I had to learn a new language. I have friends of different backgrounds. I don't fear "the other". But other people have had different experiences. You can't take that away. You know Jon Meacham caught a lot of flack when he insisted we live in a "center right" country. I think on individual issues, that is not necessarily true. But when it comes to cultural issues, he is right. Americans are very traditional and conservative. They want things to stay the way "they used to be" even if it already HAS changed. And although there actually already is a mosque in that area and that the new location has already had Muslims come to pray, they were not aware of it. Now that they are, they're upset. Nothing will change their minds except experience. And that will take years, if it comes at all. Europe, which is quite liberal on safety net and environmental issues are NOT liberal when it comes to Muslim immigrants. They are quite xenophobic (I've seen it in person, so this is not based on something right wingers have said in America); liberals doubly so, since the Muslim immigrants are culturally very conservative when it comes to sexuality. So I don't see any tact moving those poll numbers.

[ProSense]

32. I agree with almost everything said in the comments here, but mostly this

"The Left should be on fire right now. People are suffering, yet we are losing the battle."

The pathetic reaction has mostly been complaining. The right is trying to throw up obstacles to every bit of progress made and the reaction from progressive organizations has been lame. Where is the progressive movement on critical issues (health care was OK, but the push for climate change was pathetic)? A RW group challenges the President's stem cell policy, and there is not a peep from anyone that this is happening until a judge rules against the policy.

[MBS]

33. I share your frustration and dismay

Here is an op-ed that struck a bit of a chord. .
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/08/21/the_new_face_of_massachusetts/

an oped in the form of an open letter to Pres. Obama, who is vacationing in Martha's Vineyard.

includes a few felicitous phrases (Scott Brown as a "feckless faux populist" was a particular favorite :evilgrin:
And here's the concluding paragraph:

So buck up, Mr. President! The beauty of Massachusetts and the ingenuity of its people are an inspiration even in darker times. Good people are losing heart because the nay-sayers seem to have all the energy on their side. But you can emerge from this vacation restored — more like the leader the country elected two years ago: confident, principled, promoting real change on behalf of ordinary Americans. Just take another deep breath of that salt air Ted Kennedy loved and come out swinging. Most people still want to believe that hope is stronger than fear.

Please have Pres Obama, and the congressional democrats, come out swinging, by Labor Day. Having heard Mitch McConnell's outrageous statements Sunday, about Obama's religious beliefs, I'd say it's about time. Heartening to hear various MSNBC commentators nail McConnell and other congressional Republicans as basically unpatriotic, not only for slander of the president, but also for putting their quest for power over the good of the country.

[wisteria]

9. You are so right, and we are going to continue to lose if we do not

find ways to gain some emotional ground with voters. I am not saying we should pander, but real and honest connections would be nice. Oh, and on a level that can be understood.

Although,I think we all know this entire issue is being blown out of poportion because it is August and there is nothing else around that the media can turn into a controversy that would possible benefit their talking points about how Republicans are gaining ground on Democrats. Even though, there really are much more important matters that should be discussed.

[Blaukraut]

12. Good points

But there is a huge element of Stupid involved, too. How could you possibly appeal to the 25% who believe that Obama is a muslim, for example? They believe what they want to believe and no amount of talk or effort will convince them otherwise. I also have my doubts about the rather large group that isn't sure about his religion.

I'm far from a cerebral intellectual leftie, but even I lose my patience with people in my environment who display such wilful ignorance. There are only so many times you can explain to someone that TARP happened under the Bush admin, or even use the emotional appeal of 'Aren't you tired of the rich getting richer while you can barely afford to pay your bills?'. They get it for a minute and then they're back to 'smaller goverment', 'Obama wants to raise our taxes', 'get rid of income tax in MA', 'Brown has our back' (this one despite ample evidence to the contrary). I could go on.

That said, we have some pretty effective progressive voices who do have the ability to use emotion in order to get their point across. Alan Grayson comes to mind. Unfortunately, they get marginalized by our media. Ever noticed the combative tone the pundits use with Grayson, Weiner, Kucinich, et al?

The last ten years seem like an unending nightmare when it comes to our side getting a raw deal, and I know it's been going on much longer than that. It just seems to get worse with each election.

[MBS]

13. you captured my mood exactly

which I would characterize (speaking only for myself) not as boredom, but as frustration, outrage, and despair. This seems such a naive perspective now, but I really thought that the 2008 election really signaled the beginning of the end of the disease that's afflicted our country since 1980. Boy, was I wrong about that. It does seem to be getting worse. Or at least louder. I try to tell myself that the increased volume is really a symptom of the last disease stages: they're screaming louder, because they know they're losing. But lately it's been hard to convince myself of that scenario. It's not just about the leaders: it's about US. WE CITIZENS have chosen to succumb to fear, to remain (as you said) willfully ignorant, to be small.

when I get in this mood, I admire JK all the more for the energy, persistence, passion,commitment,selflessness and sheer hard stubborn effort he continues to put into his work. If he can keep the faith (and the energy), I tell myself, then so should I. Certainly, the alternative --abandonment of hope and effort will guarantee failure.

I often find myself urging Obama to realize his enormous full potential and step up to the plate: on the environment and other issues.
But, in the end, it's the AMERICAN PEOPLE who need to step up to the plate. To wake up, to step up, to open their eyes and their ears, to choose to rise about fear, to choose to be great.

[TayTay]

16. You don't go for the 40% you can't get

There are 40% of the people, maybe 45%, that you can't get. They are not in tune with us ideologically or politically. They will never be in tune with us. It is fruitless and a waste of time and energy to go after them. They are not achievable and going after them is a colossal waste and a drain on resources.

However, there is a middle than we can go after. That is where story and intent and clarity of message matters. The RW message can "play" there. This is also where the RW can overplay their hand, as they did on Terri Shciavo. Surely we can devise a way to speak to this middle that we need. Surely there is a way to change the dialog.

We have so many diverse groups in the Democratic coalition. Surely we could find a way to put people who are actually affected by policy, by the heartlessness of the RW front and center in our fight.

[Luftmensch067]

18. I agree with everything you're saying here, Tay, but...

...what always puzzles me is the issue you describe in your last sentence. HOW does one talk to people on an emotional level when an issue is more complex than the lizard-brain will accept? Do we have to "dumb things down" into emotion-sized bites? I agree that personal, genuine connection wins over pie-charts every time, but what do you do with the complex stuff? I think of Teddy, of course -- he really was able to convey how it felt to need a real, compassionate, functioning government in human terms. But I don't really understand how he did it! The Right wins because they ignore everything that is complex and just lie and lie. But if we don't want to lie and things ARE bigger than a soundbite, how do we do it?

[beachmom]

19. All of this hooks into my original point of it all being banal.

I mean, why do we have to bother with something so absurd. When I say "we", I don't mean those who are paid to worry about this stuff. I am just talking about regular people who see through the entire episode. How is such a debate whether we win or lose it good for our culture? For our economy? For any number of important things for a society. The answer is it doesn't. Trying to formulate a response wastes time that could be used doing something else. I just feel like as someone who grew up when the Reagan Revolution hit, that our politics has been overall talking about silly things that don't matter & never have mattered for 30 years. The only times it hasn't been was briefly when tragedy struck, and during the financial crisis of 2008/2009.

What makes this time different for me personally is that I don't feel like talking anymore about it. It's the equivalent to a fast food dinner or a very bad reality show. It's junk. There are so many other interesting things to read and care about. And frankly, the fight between Robert Gibbs and the "Professional Left" was equally a brain dead debate. Just a bunch of babies who don't get what's important. I think the most intellectually shallow people are involved with politics. How else could one come up with every stupid topic we see on cable TV week in and week out. Meanwhile, the floods in Pakistan is actually a REAL story that touches on so many important things like global climate change, the geopolitics of that region, and our own national security. But nobody wants to talk about that.

[TayTay]

20. We break the issue down to it's component, digestible, parts

We cannot solve global warming singularly. We cannot solve the financial crisis, singularly. We cannot slow the growth of AIDS/HIV singularly. The problems are not humanly grasped in the abstract and, presented as a whole, do not compel action. In fact presenting a problem as a whole DISCOURAGES action because the problem is too big to compel action.

We break the problem down into it's component parts. We can't solve global warming alone. However, we can change a light bulb, check the energy efficiency of appliances before we buy them, plan our trips to save gas and so forth. None of these actions will solve all of global warming, but, if enough people do these things, it makes a huge difference in the problem.

Really smart people have an intrinsic understanding of human nature and how human beings think and react to their world. There is an enormous amount of research in the field of behavioral economics that should be applied to the study and practice of politics. I could recommend a dozen scientists who specialize in this, but let me introduce you, via C-Span's booktv (free video) to Prof Dan Ariely of MIT and Duke University. Go to www.booktv.org and enter "Ariely" as the search term in the search field at the top right of the page.

(Added side bonus: Ariely and the other behavioral economists absolutely destroy the RW rationale for economic behavior. The whole basis for RW economic thinking is that markets are rational. There is zero support for this in the research, zero. Markets and human beings do not act rationally. We have a whole political party operating on a fallacy economically. Surely we can take some of this research, based on easily explained studies, and use them to explain complex things with an eye to human nature.)

Except from Prof Ariely's blog on apathy and compassion:

If six months ago someone were to describe to me a tremendous oil spill and ask me to predict our collective reaction to it, I would have said that we would be highly interested in this disaster for a week or two and, after that short time, our interest would dwindle to “mildly interested.” After all, we (the public) appear only vaguely interested in a whole slew of environmental issues. The destruction of the Amazon rain forest, for example, has been going on for decades. Since 1970 we’ve managed to destroy about 600,000 square miles (www.mongabay.com/brazil.html), but we’re so used to these kinds of statistics that no one seems to care much.

So, why is it that we care so much about the BP oil spill than what happens on a daily basis in the Amazon? Here’s what we know about human caring and compassion. First and foremost, it is based on our emotions rather than our reasoning. Joseph Stalin said, “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.” Mother Teresa said, “If I look at the masses I will never act, but if I look at the one I will.” In oil spill terms: We see pelicans and turtles mired and dying in oil, and we want to cry. We hear about families who have had their homes ruined and their livelihoods horribly affected or even destroyed, and we sympathize with their helplessness and want to do something to help them recover. Our compassion isn’t necessarily proportional to the magnitude of the catastrophe. It depends on how much of our emotion is invoked.

Perhaps I’m mistaken about human apathy, but it is also possible that there are particular features of the BP oil spill that influence how much we care, and that if these features were different, we would care substantially less, even if the magnitude of the disaster were the same.

Here are a few characteristics that might differentiate the BP oil spill from the destruction of the Amazon. First, it is a singular event with a precise beginning. Second, while the tragedy was ongoing (and we are not yet sure if it has ended or not) it seemed to become more desperate by the day. Third, we have a single organization that we can villainize. In contrast, in the Amazon, there are many organizations and individuals at fault, both in the countries where deforestation is occurring and abroad. And fourth, the Gulf is so much closer to home (at least for Americans).

The BP oil spill is, of course, a hugely devastating tragedy. At this stage, we don’t fully understand the magnitude of its consequences, which will likely last for decades. At the same time, it might be worthwhile to take this moment in history as an opportunity – when are caring about this tragedy is still high – to reflect on our larger relationship with the oceans, and the apathy with which we generally greet the less dramatic, but perhaps equally devastating, environmental consequences of overfishing and “everyday pollution.”

http://danariely.com/2010/07/20/why-we-care-the-gulf-the-amazon/

[sandnsea]

24. The spill is in our own yard

Not just the backyard, but the front yard, side yard, and starting to look like it might seep into the house too.

Then there's the DOUBLE PLUS GOOD BONUS of being able to bash the President, from the left and right.

And don't forget the gooey goodness for the liberal elite media, who can finally dig into the President's ass and gnaw incessantly to prove they are not unprofessional hacks who showed their biast spending 8 years picking on the Republican.

No offense to your Professor or Lakoff or whoever, but the answer is just so simple and sits like a big fat cyst all over the landscape...

They Write For Radio. It's visual. They are very good at it.

Obama on vacation is the "Clark Griswold President". Politically, it's fucking brilliant. And visual. Like 25 year old men.

That's how they do it.

[ladym55]

21. Let's add another dimension ... the "objective" media

WHY are we all in a twit about the "mosque" at Ground Zero (aka, the Muslim Community Center in the Burlington Coat Factory building)? BECAUSE M$M COVERS IT TO DEATH AND PUSHES THE RIGHT-WING THEME. And any progressive viewpoint is presented in secondary position and in a less attractive light.

Earlier this week, I took the time to blast both NPR and NBC News. They intoned on and on about how MORE Americans believe Obama is Muslim. This was somehow Obama's fault. NPR went so far as to say that Obama "claims" to be Christian and to say that America KNEW Bush's faith. If almost 20% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim and 43% aren't sure, golly, my guess would be they are REGULARLY MISINFORMED. So, the "journalists" aren't doing their jobs.

WHY is our political discourse so banal and mean-spirited? Because the discussion and the agenda is set by the fine folks at Faux Noise. They are daily and happily suggesting that President Obama is "the other." And the "journalists" of M$M play along. Matt Lauer fussed and fussed about the "controversy" of Michelle Obama's trip to Spain. Why was THIS a story? Did Laura Bush not travel for 8 years? Did she not need Secret Service? But Laura Bush is white and wealthy, and Michelle Obama ... well, she's NOT white, or in Rush Limbaugh's terms, she was getting a "free pass" because of slavery.

It is very hard for Progressives to get the word out because we can't get covered. 200 angry white people show up wearing tea bags on their hats, and it's news. Thousands show up to protest war or to rally for health care, and the media decides that we get to watch the newsworthy water-skiing squirrel.

I'm tired and discouraged because the corporate right controls the message and is busily misinforming us and trivializing our lives.

[MBS]

22. I remember, in 2007 or 2008, Al Gore talking on NPR. .

remembering, with great frustration, how in 2000 how much he wanted to make environmental issues a major theme of his campaign. But he was thwarted on two fronts (a) his campaign advisers kept telling him it wasn't good strategy and (b) when he did speak on the environment -- he recalled one time when it was the main them of his talk -- the journalists wouldn't cover it. Instead, they would key in on something from the Q and A, totally unrelated to the topic at hand. Kerryites are very familiar with the (b) phenomenon, misreporting, distorted reporting, or, worst of all, NONreporting , where journalists simply don't report on events and speeches and achievements that matter.. Responsible journalism is a vital element of democracy; its currently weakened state (As ladym55 related so well, even NPR is not what it used to be) is dangerous for the political health of our country.

These elements -- political guys who think they know more than the candidate or office-holder about strategy, and journalists who won't report on things that matter -- are still with us today.

Gore didn't mention a third element, but I will: fellow citizens who don't want to listen , or to take the trouble to vote or even to inform themselves on basic issues, and whose opinions are based on ignorance and fear. We as a country have to decide to get moving again. Obama or Kerry or the media can do all the right things. But if we don't listen, or choose not to move forward, it will make no difference. (Case in point: the Gulf oil spill. The worst environmental disaster in US history, an example right in front of our faces of the relationship between environmental health and economic health, and of the disastrous effects of our lifestyle on . . well. . EVERYthing. I can be frustrated all I want about Obama not doing more with his enormous intelligence and eloquence to teach us to connect the dots. . and rant at NPR all I want for treating, as it did last week, our failure to change our lifestyle -- SUV sales are going up again, and pickup trucks are once again the best-selling cars in America -- as a funny, human-interest story. But, dammit, we should be able to connect the dots ourselves. WE're the ones who are buying the SUVs and the pick-up trucks. My neighbors are the ones who never, ever recycle anything, even though my city has state-of-the-art curbside recycling, accepting pretty much everything (all 7 kinds of plastic, plus metal, paper, cardboard and glass).

[ladym55]

26. We often choose to be ignorant

It's easier that way (at least we think so).

We need to make all sorts of life-style changes. We won't. I hadn't heard that we are all buying SUVs again. How stupid can we be???? (Don't answer that.)

Somehow we have lost the ability TO connect the dots. We cling to easy slogans and our toys, thinking it will all be okay. I often look on dumbfounded when my Republican acquaintances spout absolute nonsense about health care or taxes or the environment. I hear about how all Muslims are Islamo-Fascists or how health care reform will result in all young people under age 26 moving home, collecting unemployment, and smoking dope. Abortion is bad, BUT we if we provide universal health care, it will go to welfare moms and illegals. :banghead:

btw, I am insanely jealous of your recycling. We have a city compactor where we can recycle glass, cans, plastics 1 and 2 (whoopee?), and corrugated cardboard. To take care of office paper, I need to schlep it elsewhere. I go to the grocery store with my tote bags, and actually had a bagger ask me why I didn't like their nice plastic bags!!!!

[beachmom]

23. I recommend reading Prof. Jay Rosen about the media & the Church of the Savvy

http://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu

He's been on this story.

Noticed the pattern? When journalists discuss why so many Americans say Obama is Muslim they describe no campaign to demonize him as "other"

Journalists are not part of either a liberal or conservative conspiracy. Instead they are obsessed with savviness. The Right Wing is savvy by bringing up the NYC mosque; therefore the journalists cover the story as the "reality" of the Right being effective. They have reported less (although I give credit to the AP for trying to fact check) the facts and more how it is all "playing" politically. BTW, they view John Kerry as unsavvy. That is why they apply so much derision toward him for committing the cardinal sin of not being savvy.

Edit: Just as an aside, I am acquainted with two people who are journalists (not big time, but they're in the business). I found them on Facebook, and one of them in particular (a CNN employee) is always trying to play savvy to the extreme. One article that would please the Right, and another that would please the Left. I'll give you one word to describe it: PHONY. A lot of these liberal journalists (oh, yeah, they come from that background) are so spineless and superficial. They are willing to sacrifice the truth in order to appear cool. Remember that.

[ladym55]

25. Thanks for the link

Maybe being "cool" is all that matters. Too bad that fails all of us miserably.

[wisteria]

27. Your right and it does make me anger too, But, I feel helpless to do much but try to talk truth to

some people who repeat these lies and misinformation. And, I have to try and do this without sounding to partisan or far left. I fear that unless Democrats and Progressives find a way to overcome the media message we are going to fade away.

[sandnsea]

28. Who buys stuff and pays taxes?

Maybe that's what drives the news message. It intentionally reflects the middle class white Republican because statistics show that's the citizen with the most money to spend on the advertisers who pay for the news... ???

[ladym55]

29. If our local news is any indication

People watching the news are men of a certain age with bad prostates and related issues. That is the focus of almost every commercial.

[sandnsea]

30. lol, well yeah... and how do they vote?

And what do they want to see on the news?

[wisteria]

31. That is too funny. n/t