Turning over a New (Political) Leaf

Earlier this week, I posted a teaser graphic about the differences between discussions and lectures. I’d like to expand on that post a bit, since it’s something I struggle with. It’s easy, I think, to become entrenched in my own personal beliefs and values, unwilling to listen to another person’s ideas and reconsider my beliefs in light of the discussion. And, I think that kind of entrenchment is exactly what’s wrong with America today.

Americans used to be able to discuss the important issues with respect. We could civilly “agree to disagree,” but we also recognized that we needed to leave our entrenched positions and meet in the middle to find solutions to our shared problems. The ideologues at each extreme weren’t ever happy with that, but each side compromised for the good of all. Today, no one is willing to compromise, ever. In fact, suggesting that someone “compromise” has somehow become twisted to mean, “You compromise and give me everything I want, but I won’t move an inch.”

I personally blame the political entertainers (or politicotainers as I will call them in this post) like Limbaugh, Maddow, Beck and Maher. And, I blame their followers, the people who watch those programs or listen to their radio shows on a regular basis. Fans of politicotainers like to say that these people serve an important role in politics. But, they don’t. These people are paid entertainers, and their only job is to make money for their advertisers. Most aren’t political experts, yet people listen to their shows and ape their comments and views without giving any of the material serious study.

We’ve become sheeple (that is, sheep-people) willing to stampede in whatever direction our favorite politicotainer points. I even lump Stewart and Colbert into the politicotainer category, since so many people get their “hard news facts” from those comedy shows. While Stewart and Colbert usually remember that they’re comedians first, they sometimes slip into the role of “political analyst” that Maddow and Limbaugh like to claim.

What’s the solution? The first step is easy, but it’s also hard. TURN. THAT. CRAP. OFF. Really. Turn off all those politicotainer programs we all listen to or watch on a regular basis. Those people aren’t really political experts, and they’re not interested in finding solutions to the country’s problems. They only make money if everything continues to fall apart. Then, they get paid for gleefully “reporting” on the decline. So, turn them off. Sure, it means disrupting a daily routine, but like any habit, repetition will make it easier.

The second step is much, much harder. It requires all of us to actively seek out information from all sides of a debate, perhaps in newspapers, magazines and books. Then, we have to read and think about that material, choosing what to believe and what to discount. The recent decline in journalism makes this harder. But, I also think that newspapers and magazines are dying because no one wants to do the hard work of reading widely and thinking deeply. We could put a lot of skilled journalists back to work here while also educating ourselves.

The third and final step is the toughest of all. We must then engage in a respectful discussion of ideas with those who hold the exact opposite point of view. That’s tough, and the chart I posted earlier this week has some excellent tips on how a respectful discussion works. (Since no one I know has practiced that art in at least a decade, including me, I hope the chart will be useful.) It’s only by entering into respectful discussions that we’ll be able to find common ground with those who hold opinions that counter our own. And, until we see what we have in common, we’ll never find the solution to our country’s problems.

This weekend, I’m going to scout out news sources that I can use for step two. It will be tough, since my attention will be on the Olympics and seeing “The Dark Knight Rises” with friends. But, I’m committing myself to this new course of action so I’m ready to cast an informed vote in November. Who will join me?

Discussion or Lecture?

I'm working on a post for Friday that will address the need for "discussions" in greater detail. As a teaser for that, I share this image, which is making the rounds online:

The Idealism of Arts and Politics

American voters head to the polls in November of this year, voting for a President, Representatives and some Senators, as well as state and local officials. We're a politically active family, regularly voting in elections, even when the only items on the ballot are small, local measures, the kind of measures that typically result in low voter turnout. We pay a lot of attention to political ads and issues, and we also have a strong body of ideals about what America should be. Given all that, it's probably not surprising that, yet again, we're re-watching "The West Wing" on DVD.

Of course, part of deciding to revisit the saga of the Bartlet administration is because I recently finished reading Stories I Only Tell My Friends, the Rob Lowe autobiography. Mr. Lowe's early films were touchstones for my generation, and my interest in his career was rekindled by his stellar work as Sam Seaborn, the idealistic young speechwriter on "The West Wing." So, when I heard he had an autobiography and it was being considered a top read for 2011, I decided to give it a try. I really enjoyed the book, and Jen is now reading it. After finishing the book, I found myself wishing the following:

1. I wish we lived in an apartment with a bigger kitchen and dining space
2. I wish I were a better cook, someone who prepares the kind of meals you serve to guests - meals that spark interesting dinner conversations
3. I wish I had Mr. Lowe's phone number, so I could invite him and his wife to share that meal and conversation with me and Jen

Setting that aside for a moment, I was really surprised to read that Mr. Lowe is, perhaps, nearly as idealistic and politically minded as his "West Wing" character was. That really isn't my perception of Mr. Lowe, although it's not uncommon for Hollywood celebrities to be politically active in association with progressive causes. However, Mr. Lowe hasn't been vocal about his political activities or views in recent years, certainly not as active as George Clooney, Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt are. And yet, reading Mr. Lowe's autobiography showed him to be a politically active man, one with fairly progressive values and a strong, idealistic view of America's past and its potential.

Perhaps that's why the Sam Seaborn character resonates so strongly with me. He's a young man who leaves a high-paying job as a New York attorney to do "the right thing" and try to make a difference by taking a job in the White House. And, I keep getting emails from MoveOn.org, which ask if I want to join a grassroots, progressive effort to counter the Tea Party sweep from 2010. The email was looking for people to either run for office or serve as staff members on campaigns.

To be honest, I've considered running for political office in the past. However, I can also think of a number of reasons why I shouldn't. First and foremost, Jen hates the spotlight. And, if I ran for a political office, even at the lowest levels, she would be caught in the glare because of me. Also, as an out lesbian in a long-term relationship/marriage, I would have a hard time winning an election, even in liberal New York City. Also, I'm self-employed and have a very low income, while the bulk of our household expenses are covered by Jen's salary. So, financially, I'm not in any position to run for political office. Plus, I don't have a network of friends and associates here in the city, since I work from home. The few people I knew from my graduate studies at NYU have either moved away for jobs or they aren't eligible to vote in New York. So, running for office isn't really an option for me, even though I sometimes wish it were. Like Mr. Lowe's TV character, I want to make a difference and do the right thing while trying to help our great nation live up to its potential.

From what I read in his book, Mr. Lowe's portrayal of the Sam Seaborn character tapped into his own political values and beliefs about what America should be. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I like the Sam Seaborn character even more now than I did before, which is really saying something. He's the kind of character I think more people should aspire to be. Even Mr. Lowe's departure from the show was handled in such a way as to follow the character's inclination to do the right thing and work for the good of the nation. Sam Seaborn leaves the White House to run for Congressional office in a strongly Republican district in southern California. He offers to run for the office when the candidate dies in office and the widow asks for a high-profile candidate to carry the party's standard in the district. Seaborn gets clobbered at the polls, which only underscores the character's deeply ingrained sense of justice, responsibility and public service.

I was also pleasantly surprised to discover that Mr. Lowe is a writer and penned his autobiography. I assumed he'd hired a ghostwriter, which is the most common route for a celebrity wanting to write a book. However, when reading the book, I learned that Mr. Lowe has several uncredited screenwriting turns under his belt, in addition to being an actor, director and producer. And, throughout the book, I noticed passages that could only have been penned by someone who is intimately connected to the acting world and familiar with its nuances and structure. Some of those same passages included really moving and thought-provoking reflections on creating art and the artist's role in society. So, if Mr. Lowe did actually use a ghostwriter, his ghost is either very, very gifted or Mr. Lowe is quite good and conveying his deepest thoughts and beliefs about his work as an artist to another person.

Setting all that aside, I keep wishing that life could imitate art. Why aren't the best and brightest minds in our country, regardless of ideology, the ones called to serve the country? Why does political office only draw the egomanics, knaves and rogues among us? Has that always been the case, or is it a side effect of our current culture? Today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday, and Americans revere him now as one of the greatest men to ever serve as President of the United States. However, history also shows us that in his own time, Lincoln was reviled by his contemporaries as an ignorant backwoods lawyer who was uncultured and lacked the political sophistication needed to hold high office. So, I find myself wondering: Did past generations think that Washington was a vain, egotistical man eager for the spotlight and dangerously attracted to power, the way we think about our aspiring Presidential candidates? Or, did his contemporaries truly revere him as the Father of the Nation?

I'll be considering those questions throughout the coming year, in addition to other topics and headlines that catch my eye. One thing I know for certain, even before we get down to the brass tacks of this year's election cycle - Americans must take an interest in the country's direction and actually exercise our right to vote this year. At a time when corporate dollars have a greater impact on the political process than ever before, every vote, regardless of party and ideology, counts. In the words of "The West Wing," "No matter who you vote for, make sure you vote." Because "history is made by those who show up."