The “THEM” Argument

Are you where you wanted to be when you were a child? Have your dreams fallen to the wayside and now your stuck in a job that doesn’t satisfy you? You want to do something else, but you’re inundated with responsibilities like taking care of your children, your spouse, your career? Your bills have gotten you down? Your debt has gotten you working like a slave? Do you ever feel down on yourself?

Don’t worry! IT’S NOT YOUR FAULT! It’s their fault!!! Didn’t you know?

“They” are the reason you are dissatisfied with your life, because “they” oppress you with their high taxes, wealthy tax cuts, cultural elitism, corporate cronyism, social welfare, corporate welfare, intolerance, otherness, liberalism, conservatism, cooties and whatnot.
They HATE America! They HATE the American people! They HATE Democracy, Mom, Dad, and apple pie! They hate our happiness and want to take it from us. Why aren’t you outraged? Can’t you see America is burning down around you all because of “them”???

Okay, time out. Take a deep breath and read on….

Ever wonder why someone would embrace an ideology that, by these definitions, wants to destroy America? Is it because they are evil? The nation is split 50/50 along liberal and conservative lines. That means “the enemy” is all around you. Does your next door neighbor hate America? Do they secretly want to enslave us all?

Maybe it has something to do with that obnoxious demagogue on the television, radio, in the paper, or on the big-screen. You know the one I’m talking about, that guy who’s always telling you about “them.”

These political entertainers want you to think this way in order to capture your undivided attention, because if you turn away, even for a second, “they” might get you. America is fine, there are no secret police at your door and no terrorists hiding behind every tree, grow up and look around you. Sensationalism has given Americans a distorted view of the state of our country.

“Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Look around you, go for a walk, are things really that bad? Start thinking about your local community. If the world’s really going to hell in a hand basket, like all those talking heads say it is, then situations in the Middle East won’t mean squat to you. Food, shelter, maintaining the roads, keeping the peace would become your sole concern. Your local community, that thing those commentators care nothing about, will become your world.

“Them” is a form of Reductionism–a tactic used to reduce opponents to absurd caricatures of their real selves. It is easily the worst of all rhetorical abuses, because it strips opponents of their humanity. When our opponents become less than human, we can rationalize any abuse as “justice.”

Reducing Others Reduces Oneself

Reductionism hinders our own ideological development as well. Defining ourselves according to what we are against imposes artificial restrictions on the scope of our beliefs.

When we define ourselves as opponents of any generalized group, like liberals or conservatives, we put ourselves in the awkward position of never being able to agree with them. We become automatons, working endlessly to rationalize each one of our enemy’s arguments away. We allow our opponents to define the debate.

A second detrimental effect on emotional development is the transference of personal responsibility. People lacking the insight to see how political and economic philosophies have affected them fall back on easy scapegoating. There’s a point when we have to realize that we can either spend the rest of our lives blaming “them” or we can accept personal responsibility and work to improve ourselves.

Worse than these, is the failure to make propositions. The victim becomes so consumed with what they are against, that they never become for anything. It’s easy to criticize and vilify.

What’s hard is proposing solutions, putting ideas out for Peer Review.

A Mathmatical Proof

One last thought, just to put refute this form of rhetoric completely and indisputably:

“Liberals/Conservatives Hate America,” can be stated “All A in B”.

In order to disprove this overgeneralization of them, all we need to do is find one A not B.

Is this nit-picking? I leave that to you. You must evaluate and decide what level of inaccuracy you are willing to tolerate in a debate that ultimately affects the lives of every single human being on the planet. In America, we tolerate a lot.

Wouldn’t you feel more secure with an accurate representation of the facts?

Disputation can be an exhausting and often demoralizing, whatever your avocation.

1. Find Your Resolve

Be aware when someone is trying to suck you into his or her distorted perception of the world. Rush Limbaugh has three hours to lecture you, unchallenged, from his soundproof room. Michael Moore holds you hostage in a darkened movie theater for two hours at a time.

Be aware when you subject yourself to these pundits. Take a moment to mentally prepare yourself before hand. Remind yourself to be critical. You are an individual, with thoughts and opinions of your own. That person dictating their position to you is no authority. There are no authorities; at best there are experts in their field.

Remember that these people are no smarter than you. If you hold a college degree, you are already on equal footing or above them. If you don’t even have a High School diploma, you can still be more educated about the issues than they are. You have to stop talking to listen and learn.

2. Remain Dispassionate

“If you aren’t outraged, you aren’t paying attention.” a bumper sticker exclaims. I would argue the opposite: If you are outraged, it’s because you don’t understand the system. Outrage is merely the weak-mind’s defense against having to learn.

Remember that reasonable people can disagree without one side being immoral or buffoonish. The system is vast and complex. Recognize what you can do to affect it, accept what you can’t do, and move on.

3. Persuade the Opposition

Always remember that political debate is about persuasion. You are trying to convince others to see the validity of your views. You may not be able to bring someone over to your side completely, but you may get them to concede points, bringing them a better understanding of your view and bringing everyone closer to an ideal mean.

4. Challenge yourself

Have faith in your belief system because of its malleability. If you are wrong, you have the ability to revise and rearticulate. If the demagogue is wrong, all they have is denial.

Many people who have faith in an idea are offended by ideas that conflict with their beliefs, such as ideological zealots who becomes angry when someone proposes a conflicting idea. This emotional reaction is not an exhibition of their faith, but a symptom of their insecurity in their position.

When someone gets outraged at you, calls you names, or tells you to “f**k off!” take solace in the fact that may not have persuaded that individual, but you did decisively win the argument.

5. Responsibility to the Truth

No one is perfect and no one has a mandate on the truth. Democracy is merely a process we use to approach a consensus. The system works best when all voices are heard and issues are explored in excruciating detail.

Above all, be respectful.

Health Insurance is a socialist institution. Everyone pays for everyone’s illnesses. Your insurance rate is set by the collective needs of everyone else under your plan. When the collective needs increase, so do your premiums. A Corporation manages this brand of socialism.

The difference between Corporate Socialism and Government Socialism is that the former has profit motivations. Normally, profit-mindfulness in a capitalist context can benefit both consumers and capitalists, but Health Care is a special case, because there are three hands in the pot.

Health Insurance acts as a mediator between Health Care Providers and Health Care Consumers. Thus three interests are placed in contention. The Consumer seeks low costs, while Insurance and Hospitals seek to maximize profits. One consumer is placed against two profit-seekers. The two profit seekers are then placed against one another in competition for the consumer’s payments.

Let’s begin illustrating this dilemma with the Consumer, who gets ill one day and must seek treatment. The Insured Consumer must contact their Insurance Company and search their directory of Health Care Providers. This list of Hospitals and Doctors within the Insurance Company’s Network is only one of many slights against Capitalism. In this case, one Corporation is acting to restrict the Consumer’s market access.

From the Health Care Provider’s perspective, failing to accept Insurance denies them an influx of patients. Patients come to the Hospital via Insurance Company referrals. Bills for service are evaluated by the Insurance Company, who then pays a discounted rate to the Provider in exchange for providing Consumers. In order to protect their profits, Hospitals artificially inflate their costs to compensate. Thus Capitalism is slighted again, as fair market value is distorted through regulating the flow of Consumers to the Product.

Thus the Insurance Company serves as a mediator between Consumers and Providers. They must collect maximum income from the Consumer and minimize costs from the Provider. Consumers ultimately pay more than fair market value in such a system and Providers ultimately earn less than fair market value. An entire market category has fallen into a situation where neither consumers or providers are happy, because a third party is regulating the market for gain.

There are two solutions to such an anti-capitalist system that I see at present:

One possibility is to remove the third hand from the pot. Hospitals could offer their own insurance to the local community. This would allow the Hospital to re-enter the capitalist marketplace and provide an overall lower cost benefit to consumers.

Another possibility is to remove the profit-motivation from the third party. The State (preferably) or Federal Government could provide a Voluntary system of Health Insurance. This would function almost exactly as Corporate Insurance, but without the profit taking. Participants would be like shareholders in the system, helping to determine Democratically what the system will cover and at what costs.

Neither system is ideal for consumers, but both uphold the principles of Democracy and Capitalism better than our currently Corporate Regulated system does. Health Care is a Macrosystem and any changes made to its regulation and oversight should include Providers and Consumers in the policy-making.

In spite of requests to post some trustworthy left and right leaning commentators who are well-reasoned and purely academic. I cannot do this. I find it impossible to endorse any commentator with an agenda. The act of submitting weekly analysis of current events creates an inherent rush to judgment that misrepresents or unfairly characterizes the facts. I do not think it impossible to provide fair and balanced coverage, but only if the reporter lacks agenda.

That being said, here’s some sources I do not necessarily endorse, but may help you understand what’s going out there in the memetic soup:

Fact Check
A blog dedicated to explaining the sound bytes you get glimpses of in Politics for their factual accuracy.

Spin Sanity, Countering Rhetoric with Reason
A blog dedicated to revealing rhetorical abuses in mainstream political punditry for the purposes of elevating discourse. I highly recommend running searches of their extensive archives. I have linked to some in my article “The Demagogues” about the biggest abusers.

The Wilson Quarterly: “Surveying the World of Ideas”
If you are looking for fresh perspectives from a purely academic standpoint on modern and historical issues, this magazine is a great exercise in that.

The Economist
Writers for The Economist are not allowed to take credit for their articles in an attempt to keep the author honest by eliminating the potential notoriety they may gain from establishing a personality with their work. A novel idea that may contribute to the pragmatic stance of their articles.

National Communication Association
From the NCA Website: “A scholarly society and as such works to enhance the research, teaching, and service produced by its member on topics of both intellectual and social significance.

Note: At present their publications and online resources are woefully lacking.

Lying in Ponds
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”

- Monty Python’s Holy Grail

This site uses a series of mathematical equations to review opinion pieces in several major newspapers and then ranks them statistically for bias. The legitimacy of such measurements is questionable, but I posted it here because in the endless debate over Liberal/Conservative bias in the media, this is the first attempt to Scientifically Quantify bias.