(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)
Ten years ago, I would have been daunted into grudging silence by the operational details of this same sort of rhetoric.
* So you can't blame Joe & Jane Sixpack. When an entire electorate is
discussing details while missing context, then extreme patience and graceful discourse is called for.
It now seems clear that US politics works continuously for the 1%, through the simple technique of alternately discrediting one party, then the other, like a ping pong ball. How does such a continually re-divided and re-conquered electorate ever escape the trap it's in?
The answer seems to be known.
1st, ya gotta have (or instill) an initial doubt;
2nd, ya gotta actually look at & rethink context
3rd, ya gotta honestly reassess meaningless data, no matter the source
4th, ya gotta quietly build a context model that makes better sense
5th, ya gotta
allow time to get comfortable with the new context, so that repeated logical review
gradually undoes all the PRIOR CONDITIONING,** and thereby defuses the significant initial conflict between what you previously believed and what you now know as a point of logic.
* analogous statement list:
a) Earth is flat.
b) You should learn math and geometry.
c) You should learn to read and write.
d) Eat healthy & get plenty of exercise.
Do you support the aim of this list?
(?? There's only ONE aim? Despite contradictory items in the list?
"TINA" Inc seems to be expanding, by acquisition ... of contradictions?)
** Doubting any previously widely held belief is almost as difficult as accepting that apple pie*** may NOT be good for you ... AND that maybe your momma WASN'T an all-knowing saint, AND that experts with "credentials" are eventually completely out of context ... AND ..... that America isn't always right, just because our out of control political lobbies claim that they're infallible.
*** At least not the modern, diabetes promoting variety (sugar, corn syrup, wheat starch, corn starch, chemicals; and maybe a GMO apple_flavored_product).
