Since they didn't have a good response to that, they'd just change the subject. My guess is that if Bob Barr had been there, saying what I was saying, they'd have found some label for him that enabled them to dismiss his points as well.
The forces now ruling America have already taught their followers to discredit all the possible alternative sources of thought. Not only have "liberals" been demonized (liberals have become the new "communists"), but also discredited are all media that are not propaganda mouthpieces of the regime (there is no notion of journalism as a noble, truth-seeking profession). And likewise they've cast science as an enemy, and with it all other forms of expertise-based knowledge.
The impermeability of this Bushite thought system, which I encountered last week on the radio, reminded me of Catch-22. "If the source of some idea or information isn't one of us, then we can reject it. And if anyone presents ideas or information that challenge our dogmas, then that person cannot be one of us." A fool-proof system for protecting the faith.
I spent much of last year calling for a "prophetic" approach that would speak moral truth about this amoral power, and thus awaken from their trance the good people who have given this regime their support. The task, I thought, was to strip away the layer of politics that divides us and show the dark, underlying reality in terms of the values that are shared by Americans of all political stripes (values like upholding the Constitution).
But that assumed at least a modicum of openness to hear, and from this foray into Bush country it now seems to me that at least a good segment of these Bushites may be beyond such awakening.
But how big is that segment?
The Defenders of the Faith
It's always difficult, in talk radio, to know how indicative the callers are of the larger audience. I know that the callers are not necessarily a representative sample of attitude and belief.
Over the years, I've noticed - in this rural Virginia culture""that certain kinds of issues tend to bring more of the closed-minded warriors out onto the battlefield, while the more moderate people remain silent. This seems to happen when matters of core allegiance -"You're either with Us or with Them"""are at stake.
I noticed this in 2000, for example, when I did a program about the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag's flying over the statehouse in South Carolina. This issue brought out an atypically combative band of callers to defend the stars and bars against this Yankee, and to dismiss utterly the concerns of the African-Americans of that state.
My experience doing that program reminded me of what a Virginian friend of mine had told of how, when he was growing up a couple of generations ago, those with any moderate views around questions of race would be intimidated into silence by charges of being a "n*****-lover."
Aggressive accusation seems to be the cultural orthodoxy's way of protecting core dogmas from any open discussion that might challenge it.
Nowadays, it seems, there is a new, Bushite orthodoxy whose dogmas include the assertions that George W. Bush is a good man, that he can be trusted, that he is protecting us from people who would hurt us if they could, and that anyone who questions any of these notions is the enemy.
And so, last week, when by implication I called some of those dogmas into question, with my set of "conservative principles," orthodox defenders-of-the-faith came forth to attack and discredit the enemy.
Given that dynamic, one may hold out some hope that the mentality displayed by those callers was not purely representative of the thousands listening to the show. But to the extent to which they are indicative of the kind of consciousness into which the supporters of this regime have lapsed, we should fear for our country.
Taught Stupidity
The forces now ruling America have already taught their followers to discredit all the possible alternative sources of thought. Not only have "liberals" been demonized (liberals have become the new "communists"), but also discredited are all media that are not propaganda mouthpieces of the regime (there is no notion of journalism as a noble, truth-seeking profession). And likewise they've cast science as an enemy, and with it all other forms of expertise-based knowledge.
The impermeability of this Bushite thought system, which I encountered last week on the radio, reminded me of Catch-22. "If the source of some idea or information isn't one of us, then we can reject it. And if anyone presents ideas or information that challenge our dogmas, then that person cannot be one of us." A fool-proof system for protecting the faith.
I spent much of last year calling for a "prophetic" approach that would speak moral truth about this amoral power, and thus awaken from their trance the good people who have given this regime their support. The task, I thought, was to strip away the layer of politics that divides us and show the dark, underlying reality in terms of the values that are shared by Americans of all political stripes (values like upholding the Constitution).
But how big is that segment?
The Defenders of the Faith
It's always difficult, in talk radio, to know how indicative the callers are of the larger audience. I know that the callers are not necessarily a representative sample of attitude and belief.
Over the years, I've noticed - in this rural Virginia culture""that certain kinds of issues tend to bring more of the closed-minded warriors out onto the battlefield, while the more moderate people remain silent. This seems to happen when matters of core allegiance -"You're either with Us or with Them"""are at stake.
I noticed this in 2000, for example, when I did a program about the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag's flying over the statehouse in South Carolina. This issue brought out an atypically combative band of callers to defend the stars and bars against this Yankee, and to dismiss utterly the concerns of the African-Americans of that state.
My experience doing that program reminded me of what a Virginian friend of mine had told of how, when he was growing up a couple of generations ago, those with any moderate views around questions of race would be intimidated into silence by charges of being a "n*****-lover."
Aggressive accusation seems to be the cultural orthodoxy's way of protecting core dogmas from any open discussion that might challenge it.
Nowadays, it seems, there is a new, Bushite orthodoxy whose dogmas include the assertions that George W. Bush is a good man, that he can be trusted, that he is protecting us from people who would hurt us if they could, and that anyone who questions any of these notions is the enemy.
And so, last week, when by implication I called some of those dogmas into question, with my set of "conservative principles," orthodox defenders-of-the-faith came forth to attack and discredit the enemy.
Given that dynamic, one may hold out some hope that the mentality displayed by those callers was not purely representative of the thousands listening to the show. But to the extent to which they are indicative of the kind of consciousness into which the supporters of this regime have lapsed, we should fear for our country.
Taught Stupidity
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
