Over the long weekend, I managed to gain a slight appreciation for something I had pretty much given up on: Internet commentary. Compared to the commentary offered by family and friends, Internet commentary seemed halfway informed. The most common theme was the belief that we faced obvious choices that people were unwilling to choose.
Of course those who follow politics are aware that difficult policy choices are being avoided. No, the START treaty is not a difficult choice. Tax cuts for everyone was not a difficult choice even though it was an irresponsible one. Health care reform was difficult, but it is the exception that proves the rule. Those that actually participated in the process and negotiated in good faith were punished. Those that demagogued were rewarded. (No, the Republicans weren’t offering principled objections.) And that is the crux of the matter: the people do not demand intelligence and prudence from their representatives and their representatives don’t give it; the people want vague platitudes and pollyannish storytelling and are given it.
Being the good guest I am, I chose not to discuss politics and religion at the family gatherings. I am beginning to think this injunction is not a good one. Perhaps family members should be made to understand that their political and religious objections are not respectable. Perhaps we should stop rewarding the most ignorant person in any debate and stop punishing those that bother to inform themselves. If I would have spoken up, I would have been accused of showing off and attempting to make someone look like an idiot. Apparently there is no greater offense than proving an idiot is an idiot. We live in a pretty sad state when those informed are afraid to speak out lest they offend the sensibilities of the ignorant.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In