IM
(an American citizen with an inquiring mind):
Gadfly, do you ever watch the O’Reilly
Factor on the Fox News Network?
Old
Gadfly: Are you trying to ambush me,
IM? Most of my progressive friends and
colleagues would disown me if I claimed to watch Fox News, as if I’m not
intelligent enough to process information and to triangulate some semblance of
the truth. However, unlike my
progressive friends and colleagues who do not want to risk expulsion from the
progressive club, I do watch Fox as well as a cross-section of other news sources,
including my daily homage to The New York
Times. And while his style is unique
and nontraditional, I appreciate O’Reilly’s attempt to analyze issues from
different perspectives without the political spin that typically flavors
arguments. So, why did you ask?
IM: Did you watch the same-sex marriage segments
earlier this week?
Old
Gadfly: I did. Laura Ingraham provided some pushback on how
O’Reilly worded his comments. What was
your reaction?
IM: In order not to distort or reify
the essence of O’Reilly’s words, let me repeat what he said, “the compelling
argument is on the side of homosexuals. . . . That is where the compelling
argument is. We’re Americans, we just
want to be treated like everybody else. . . And the other side hasn’t been able
to do anything but thump the Bible.” I
thought this was a pretty bold statement for two reasons. First, when O’Reilly says “compelling
argument” I immediately wanted to know what exactly that argument is. So, O’Reilly implied the “compelling
argument” is compelling by saying so.
Old
Gadfly: Let me interrupt you for a
minute. You just reminded me of the
Cretan philosopher, Epimenides,
who is known for a unique paradox that demonstrates the nature of
self-referential logic. The paradox goes
like this: The Cretan philosopher
Epimenides claims all the Cretans are liars.
Since Epimenides is a Cretan, he is a liar. But, isn’t he being honest? Honest people tell the truth. You see the paradox?
IM: Yes. When
O’Reilly and others diminish Christian perspectives and insist any opposing
arguments must spring from the same secular humanist worldview, they are resorting
to self-referential logic.
Old
Gadfly: Exactly. The secular humanists use what is called tautological
rhetoric to advance their “compelling arguments.” Now, what was the other point you wanted to
make?
IM: The other point was O’Reilly’s expression,
“thump the bible.” This is what Ingraham
was challenging. She was not claiming
that those who oppose same-sex marriage from a biblical perspective were right
or wrong. She simply wanted O’Reilly to know
that his expression was demeaning.
Whether one says “thump the bible” or “bible-thumper,” the connotation
about the person being reified in this discussion is diminished. This tactic, such as calling others with
contrary views racist, homophobe, and so forth, is specifically designed to
diminish the value of another person. Al
Sharpton recently called Bloomberg's gun control opponents anti-Semitic. A quick search on the Internet sadly provides
ample examples of the uncomplimentary meaning of “bible-thumper.”
Old
Gadfly: I remember O’Reilly getting
irate with Ingraham, correcting her by asserting he never said,
“bible-thumper.”
IM: Ingraham held her ground and explained that
both expressions have the same meaning.
O’Reilly refused to acknowledge this, which indicates to me that he is comfortable
with self-referential logic and willing to let a little spin enter the no spin
room—after all, it is his room.
Old
Gadfly: Isn’t “bible thumper” also
considered a cliché?
IM: Yes. Ironically, as a form of humor on one of
his programs, O’Reilly indicated he has no tolerance for clichés.
Old
Gadfly: Let’s get back on high
ground. Why do you think same-sex
marriage advocates have the “compelling argument”?
IM: You’re back to your educator’s midwife
role, Gadfly. Now I understand why
you wanted me to read E. E. Schattschneider’s The Semisovereign People: A
Realist’s View of Democracy in America.[1]
Old
Gadfly: What are some of the key
arguments that might help us to understand why the same-sex
faction has a “more compelling argument”?
IM: First, Schattschneider claims, “At the root
of all politics is the universal language of conflict. . . . The central
political fact in a free society is the tremendous contagiousness of the
conflict.”[2] As we have previously
discussed, the contagiousness of this language of conflict is the essence
of a meme. Second, to achieve a
compelling threshold, the scope of conflict requires expansion. Expansion is achieved through visibility in
the public domain, precipitated and sustained through amplitude and resources.[3] This is why same-sex marriage advocates have made this a very public issue and are
quick to point out that 53% of Americans now support same-sex marriage.
Old
Gadfly: How is amplitude achieved in
this case?
IM:
Mostly through the bull horn of liberal media (e.g., television,
newspapers, magazines, blogs) that are overwhelmingly supportive of the
same-sex marriage position. A recent
study[4] characterized those who are
supportive of same-sex marriage: “In addition to being younger, liberal, less religious,
equality-minded, and more adventurous, apparently one’s love of television
viewing and reading (magazines and blogs) would contribute to a more open
mindset in terms of supporting same-sex marriages.”[5]
Old
Gadfly: I
have to say, it is the same idealistic drive for adventurousness that inspired
Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and others regarding the possibilities of
eugenic experimentation. Let’s get back
to how conflict expansion is achieved through visibility in the public
domain. How do resources factor into
this expansion?
IM: Again, the liberal media, at local and
national levels, and the bully pulpit of the Presidency serve as
resources. As a minority faction
(remember as we discussed in our last conversation, this group represents 3.4%
of the population), there is a commitment to investing more in the language of
conflict than the opposing faction, because the latter represents the status
quo. Equating factions to political parties,
here is how Schattschneider explained it:
“To understand the nature of party conflict it is necessary to consider the function of the cleavages exploited by
the parties in their struggle for supremacy. Since the development of cleavages is a prime
instrument of power, the party which is able to make its definition of the
issues prevail is likely to take over the government” (italics in the
original).[6] Government is an institution. So is marriage.
Old
Gadfly: So, in this case, the “compelling”
nature of the same-sex argument is merely amplifying a message while muffling
or diminishing any contrary messages. O’Reilly
seemed to take sides, by defending some of his self-generated spin, thus
amplifying one position while diminishing a contrary one. O’Reilly is not as simple as he
proclaims. My sense is that because he
is an astute observer of life and history, he’s simply acknowledging a modern,
secular Zeitgeist and deliberately not taking sides.
Doing so might diminish his brand and future book sales. Any closing thoughts on this topic, IM?
IM: At the risk of being labeled a Bible-thumper,
I found it intriguing that in a letter to Titus, the apostle Paul was very
aware of Epimenides and the Cretan paradox.
If you’re not afraid to consult the Bible, Gadfly, check out The Letter
to Titus: “One of them, a prophet of
their own, once said, ‘Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy
gluttons’” (Titus 1:12).
[1] Schattschneider,
E.E., The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America,
(New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
College Publishers, 1975).
[2] Ibid, p. 2.
[3] Ibid, p. 16.
[4] Lee, T., and Hicks,
G. R. (2011). An analysis of factors affecting attitudes
toward same-sex marriage: Do the media
matter? Journal of Homosexuality, 58(10), 1391-1408. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/
00918369.2011. 614906
[5] Ibid, p. 1400
[6] Schattschneider, p.
73.
No comments:
Post a Comment