Chris Matthews, Kevin James, and Ignorance

Ok, so I should just state right of the bat that I will be using YouTube clips egregiously in this blog. This is primarily for 3 reasons:

1. I love YouTube
2. It provides instant context for political discussion
3. You probably love YouTube too

So I thought I'd start off with what is now an "oldie but goody." This is a clip of conservative radio pundit Kevin James on HardBall with Chris Matthews - they are debating whether President Bush's comments in Israel about Obama's willingness to 'talk to enemies' were appropriate. Mr. James (who, like many conservative pundits, is stricken with some inexplicable medical condition that causes him to shout excessively when regular, good ol' normal talking would do) tries to justify the president's remarks with a reference to Neville Chamberlain...



Problem is, of course, that Mr. James doesn't really know what, exactly, Chamberlain did that was so bad. Which brings me to an important point about political discourse in the media, particularly from politicians and pundits...

Talking points. Mr. James was merely doing what all political commentators do - repeating highly connotative generalities that make ignorant people feel like they aren't. Notice how, when Matthews asks him again and again WHAT Chamberlain did, James consistently responds with something like, "He engaged in appeasement!" Essentially, the strategy here is to eschew information in favor of name-calling. If you can brand someone with a dirty word, you've accomplished your goal (winning the argument) without actually doing any work (arguing)!

Talking points work the other way too. Check out the stream of Republican spokespeople who, after Sarah Palin was selected as VP, came out in droves to rave about her qualifications. The same people who derided Obama over the past year for his lack of experience now fell lock-step behind a woman even less experienced, and who no one knew anything about (including McCain) until her nomination.

Objectivity is gone, folks. We are now in the age of "Say whatever gives you the best chance of winning, regardless of its basis in reality." This isn't some fleeting trend; it just might be the way America does business. Take our legal system for example. Various European states use a 'inquiry'-based system which collects and examines evidence as a detective would, then renders judgment. Our 'adversarial' system pits two highly-polarized lawyers against each other, each trying their best to obscure, obfuscate, and persuade the jury into their position. In our case it isn't truth that matters, it's who's best at persuasion.

Unfortunately, reality rarely works well in persuasion...

How do people consistently get away with misinformation? Are we being taken advantage of by powerful opinionmakers, or is it our fault for letting them speak so loudly about that which they are ignorant? If we can agree that our political dialogue is at a 4th grade level, whose fault is it, and what do we do about it?