I was just in the bookstore tonight doing some last minute shopping. Passing by the "best seller" table, I saw some books by Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, et al with a variety of hyperbolic titles. Curious, I lifted some of the covers to read the inside labels where a summary is usually located. They contained what seemed to be quasi-incoherent rants about Obama being a radical socialist and his agenda to destroy America against the will of the people, etc.
This was not just a matter of difference of opinion. It would be one thing reading "gays want to get married which will weaken the institution" or "giving tax cuts to the top 2% of society will create jobs and prosperity". I would disagree with either argument but I at least understand the position (in fact, I once held the later view). What I was reading was a difference of experienced reality, by mind-numbing factor, on matters that ought to be empirical.
Obama a socialist? He's not even a liberal. A dangerous ideologue? He's a spineless wimp who gives everything away to the opposition. Acting against the will of the people? He was elected by a landslide and his "agenda" is the the very one that he campaigned on. This is my view of the same man they discuss and I can articulate why I see it that way with actual facts of current events or recent history. Have these people lived in some alternate universe?
And these unhinged views are not fringe, self-published blogs or conspiracy theories found in the tabloids. 20 years ago, I'd expect such rants to come from a street corner, screamed by an unshaven old man holding a cardboard sign. No, these rants come from people are prominent elected officials and media pundits with their own TV shows and massive followings. Their books are on the "best seller" table, for God's sake!
I've been politically active since I first entered high school. I prided myself on being so well-researched on the issues that I could effectively debate either side. Back then, I was a conservative, and I recall my debates with liberals and socialists. (Real socialists. As in, this was not just a hysterical insult bandied around casually but self-labeled "socialists" who actually believed in socialism). We spent 10% of our time debating the facts and 90% debating how to interpret them and solve our problems. We might not agree. Sometimes the debates were even heated but we were all living on the same planet.
The reality rift was first noticed in 2004, when polls showed a disconnect among Bush voters. The majority of them believed things like Saddam had a hand in 9/11, allegations that were disproved a year prior. It was a disconnect that amazed me then but only a foreshadowing of how it is now.
This was not just a matter of difference of opinion. It would be one thing reading "gays want to get married which will weaken the institution" or "giving tax cuts to the top 2% of society will create jobs and prosperity". I would disagree with either argument but I at least understand the position (in fact, I once held the later view). What I was reading was a difference of experienced reality, by mind-numbing factor, on matters that ought to be empirical.
Obama a socialist? He's not even a liberal. A dangerous ideologue? He's a spineless wimp who gives everything away to the opposition. Acting against the will of the people? He was elected by a landslide and his "agenda" is the the very one that he campaigned on. This is my view of the same man they discuss and I can articulate why I see it that way with actual facts of current events or recent history. Have these people lived in some alternate universe?
And these unhinged views are not fringe, self-published blogs or conspiracy theories found in the tabloids. 20 years ago, I'd expect such rants to come from a street corner, screamed by an unshaven old man holding a cardboard sign. No, these rants come from people are prominent elected officials and media pundits with their own TV shows and massive followings. Their books are on the "best seller" table, for God's sake!
I've been politically active since I first entered high school. I prided myself on being so well-researched on the issues that I could effectively debate either side. Back then, I was a conservative, and I recall my debates with liberals and socialists. (Real socialists. As in, this was not just a hysterical insult bandied around casually but self-labeled "socialists" who actually believed in socialism). We spent 10% of our time debating the facts and 90% debating how to interpret them and solve our problems. We might not agree. Sometimes the debates were even heated but we were all living on the same planet.
The reality rift was first noticed in 2004, when polls showed a disconnect among Bush voters. The majority of them believed things like Saddam had a hand in 9/11, allegations that were disproved a year prior. It was a disconnect that amazed me then but only a foreshadowing of how it is now.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
