by robertdreed » Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:34 pm
One of the most effective manipulations of language by the American Right Wing is, quite simply, their emphasis on the terms "Right" and "Left" as a bifurcation, by which they define themselves and their opposition. <br><br>The result of falling into this semantic trap is to divert a debate over facts, ethics, into a debate over ideology and partisan oppositions. More specifically, Bush supporters on the wrong end of a factual debate will switch the subject matter in a minute in order to, for instance, make smug allusions to "San Francisco Democrats", and the like. Even more importantly, they have no qualms about characterizing all dissent against the Bush agenda as "Left" inspired, even though that's manifestly untrue. <br><br>My suggestion as to the best way to counter this tactic: I think that should people drop all references to ideological identification when discussing political questions. When questioned on ideology or pre-emptively labelled- typically, the label is hurled as an accusation-, one should simply refer to themselves as a "political independent." And then clobber the opposition by accusing them of attempting to divert the subject away from the topic to ideology and partisan politics- which is exactly what they're doing. And then return, D.A. style, to the matters of fact and the germane questions surrounding the specific events being discussed. Bust down on anyone trying to tag you with an ideological label, the first time they try. <br><br>This is easy for me, personally, because I actually <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>do</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> strive to think as a political independent, minimizing any ideological biases that I have. That's an insight I got from Robert Anton Wilson, incidentally- to consider politics phenomenologically, rather than ideologically. <br><br>I'm not a "proud Libertarian", a "proud Leftist", a "proud Liberal", a "proud Conservative", or any of those other things. In my view, politics is no place to put one's ego identifications. I'm trying to keep an independent mind on the spectrum of political issues and questions, and neither proud or ashamed of it. I do it because I've found that it's the only way that considering political questions makes sense to me. After I began practicing the phenomenological approach to politics, all sorts of things that had formerly frustrated me became clear. <br><br>I realize that there are a lot of people who don't feel the same way. They prefer to have a stake in personally identifying themselves with a particular ideology or political alignment. If you feel that way, I'm not here to stop you. But that doesn't mean that you can't attempt to use my suggestion, as a tactic of political dispute. I recommend it to everyone, in fact, not just those of Left allegiances. It has a way of dismantling a very common sort of logically fallacious misdirection at the outset. And consequently, you'll often find out how bewildered your adversaries are, once they can't resort to labelling you ideologically. Very often, that's all they got...on the facts, they're ass-out.<br><br>The fact is that the Right Wing has been defining the terms of ideological debate in this country for so long that they're often uncritically accepted by the majority of a given debate audience. And that being the case, an ideological debate only serves the Limbaughites, O'Reillys and Hennitys of this country. Because once the debate swings to ideology, no single exchange is going to be able to take apart the Straw Man they've built up over the years. <br><br>But if you simply decline the ideology gambit, insist on your independence, and get back on-topics, you'll often be able to make abundantly clear to your debate audience who has command of the facts, and who's faking their way through the test. <br><br>And, who knows, eventually you maight even find that, like myself, you prefer a stance of political independence over allegiance to ideology, yourself. <br><br>Phenomenology is the art of seeing exactly what's in front of one's face. That's what's desparately needed in politics these days. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/7/06 3:40 pm<br></i>