Lobotomized America: A Good Reminder of the Sheer Level of Ignorance That Dominates Our Nation

by: David Sirota

Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 09:00


Sometimes I get emails that really reinforce just how totally ignorant and uninformed a huge swath of America really is. These can be jarring, demoralizing and depressing all at the same time. But they are good reminders of exactly what we are dealing with in mass politics today.

Case in point is this one I received in response to a recent column:

David:

Of course, the insurance industry probably had some influence in (dropping the public option), but not total influence. It would not make any sense for the Dems to drop the public option only under insurance lobbying pressure when (as you say) most Americans supported the public idea.  They would just be shooting themselves in the foot and they would never be this foolish.  There would be a public outcry and all this would be investigated and reported on by the media.  I have not heard of any reports on this, so I don't believe this happened. Additionally, did not President Obama say, in effect, that his administration would not be influenced by such lobbying?  So how on earth could this happen?

It would make much more sense to say that the public option was dropped because of public opposition and insurance industry bribes (contributions). Do you agree?

W

This email is one of many that I've received insisting that I was factually wrong to assert that "polls confirm that most Americans - not just liberals - support a government-run public health-care option." These emails have included links to polls showing that the public does not support the existing health care bill. Of course, those polls refer to the existing health care bill that does not have a public option - and polls have long proved my assertion about the public option is completely accurate.

What's particularly amazing about this right-wing reader's jeremiad is the candor that exposes an almost unfathomably intense ignorance. In this case, the right-wing reader simply cannot believe - simply refuses to believe - that corporate interests have decision-making power and influence over the political system. Why? Because to acknowledge that in this case would force him to acknowledge that his right-wing, anti-public-option views are in the minority. Such an admission would fry his circuitry by contradicting everything he's been told by the airtight, right-wing mediasphere he gets all his news from - a mediasphere that portrays a world where everyone hates the public option.

Not surprisingly, this right-winger then operationalizes his aggressive ignorance to assert that popular progressive programs that conservatives ideologically despise and that are opposed by corporate interests aren't actually popular - regardless of what empirical public opinion surveys prove.

Is this willful ignorance or inadvertent stupidity? Hard to say as the lines are blurry. Most likely it's a mixture of both. The right-wing mediasphere provides a hermetically sealed environment that completely insulates rank-and-file conservatives from basic reality, and so when confronted with that reality, they simply cannot see it.

Sure, many of these rank-and-file conservatives have willfully and consciously chosen to enter that echo chamber, but many have done so inadvertently, because that echo chamber is now so ubiquitous as to be invisible. It's sorta like the Matrix - they can't see it because it's everywhere.

This is what we are up against - aggressive, militant ignorance. It is intimidating - and it is real. But sadly, it isn't surprising.

David Sirota :: Lobotomized America: A Good Reminder of the Sheer Level of Ignorance That Dominates Our Nation

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Oh, my. (4.00 / 1)
After I read the comment from W I thought to myself...."another Obot who can't accept the truth about his candidate."

I never viewed him/her as a right-winger.

Oh, wait....maybe we're both right?


You were right (4.00 / 2)
I don't see why David thinks this is a right-wing letter.

It sounds like an Obama supporter, who trusts his guy, and is having a rough time with the cognitive dissonance.


[ Parent ]
It is not either an Obama supporter or right winger (4.00 / 4)
It is probably both in that they buy into right wing assumptions, but being an Obama supporter probably think they are progressive. I've seen this quite a bit.  

[ Parent ]
Doesn't Obama himself (4.00 / 3)
fall into exactly that category?

[ Parent ]
I guess the link to the poll shows the difference. (0.00 / 0)
If those emailers link to Fox, the Washington Times, the Weakly Standard or another right wing propaganda outlet, it's save to assume they're rightwingers.

[ Parent ]
It's Worse Than Ignorance (4.00 / 6)
As Walter Mondale said of Ronald Reagan (paraphrase) "It's not what he doesn't know that worries me.  It's what he does know that's just not true."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

I have friends like this, and I am at a lose to know what (4.00 / 4)
to say to them at this point. They live in their own reality regarding which facts they allow or as Rosenberg says above they create facts. It is more important to them that they believe what they believe than to check those beliefs against easily available data. I think this grows  out of the last few decades where we have been told all opinions are equal, and that opinions are equal to facts. There is something vaguely liberal about the argument in that it claims we should be open to everyone. The problem is that it is superficially so. My friends become indignant if I tell them that they are wrong unless I slowly break it down to them explaining to them how their arguments are just opinion, and that opinions do not trump underlying facts. I also think, by the way, both parties use this to their advantage to push conservative agendas. I now think of the Democrats as a right of center party and the Republicans as a far right party. It serves both parties to have an ignorance grow. The whole 60 vote requirement that people will argue endlessly is required for anything progressive while ignoring it when it comes to conservative ends is an example of how much they don't want to admit to how our system is politically bent towards screwing the middle class over while claiming "oh we have no choice.' The same senators who will vote for the Fed Chair will at the same time say "we can't push on the public option." How many here buy that argument?

We visited friends from the East Coast... (4.00 / 3)
...this past week-end.  Good friends we've had for 30 years.  He's always been a Republican because he was making tons of money - but this past election voted for Obama (nouveau elitist guilt).  

Anyway, no politics were discussed but when someone else brought up something about Obama and I opened my mouth (got two words out), he interupted me and said "This is my house.  If you criticise Obama, there's going to be a fight."   His words were angry and spoken with anger, too.  There was dead silence at the table.

In addition to being thunderstruck, I wanted (so badly) to stand up, kiss my friends good bye and walk out the door.  Instead I changed the subject.

I'm afraid it will be a very very long time before we see these people again.  That Obama...he's such a uniter!


[ Parent ]
Restaurants and stores (4.00 / 1)
For most people, at least those interested in politics, the personal and emotional is more powerful than policy unless policy translates into tangible benefits.  Unfortunately, in your friend's case that produced a lot more heat than light.

I actually have to be somewhat careful about criticizing Obama in public places like restaurants and stores.  The funny thing is that the people on the right feel no such restrictions.

Obama is certainly far from the depths of George W. Bush's poll numbers but it took years and Katrina to bring Bush that low.  And even then, W had some very strong supporters.  

If we acknowledge that Obama is a right-wing Democrat, those on the left need to criticize and push policy to the left.  As Bruhrabbit says above, those comments need to be carefully framed and not personal.  Btw, nice to see you back, bruh.  You are an asset here.


[ Parent ]
true (4.00 / 2)
a week or so ago I was visiting family, some of which are self-described "conservatives" mostly of the libertarian flavor. They had plenty of complaints about Obama and were not shy about voicing them. What amazed them is that I (the token family leftist) also had complaints - some of rather similar tone. None of these folks could bring themselves to vote for McCain/Palin, many dropped Bush/Cheney is 2004 even. They did not appreciate McCain's "bipartisanship" and don't care for Obama's either. We agree that the "middle" is a crock and an illusion. Unfortunately, one that some politicians seem to think is reality.

They are completely demoralized. They had very high hopes for GWB in 2000 - and he beat the living shit out of them with his policies. (sound familar?) From their perspective Bush capitulated on the core values - smaller, less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility - they could understand such actions from the left, but from the uber-conservative GWB this was treason. They did not think invading Iraq was a good plan - but could not express their dissent because they felt as though they should be "good" Republicans and support the President during a crisis.

When I said that I felt similarly about Obama - that he would do far better by actually trying to lead from the left instead of working toward the mushy middle - they all agreed. Oh, not with the policies I might suggest Obama champion, but with the basic concept that the two parties our system allows us should actually provide different policies. They want a clear distinction and they haven't gotten it from Obama. Like my cousin joked, "How could I have known that voting for Obama was the best way to ensure a conservative agenda? If McCain were an honest man, he would have told me to vote for his opponent!"


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Come on, admit it (4.00 / 1)
it would be very pleasant to live in a world where one could invent their own reality, wouldn't it?

I heard Shelby Steele on the radio yesterday and he summed it up nicely: "Facts are just facts, the real meaning is in the interpretation of the facts." (I paraphrase). Oh, yeah, and he was arguing with a pollster, too, Keli Goff.

Link


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


Is there *any* chance this could be a spoof? (0.00 / 0)
W's email reads like some of those smarmy, overly "reasonable," superficially "polite" comments concern trolls post in various left-leaning blog threads.  I'd hardly call it a jeremiad [a prolonged lamentation or complaint; also : a cautionary or angry harangue - no link; site wants to hit you with pop-ups/unders].

If it's not a spoof, or the "gentle musings" of a concern troll, then - yes - it could be just your average American who still thinks his/her government is to be trusted, as well as the media sources they consume.  If they got email, then they got the internet, and one can hope they'll venture further than their inbox for information.  I am coming to think that it might not be all bad for various print media to go behind a paywall online.  It may force some folks to venture further afield.

I continually have to remind myself that Robert Altemeyer chronicled authoritarians on both the right and the left.  I have never found the designations right and left/Republican and Democrat less useful than I do right now.  Increasingly, I'm coming to view the world through an authoritarian/non-authoritarian lens.  This email reads like someone who is most at ease when things are as traditional institutional sources tell him/her things are.


My favorite line... (4.00 / 7)
There would be a public outcry and all this would be investigated and reported on by the media.
 

Har har-- would be funny if not so sad and dangerous.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


Simply another example of the ignorance (4.00 / 1)
Doesn't the commentor realize that Sirota is an active member of the "media"? When David writes articles such as the one in question, he is doing exactly what the commentor claims has not been done - reporting on the issue in the media.

Such a tightly wound knot of ignorance and preconception is a sight to behold.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
My favorite line... (0.00 / 0)
There would be a public outcry and all this would be investigated and reported on by the media.
 

Har har-- would be funny if not so sad and dangerous.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


right wing (nut) arguments (0.00 / 0)
Self delusion, willfull ignorance, hypocrisy, miseducation, PARANOID DELUSION, stupidity....they all look the same from the outside.

The fantasy must be maintained. Any fact allowed to puncture the bubble they live in would require such self examination as to cause extreme mental anguish.

And force resort to unpleasant reality.

Afraid to face what they have wrought!

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


really? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, there's a LOT of ignorance out there...and this is what you pick to demonstrate "almost unfathomably intense ignorance"?  Really?  Not the tea-baggers that are part of a movement that is entirely self-contradictory?  Not all the people who criticize the stimulus not for being too small, but for doing nothing?  Not people who criticize Obama for being radically left-wing when he's been painfully and obviously centrist?  Not the millions of people who honestly think GWB did a better job than Obama has so far?

I mean yeah, this guys is probably naive about the media really digging into a story and the public being informed enough to be upset at something like a wink-wink nudge-nudge bribe.

But good lord, it feels like you're absolutely blasting him for what I read as a pretty tame comment.  You come off as way, way over-the-top.  Additionally, calling this guy a right-winger, mostly out of the blue, just feels like a cheap way dismiss his concerns.  It's the exact kind of thing O'Reilly does.

I used to like your writing here on OpenLeft, but lately it feels like you're SO angry and SO strident that I really feel like you're doing more harm than good.


Actually (4.00 / 1)
I think you are trying to project your own supposition.  I occasionally think David is a little over the top.  I'm 64, male, and Caucasian.  David is very fond of blaming "old white males" for the worlds problems.  He frequently piques me when he shows that he can be just as biased as the people he criticizes.  But, really, the fact that David is human, has flaws, is what makes him worth listening to. David selected an example from his email to discuss.  You know, he had to go with the email he had, not the email you wish he had.  I see nothing wrong with what David said.  Perhaps the guy was a frustrated liberal, but, perhaps he was a conservative.  Does it really matter?  Or does it matter that there are more extreme examples of conservative ignorance?  I don't think so.  David's point is still valid.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...


[ Parent ]
After all... (0.00 / 0)
...one can look back at the course of history and see that anger and stridency have never accomplished anything.  All political, ideological, and philosophical developments of any significance--in America and elsewhere in the world--have resulted from the intelligent bipartisan discussions of gentlemen having tea.


[ Parent ]
heh (0.00 / 0)
If Sirota was angry and strident about the big things, then sure.  But this feels like he's borderline unhinged.  

It's like the dude screaming at the top of his lungs about someone jaywalking while someone gets murdered on the sidewalk.  I'm probably going to ignore that guy.

Same reason I can't listen to Olbermann, even though I probably agree with him most of the time.  I can't handle the over-the-top self-important bluster.


[ Parent ]
I mostly ignore... (0.00 / 0)
...anyone who's NOT angry, these days.  :-(

And tend to empathize with the enraged, even when I don't agree with them--even the teabaggers to an extent, who I certainly don't agree with about anything.  Top-down, technocratic management by the "experts" is not working.


[ Parent ]
I agree with ccarollo (0.00 / 0)
This commentator seems mostly innocent and naive and doesn't deserve the kind of harsh, over-the-top treatment David gave.

As Jon Stewart said in his mockery of Keith Olbermann, "Isn't the fight if ill-foughten not folly?  Ferhaps."

There's an appropriate time for rage and there's an appropriate time for calm.  Besides, this kind of rage directed at innocent, non-ideological people will only drive them away and ruin a chance to bring them around to our point of view.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, well... (0.00 / 0)
...you go to the voting booth with the electorate you have, not with the electorate you might wish to have.

What can be done?  I don't have any idea, really, but we might try:

1) Keeping it simple.
2) Having a villain to blame.
3) Stubbornly sticking to our story.






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

Senate Forecast
With Rasmussen


Without Rasmussen


SEARCH

   

Advanced Search