After the end of the partial government shut down last week — and most politicians wanting to distance themselves from the dysfunction as opposed to examine their role within it — Pres. Obama gave a speech addressing the issue and his coming policy priorities. One line stood out to this semi-humble blogger:
“And now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do…”
I agree with his line discouraging the influence of lobbyists; ever since the lobbyist laws were eased during the Carter administration in the late 70’s, the polarization has exponentially digressed with each succeeding president. Hence, contrary to the latest to suggest (i.e. Redford, Robert) that the opposition to Obama is rooted in racism, the Intramuralist’s strong belief based on historical study is that the increased access of lobbyists (and their money) to the elect is the primary, polarization driver (and divider).
Nonetheless, giving Obama the respectful benefit of doubt, my sense is what the President was attempting to say is to avoid those sources of influence which incite as opposed to inform. The challenge, however, is that his words also encourage the extinguishing of opposing opinion.
In that sense, it seems he is only encouraging what so many of us already do. We routinely tune into sources where we know we will find the likeminded.
Where has this belief stemmed from that it’s wisest to only listen to those who think identical to ourselves? Where has the justification arisen that it’s wisest to omit oppositional thinking? Where is the wisdom in thinking that opposing opinion is wrong or even bad? Have we become so arrogant in our thinking that we are threatened by those that think differently than we do?
Unfortunately, it seems, instead of examining the argument and weighing the wisdom or potential lack of it, we are wired to react. We respond immediately via passion or emotion without ever weighing the wisdom of another’s words. Friends, regardless of intellect, if we cannot entertain opposing thought and respectfully dialogue about it, what does it say that our own opinion cannot stand up under such scrutiny?
The discomfort I have in Obama’s most recent encouragement is that it avoids the scrutiny. I don’t, however, believe he’s any different than the rest of us. We often choose to avoid the scrutiny.
A wiser approach would mean to engage in the dialogue. Don’t immediately react. Listen. Weigh the wisdom. Be respectful. Omit the insults. Ask good questions… Does it make sense to keep borrowing money? What are the long term implications? Is there a true economic benefit to immigration reform? Are other motives in play? Is Obamacare working? How can health care be more effective and cost-efficient?
Ask the questions. Don’t avoid the scrutiny. And allow your opinion to be changed if it cannot hold up to respectful examination. That goes for each of us.
Let me also note that the President asked us to stop focusing on the bloggers. Yes, that would include me. Hmmm… only one more word…
Beware. 🙂
Respectfully,
AR
One short thought. If we don’t ask for scrutiny or thoughtful feedback, be it about ourselves, issues of world or those right around us, how do we grow, how do we better ourselves or better those issues? It is almost never easy to hear, but options are to bury your head in the sand or listen and decipher for yourself if they have substance and how can learn from that.