Post
by RebLem » Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:18 pm
John Francis and other people of good will should keep something in mind. It is the purpose of the antis in this debate to poison the atmosphere so that whatever the facts turn out to be, if they are favorable to the program, will not matter. No matter how big the, uhh, untruth, it becomes true by repetition. In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley postulated a world in which people were artificially bred in laboratories and taught what the State wanted them to believe through "sleep teaching" certain maxims in utero which were repeated often. The operating principle was "2175 [I'm not sure I have the number right] repetitions equals a Truth."
"Eugene McCarthy won the New Hampshire primary in 1968 against Lyndon Johnson," has become a Truth by Repetition, even though he won only 40% of the votes, and Johnson won 60%. McCarthy did win far more votes than a challenger to an incumbent president of his own party usually gets in a presidential primary, and so his real achievement was impressive. But he didn't win the primary. But, of course, the press won it for him by repeating the lie and creating a Truth.
We see this principle and some of its corollaries in operation all the time. The abortion debate is a particularly tawdry example. The problem there is you have two more or less equally matched propaganda machines out there repeating their slogans as often as they can. You tune in a "discussion" of these issues and generally all you hear is people from each side constantly repeating their respective mantras, which then get translated into popular bumper stickers. "Get your laws off my body." "A fetus doesn't have a 'choice.'" Everyone understands that every time you make some progress toward your required 2175 repetitions, you have to subtract the repetitions of the opposition's slogans, so neither side ever makes much headway, because they are pretty much evenly matched. Oh, there are certain cloistered environments where fervent believers have achieved the 2175 threshhold--the National Organization for Women on one side and the Catholic Church on the other just as two examples, but the people who get cut out of the debate are the folks in the middle, who get pelted with rhetorical rotten tomatoes by both sides.
Another thing that happens is that one side seeks a rhetorical edge of the other. "The so called Pro-Choice movement should really be called the Pro Abortion movement," one side will proclaim. "The Right to Lifers are really just control freaks who want to re-subjugate women and control every aspect of their lives," the other will exclaim. At this, reasonable people in the middle just throw up their hands. But they mostly keep their mouths shut, too, because few of them are willing to accept the slings and arrows of both sides.
And so it is with the health care debate. The Republicants are unwilling to let it ride and let a couple years experience with the system lead people in one direction or another. They want to create their own Truths by Repetition, and do nothing by attack, attack, attack, in a desperate effort to get 2175 repetitions over the opposition. And yes, Democrats have the temerity to defend themselves. Oh, how awful, how base!
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.
