Op Ed: Why Are So Many So Lacking in Basic Understanding?

IF These Are “Typical Oregonians”, We Are In Deep Trouble.

Image courtesy: U.S. Air Force

(BEND, Ore.) - Recent issues of Salem-News have continued excellent coverage of major state and national issues, with continuing deep attention to the most important local events, happenings, and situations, too.

As the ONLY Internet-based alternative daily news source in the nation UN-connected to any other media institution, we have a unique role to play: Not only for Oregon but for this nation, badly in need of precisely this demonstration of an open channel for deeply honest and determined public dialog.

That’s one reason Google chose Salem-News to feature in its own reports available worldwide.

Yet, especially in the inestimably-important reader-Comments section -- surely a notable feature of this news website-- there has been a striking and always painful resort to what can only be described as personal attack and vilification. Any time that occurs it is inevitably, inescapably painful for BOTH the perpetrator AND the intended victim. since it denies and destroys the democratic essence of this open channel.

The frustrated actions come from those who are clearly unable to carry on open, honest and effective dialog. The negativity is still deplorable and damaging to the essential flow as demanded for democratic purposes here-and-now --and more than ever before.

Apparently there is a deeply concentrated small group of deathly-intent so-called “conservatives” who cannot stand any dissent or denial of their “heartfelt feelings” from ANYone; especially those they consider to be entirely outside the group and suspect for views at one time termed “liberal”.

Both “conservative” and “liberal” are quoted-here to mark these terms as now well-outmoded and without doubt becoming meaningless.

Many local, state, national and worldwide events can be cited to show the deeply-different and extremely more-difficult sweeping events, making that an easy reflection of realities.

Past election results would have one believe that the Bush re-election was a majority voting-decision for the nation.

Yet we all know very well --now without any appreciable doubt-- that the national political choice was made by the Supreme Court, well-packed and ready for precisely that action.

That makes a painful farce out of Lincoln’s famous call for “government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people”; flinging open-wide the multifarious methods and means for voting corruption by corporate campaign contributions; and many other forms for fanciful manipulation and very massive duplicity via manipulation of media channels, contents and participations.

That’s the most meaningful demonstration of the damning effects of growing corporatist/state movement towards fascism in this nation.

Perhaps that in itself is one reason to understand that there is NOW --not for the first time-- a heavy and ominous undertone to local, state and national politics; clearly reflecting an exceedingly dangerous and growing trend in public dialog --deathly for democracy if allowed to continue unabated.

Not since our own Civil War --fought over a decisive human rights issue-- has there been such a flood of personal invective and venom in the political discussions now so widely shared via Internet means.

Democratically open-and-honest dialog is the very working heart of discussion and debate, leading on to open-and-honest public decision, in our now-weakened state of democracy.

It must surround and thus shape what values, beliefs and working information representatives elected for action can and will take --in response to what the people participating have determined should and must be done.

For decades, despite all their evident and demonstrated weaknesses and inbuilt difficulties, the American daily newspaper played a very decisive and determining role in all such public dialog.

It was the growth and mature development of the daily newspaper which made that possible, in the face of heavy anti-democratic trends in other decades; achieved only via penetrating analysis and solid political courage on the part of editors and publishers fiercely fighting many strongly entrenched political machines nationwide.

That was a major, enduring force for future democracy across the entire nation, precisely when-and-how needed-the-most; with still further impacts and famous effects in later wars and in the Deep, Real Depression, too.

The Letters and Op-Ed publication columns supplied the large majority of deciding voters with their best-available and most basic information for cogitation on personal political and cultural decision; then shared by them with representatives in person, by letter, sometimes communicated via public hearings, and in all the other traditional channels built over decades by public demand and necessity.

Nowadays that happens rarely and only intermittently in most public-policy situations; thus depriving elected representatives of those personalized influences of their very own constituents, in contrast to past decades of much deeper and more intense and frequent contacts.

Given the broad changes in modern life, the Internet has now become one of the most potent --thus essentially important and operational channels-- for that kind of communication among citizens, and with elective representation, prior to action on key essential issues and problems.

BUT no matter what modern means and methods we now are blessed to have at our ready disposal, that old bug-a-boo of fear for any dissenting view vs our own treasured feelings can still create --for some-- the necessity for personal attack replacing continued open and honest discussion. It is so much easier to cavil and complain than to cogitate and continue to reason and persuade.

That can now only be described as thoughtless, selfish, demeaning and deplorable diminution of our growing democracy.

To allow it to continue here is especially not only damaging as described, but plays right back into the very old and demeaning political hatchet-attacks deplored ever since Colonial times --long a damaging factor in many daily newspapers of earlier eras.

This IS the 21st Century --already in its seventh year! One might surely expect mature, experienced, thoughtful, and conscientious citizens to do better for themselves and the rest of us; in an open, honest, democratic and highly effective public channel for developing, dissecting, deciding and distributing information leading to better public understandings.

We shape public decision on key issues. That MUST be done openly, cleanly and wisely, especially when we are on worldwide view.