Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler1
He might well BE a racist. However, before I say he is I just need some concrete evidence, and random sentences from a talk show which can have more than one meaning, and that are blown up by the media isn't enough for anyone to base such a judgment on.
|
Interesting, no comment on the "horizontal forces at work," on the "Push-Pull Dynamics on the Horizontal Continuum." That, because of our "different horizontal windows, not every person on this continuum will be able to separate out the different shades, gradations, or degrees."
"Think of a political spectrum with nine hypothetical positions:
1.Radical(left wing) 2.Principled 3.Pragmatic (moderate) 4.Tilted 5.Middle(neutral) 6.Tilted (moderate) 7.Pragmatic 8.Principled 9.Radical(right wing)"
No comment on the "two kinds of distortions [which can] occur." The "first, if a position on the 1-9 scale is close to '[our] own' on the same scale, [we] may deny the differences and assimilate it as equivalent to [our] own. Thus, we have the formation of political alliances that deny differences among the various wings of a party as they attempt to unite and speak with one voice." "Often, these entities make for strange bedfellows while the differences are ignored and they pull together in common cause." This is known as the assimilation effect.
The second distortion that can occur "under other conditions, a person will push the other position away from his or her own, thus shoving it further into the camp of the enemy. 'You' may think we are singing from the same page, but 'I' conclude that you are one of 'them' because we sing slightly different notes. This is known as the contrast effect."
The extreme position is "unable to recognize the positions within its own wing but, instead, will displace or contrast them into the camp of the enemy."
While with the first distortion we get "strange bedfellows" who ignore their own differences, with the second we get natural allies who do not recognize themselves as such. Our natural friend is seen as an enemy.
Beck and Cowan state, "From a research standpoint, how a person defines all the positions on the continuum will reveal that person’s own position on the same scale."
They go on to make their point that, "here, is that it has become difficult to develop "non-partisan" solutions to complex problems because every proposal has to run the gauntlet through this distorting assimilation-contrast effect."
The writers claim that "[t]his is certainly the case when it comes to understanding the motives of the terrorists, the influence of the anti-government militia movements, and the role of more "conservative" talk radio hosts in encouraging, giving aid to, or creating the atmosphere for the entire right-wing spectrum to flourish. (The same comment could have been made about the so-called 'left-wing' during the anti-war polarization in the midst of the Vietnam war protests of the 1960’s and 1970’s.) To 'lower the rhetoric' on explosive, inflammatory issues should mean 'moderate the assimilation-contrast effect.' Only then can we begin to see the whole and act for the greater good."
Remember the terrorist they were referring to was Timothy McVeigh , not the Islamonazis extremists we face today. And the rhetoric they were responding to was the response by conservatives to President Clinton's claim that the "hate talk" on the right encouraged McVeigh's actions. I would say that President Clinton's claim was inappropriate and the response by conservatives unnecessary. Rush is no more hard right than I am. Michael Savage is hard extreme right, Rush is principled right, and I am neither. But, of course, according Beck and Cowan, by defining positions on the continuum I have revealed my own position on the same scale.
Or have I?
All quotes are From: A Spiral View of Terrorism by Dr. Don Beck and Christopher Cowan © 1996 National Values Center, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
tashi deleks,
M