In order to save my own sanity, I'm going to quit reading political blogs. They make me confused and angry.
I have no problem with the idea of people supporting the candidate of his or her choice. But I do have a huge problem with what I call "The Jane Craig Effect." Never heard of it? Allow me to explain.
Remember that movie from 1987, Broadcast News? In it, Holly Hunter plays a brillant but professionally (not personally) arrogant producer who simply cannot abide anyone's approach to the job at hand that varies in the slightest from what she believes is the best tactic.
Case in point: when the news team is called on unexpectedly to cover a breaking story, she strongly disagrees with the on air anchor tapped by the Paul Moore, a network executive, to head up the broadcast. She states her case emphatically to Paul, who listens and the politely but vehemently disagrees. He is surprised at her reluctance to back off her stance, her refusal to "agree to disagree." Here's his approach to her stubborn insistence at being correct:
Paul Moore: It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room.
Jane Craig: No. It's awful.
That's how I feel about Obama fans. When you read blogs that contain commentary about both candidates, it feels like people supporting Obama must always be the smartest people in the room. It's not enough that they support their candidate, which I can fully respect and understand. The most vocal of them, and let's face it, those are the ones we hear from most often, are not quite satisfied until anyone who doesn't agree with them are made to feel like an illiterate morons.
This is The Jane Craig Effect is full force.
I don't understand why people need to be so arrogant in their support. I really don't.
Here's my take on The Jane Craig Effect: Belittling us, the people who simply choose to believe differently than you do, trying to make us feel less worthy, makes us wonder why you're so insecure.
2 comments:
Maybe it's because, considering the state of the world, we are rightfully insecure.
You should be, too.
Insecurity and arrogance don't normally go together, tho, do they?
Then again, maybe they do. The louder and more forcefully someone argues a point, the more they feel the need to elevate themselves above the rest of us who aren't quite as brilliant, the less secure they must feel about their arguement's veracity.
I can't imagine many of us like the feeling of insecurity no matter what our political leanings. But I just can't quite fathom that a wholesale rejection of absolutely everything that's been done since 2000 in the name of national and international security will make the world a more secure place. That kind of thinking scares me.
I can't help but think of an anonymous quote I read: "If a political party bases its success on the success of our enemies, why would anyone vote for them?"
Post a Comment