|
The Katrina aftermath is showering us with chances for social commentary around the water cooler and in the grocery line. For what it’s worth, here’s one approach to scoring points. Not the noblest approach, I admit, but a practical one.
Sadly, some front-pew conservatives believe charity begins at home and may as well end there too. So here’s our tactic: Sidestep any and all 'we' and 'others' language. Pointing out a moral obligation to the poor, the ill, and the elderly misses the mark. We find ourselves listening to diatribes about personal responsibility, entitlement programs, sanctity of family, and other RW talk-machine blather.
‘We’ and ‘others’ are ‘us’, and we must be clear about that. Government that guarantees tolerance, compassion, justice, and protection benefits everyone’s immediate family and local neighborhood. You and I may believe in these principles because they form true community, but the benefits extend to everyone, even those motivated by self-interest. So talk, loudly, about ourselves, in the first person.
I, for instance, talk about my mentally ill sister, my neighbors working to exhaustion, and my grandfather in a nursing home. WE are the ones who are helped by progressive social policy, I point out.
I look for common ground: no matter how well-heeled my debater, I can usually find a note that resonates. Almost everyone has a physically disabled family member, a friend whose parent has Alzheimer’s, or a co-worker waiting with crossed fingers for the insurance eligibility period to pass.
I paint pictures, I elaborate - what happens to these people in a Hurricane Katrina? Or in the middle of any given night, for that matter? What if you, I ask, can't make to it their side, what if they are separated from family? What if your neighbor or friend is suddenly without siblings or finds themselves orphaned? And so on.
Implying that a RW colleague could ever need a community resource affronts misplaced pride and illusions of self-sufficiency. On the other hand, when we appeal to a moral duty to others, we trigger a scarcity mentality in the less enlightened. The fear is that if others gain, I may lose.
So I suggest we bypass the argument. We talk about how WE are there for US. We must be there for your family, for my family. If not in this flood, then in the next; if not in this moment, then in the one you fear.
After firmly planting my argument in a foundation of self-interest, I lay on a platitude or two about ‘the least among us’. It’s always nice to feel sanctimonious before donuts, whether they’re served after prayer service or in the lunch room.
I realize this is a facile and self-serving argument. I realize it’s already been done by the Right; after all, fear and self-interest ARE motivators. I realize it won’t raise anyone’s consciousness. But sometimes good actually is served by good ends, isn’t it? And lots of folks have internalized expectations of accessible health care without ever giving a thought to the coalminers who died earning it. A rising economic tide may have failed to lift all boats, but improved public education never hurt anyone.
So I offer food for thought, or for flaming, and two final remarks:
A positive aspect of BushCo's reign is that more Righties every day, whether they’ll admit it or not, feel gnawing uneasiness about sinking into the mire, so this tactic gets easier all the time.
A near-death experience or forced encampment in an inner city without police protection would be my preferred conversion methods for RWers, but both are illegal.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(89 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
