Blind Prophecy

Yesterday’s church sermon was, predictably, on the topic of healing as a nation. I listened to Rev. Dennison’s wonderful advice on listening to our opponents, speaking up about our beliefs, and generally coming together as a diverse community which respects each other’s views.

And all I could think was “well, these are pretty words.”

The hurt, crying 5-year-old inside of me is still in a very selfish place. It says that they pushed me over and called me names so the last thing I want to do is sit down with them over lunch and figure out why they did it. It says that I know why they did it, because they’re bullies and smelly poo-heads.

Born on the Fourth of July was playing on one of the networks over the weekend. Even for those of not around for the great age of the protest still have this romanticized notion of the power of the people. In the 1960s and 1970s, a million people marching on Washington was a powerful statement. In the 1980s, a small but visible group of ACT UP! protestors could shame our politicians into paying attention to AIDS and the gay community.

But then we entered the age of public opinion polls: the science of statistically determining exactly what to say, how to say it, when to say it, and to whom it must be said so that you can win 50.01% of the vote. I’m convinced that the poll has nullified the effect of the protest – it’s also the root of this sharp division in our country. When extremists on both sides of the issue know how to phase a topic so it has the most appeal to moderates, it polarizes those who would normally be in the middle.

So what is the use of a protest these days? One woman at my church suggested that we all put on wedding clothes and march through downtown with signs reading “we will not be amended.” But what would that accomplish, really? Sure, we’d all feel a little better for having expressed our opinion, but most people who saw us would shake their heads and imagine us to be extremists (and why do we believe that extremism is a bad thing in all cases?). Politicians would shake their head and say, “so 300 people who represent the 34% of people in Utah opposed to an anti-gay amendment are out there… well, those aren’t the people who voted for me anyway, so who cares.”

I guess it can be argued that a protest gains us visibility and news coverage and keeps the public dialogue going about subjects we care about. Sure, if that’s the goal, then let’s do the protests.

But the conservative side is doing better at actually winning the votes. What kind of activism will, in this age, be effective at winning?

We need to start framing the debates, we need to start effectively using the media the way Karl Rove uses Fox News (I can’t help but think that Fox News is Rove’s “bitch”). Screw “fair and balanced” coverage, we need news analysts who really do their job and cut through the bullshit to tell us the truth. Example: 9 times out of 10, when television discusses gay marriage, they give us an educated, articulate pro-gay person whose arguments are based on science, ethics and common sense. Then, in order to be “balanced,” they give us someone who lies about the effects gay marriage will have on society, lies about the scientifically proven data regarding gay parenting, and dismisses ethical considerations in favor of narrow Christian religious morality. Shouldn’t the news stop these people in their tracks? A good reporter would say, “Although Rev. Y maintains that children are best raised by a mother and father, the overwhelming opinion of the scientific and psychiatric community is that there is no difference between the health of a child in a same-gender parented home.” Or “Spokesman Z says he’s defending marriage as it’s always been, however he neglects to consider polygamous marriages, arranged marriages, or even laws against interracial marriage – all of which have drastically changed the concept of marriage even within the last 200 years.”

You know what else we need. What the true spirit of liberal activism in the new era should be. Two words: phone tree. Let’s face it, the conservatives beat us because they used existing grass-roots social network tools (i.e. churches) to mobilize the evangelical voters. We liberals have absolutely no similar mechanism in place on our side.

So, liberals of America, we need phone trees. Let me be clear about this. It’s not email lists, it’s not automated phone calls, it’s not group faxes… Phone. Tree.

We need that personal touch that comes from picking up a phone and saying, “hey mom, I wanted to talk to you about the issues in this year’s election.” Is it an easy thing to do? Not for everyone. I know that as outspoken as I am, when it comes down to actually discussing politics with the people closest to me, I get nervous and usually avoid the subject. I can have a spirited debate with complete strangers, but don’t ask me to tell my aunts and uncles why I’d appreciate their “no” vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment. But I’m asking myself to do just that starting now.

As important as it is and will be to have major protests, to spin the news media, to frame the debates and to make big public noises… it’s never been more important to make the smaller, personal and human connection with people who don’t necessarily believe the way we do.

So I guess Rev. Dennison was right. It’s time to start listening, to start speaking, and to start healing the divide.

Filed under: livejournal by Jere Keys