Why Do We Always Have To Take A Side?
Roger Ebert said his main criticism of "Team America World Police" (the movie with the puppets, wherein the directors make fun of pretty much everything: the Americans, the Terrorists, The North Koreans, The Anti-War movement, The French, and more) was that the film "didn't take a side."
Why is that always so important these days? Why does everything have to be a strict dichotomy; completely polarized. Why can't a movie criticize everything in all its absurdity? I guess this is just inline with the public realm in general. Being "wrong" or "imperfect" in ones decision is a sign of weakness, I guess.
It's a crying shame because then one must always defend and endorse his or her "side." Take the American election. Think about Mr. Stewart speaking about CNN's Crossfire; he's bang-on. A reporter or strategist who is partisan must undeniably defend each word of his/her party leader, and oppose every word of the other. That's the nature of the system right now, but I don't like it. Every policy of a particular leader isn't perfect; even the bad guys had good points, too. The problem with a strictly partisan system or society is the people who lead you become infallible--that's not right. We need to criticize everyone and always make sure they are checked and balanced. Even your own "leader." Otherwise we give too much power to those in charge and we do follow their decisions made on our behalf blindly; we become sheep.
This kind of attitude is not much further from, "You are with us, or you are against us," which is dangerous, especially in these times. If an American criticizes his/her administration they are a terrorist; an Israeli criticizes Sharon he/she becomes an anti-Semite. If someone agrees with the UN's diplomatic approach then he/she sides with Saddam Hussein. This idea is not new, of course--but it seems to be prevalent more and more in our entire society and culture.
As a leader or a party you must be ready to admit your mistakes, your flaws. But of course the theatre of poltics just doesn't allow that in the West. A politican must be perfect; godly. Is that the best way to create legitimacy?
Why is that always so important these days? Why does everything have to be a strict dichotomy; completely polarized. Why can't a movie criticize everything in all its absurdity? I guess this is just inline with the public realm in general. Being "wrong" or "imperfect" in ones decision is a sign of weakness, I guess.
It's a crying shame because then one must always defend and endorse his or her "side." Take the American election. Think about Mr. Stewart speaking about CNN's Crossfire; he's bang-on. A reporter or strategist who is partisan must undeniably defend each word of his/her party leader, and oppose every word of the other. That's the nature of the system right now, but I don't like it. Every policy of a particular leader isn't perfect; even the bad guys had good points, too. The problem with a strictly partisan system or society is the people who lead you become infallible--that's not right. We need to criticize everyone and always make sure they are checked and balanced. Even your own "leader." Otherwise we give too much power to those in charge and we do follow their decisions made on our behalf blindly; we become sheep.
This kind of attitude is not much further from, "You are with us, or you are against us," which is dangerous, especially in these times. If an American criticizes his/her administration they are a terrorist; an Israeli criticizes Sharon he/she becomes an anti-Semite. If someone agrees with the UN's diplomatic approach then he/she sides with Saddam Hussein. This idea is not new, of course--but it seems to be prevalent more and more in our entire society and culture.
As a leader or a party you must be ready to admit your mistakes, your flaws. But of course the theatre of poltics just doesn't allow that in the West. A politican must be perfect; godly. Is that the best way to create legitimacy?
1 Comments:
We are sheep already.
Post a Comment
<< Home