Bill Maher's Rants, and How to Talk to Independent Voters

I'm honestly getting very tired of the Bill Maher rant. I used to like his show a lot more than I like it now that he uses it as a platform for opinions that are as entrenched and angry as those he opposes. I watched him spar with Andrew Sullivan last week on the subject of religion, and I thought he came off intolerant, snappish, opinionated and quite unwilling to entertain thoughts on the matter other than his own. Maher seems to be one of those who subscribe to the notion that you attack over-the-top rhetoric with over-the-top rhetoric, and routinely castigates Democrats for their failure to share his take-no-prisoners approach.

My own belief is that if you oppose opinionated argument with arguments that are no less opinionated -- no matter that I happen to agree with many of them-- you succeed only in hardening the position of your opponent. To scorn, to despise, to mock, to dismiss... these tactics are no less arrogant and no less distasteful on one side than they are on the other. To chide Barack Obama and his campaign for not attacking, for not returning brickbat for brickbat is simply to feed the divisiveness, and will disserve both the candidate and, eventually, the country. Obama is right to insist on maintaining, insofar as possible, an even tone. (I thought he did brilliantly on 60 Minutes the other night: a tight, thoughtful, compassionate approach to the problems that face us, a masterful control of his subject matter as he spoke, and an unflappable response to challenging questions. Bravo!)

I don't personally know many "independents" or "undecideds" who are leaning toward McCain or planning to sit out the election out of Hillary pique, or bias, or genuine or professed uncertainty as to which candidate is better. If I did, I would try to avoid the easy, angry, loaded questions: "Why don't you want to protect a woman's right to choose?" Or "How could you think of voting for a man who's clearly a disciple of Bush and a woman who has no more qualifications than Vanna White?" And so on. There are a million of them and -- from my point of view -- every one of them is pretty much justified.

But to ask these questions in a way that reveals my own bias, my intolerance, and my indignation at the ignorance of others -- the notion that anyone could disagree with my unquestionable wisdom! -- is to assure not an open and receptive mind but more defensiveness and indignation in return. If Democrats continue to follow this path of righteousness and blame, they will win no converts among those who still remain to be convinced.

Instead, we should be asking the non-aggressive, open-ended questions: "I understand that you are considering a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. I know that you pride yourself on the independence of your thinking and your fairness, so I'm really interested to know what it is about their policies that you respond to favorably." Or, "I hear that you have hesitations about Barack Obama. I'll admit that I myself am quite convinced, but I'm really open to hearing about the things that cause you to hesitate."

Then, when the answers come back, to ask the next open-ended question, and the next. If you get, "I just think she's better qualified," you try, "Okay, I get that. But are you willing to share what you think qualifies her better than, say, Joe Biden?"

I do understand that you're not going to get through to the great mass of malleable, unthinking minds this way. But there's just a chance that listening rather than lecturing will help a few people to hear themselves more clearly, and to recognize the weakness in their position -- if they are genuinely open to it. The other way, you'll make no friends and influence nobody. You'll just make them more angry, more defensive, more righteous in their views. Bill Maher is simply playing to the balcony.

Comments

[Bellanova]

Why is being opinionated a bad thing? It's Maher's style to mock the absurd as he sees it. Don't like it, don't watch it. There are other, less opinionated shows and programs that you can follow.

[Brian Ross - Huffpost Blogger]

I have to say that when I saw the brief I thought: "Oh no, a right wing rant on Maher."

I totally understand your point to the broader context of finding reasonable ground to bring over the more "malleable" as you put it. It is what Barack Obama is doing, to be sure.

However, if Barack Obama was on HBO or MSNBC, he would be off the air, not running for President.

Maher's schtick is his rant. Telling him to tone it down would be like asking Pavarotti to hum.

If you go to the zoo, you expect a gorilla in the gorilla cage. All that Bill Maher has to do, other than be entertaining, is be true to himself and his world view. You can say many things about his methods, which aren't always subtle, but anyone coming on his program already should know this.

If one offends easily, particularly on the subject of religion, they should watch something else. It's a free country.

There is plenty of the 700 club and Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh already on the airwaves. There is only one Bill Maher, and, thank the God that he doesn't believe in, we have him.

[nsj2103]

The only obnoxious person on that show was Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan and others leap down Maher's throat whenever Maher criticizes religion without actually listening to what Maher is saying. Maher has never said that all religious belief is irrational or illegitimate; the people he targets are those whose religious beliefs distort their perception of reality. Unfortunately for America, those people are not in the minority. Maher understand that there is a huge difference between having religious beliefs that inform your view of the world and having religious beliefs that dictate your view of the world. In other words, it is possible to take the Bible seriously without believing in the talking snake. Maher's distinction between these two kinds of religious belief was obviously too subtle for both Sullivan and Peter Clothier.

[Chapeau]

I've been watching Maher for years now.

I agree with Maher on the subject of religion - anyone who believes in the *Talking Snake* needs their head examined and ought not be involved in making public policy in a secular nation. (( Or at least it ought not be criteria for getting elected to public office in a secular nation ))

The minute Maher becomes a Xtian and begins recanting is the day I'll stop watching him.

Meanwhile, I applaud Bill for having the guts to say what a lot of us feel about xtian's and their "santa jesus".

[bknott]

Great point. I saw the show you referred to, and when Maher goes off on anyone who has any religious belief, it makes me wince (and I don't believe in religion). He's being completely offensive. Yes, he is allowed to have that opinion, and state it, but does he really think insulting people will win him any converts?

And for everyone who excuses Maher because he is a comedian, etc., you're missing the point. If you don't respect other's beliefs, you might be right, but you're going to be very lonely. And in political terms, you will achieve nothing.

[overboard]

I know you have a point...........
BUT, it feels just like home when I listen to Bill Maher. Comfy and warm, because he says everything I want to scream from the rooftops and cannot!!

[Klingon]

Bill can defend himself in more colorful ways than I possibly can. I'll only say that the absence of civility in public discourse nowadays, I believe, stems from a collective cacophony to make some sense of the absurd rather than a serious erosion of common decency.

As an example, how could the electorate -- for all our supposed superior intelligentsia over the other members of the human race -- choose a retarded Dubya to be President not once but twice? And now given the 8-year aftermath, the ensuing back-and-forth to defend or assail such defining fiascos of all time causes people to squawk, scream and swear.

Your scholarly speak Mr. Clothier, while deserving, is only half the solution. The other half is vigilance in guarding the booths and ballots. It's based on a reality check that's worth repeating -- the election was stolen in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004! Bush NEVER won!

To Republicans, rules are only worth the paper they're printed on unless victory is reached. So non-Republicans, remember: "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."

[PeterAtLarge]

Vigilance? Oh, yes. I don't argue that...

[PeterAtLarge]

Can't I just watch... and disagree if I choose to? This argument that one should switch off everything with which one disagrees smacks of just-as-bad closed-mindedness.

[BusGreg]

>>choose a retarded Dubya to be President not once but twice?
He stole the election both times. Watch the HBO documentary, "Hacking Democracy" next month,

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/index.html
http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=633258

[CharlieMarlowe]

Pete, I think you've forgotten that Bill Maher is a comedian. ( as is Jon Stewart, Tina Fey, etc).

[bknott]

Jon Stewart and Tina Fey don't call people who believe in religion complete morons.

[PeterAtLarge]

I think Bill Maher is the one who has forgotten that he's a comedian.

[PeterAtLarge]

What discussion? It's a RANT. There's no discussion there, just an airing of belief--or bias, depending on your point of view.

[caterpol]

Bill Maher isn't a politician. I don't know why you chose him to make your point. (Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has been doing exactly what you suggest).

I enjoy Maher's rants because he makes the arguments I wish were being made in the MSM but aren't.

His discussion with Andrew Sullivan DID make me uncomfortable last week, but that's a rare occasion. But since Sullivan has enjoyed religious freedom and Bill Maher hasn't, I still don't see Sullivan as the victim.

I wish there was a politician brave enough to admit he/she is not particularly religious, but it would put an end to their career. Who else but Bill Maher is having this discussion?

[Squirtapotamus]

At the "Camp Obama" training they taught this "active listening" technique you have demonstrated in your post. Funny how his campaign gets no credit for this, but I believe it is the reason his grassroots efforts are getting people involved who never were before.

Personally, I'm too angry at conservatives for their greed and bigotry to spend the time trying to persuade them of anything. I'd rather listen to Bill Mayer rant because he says it better than I can.

[PeterAtLarge]

I share your anger. I just don't think it can do much to help, on the political front.

[PeterAtLarge]

I'm not talking right of wrong. I'm talking effective and ineffective. There's a difference.

[PeterAtLarge]

I'm not talking right or wrong. I'm talking effective and ineffective. There's a difference.

[cmfshort]

I agree wholeheartedly. His views on people of faith really bother me - it is just another form of bigotry. I agree with much of what he says politically, but cringe when he starts his tirades insinuating the people of faith are 'stupid'. Barack Obama is a person of faith and I would pit his knowledge of almost any topic against Bill's any day.

[BusGreg]

Sorry, but I disagree with what you have said. First, if you don't like Bill, switch channels or turn off the TV. As far as his rants against religion are concerned I could not agree more with Bill. I live in Black Mountain, NC a mile from Montreat, the presbyterian retreat and home of B. Graham and am subjected to this nonsense on a daily basis. These "christians" practice intolerance, ignorance and arrogance, and I will not be influenced by them! As far as religion and politics are concerned, they do not belong together. Anyone wanting to worship their god, have at it, but keep this nonsense out of politics. Article 6 of our Constitution: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Considering that the prohibition of a religious test is part of the Constitution these politicians are sworn to uphold, are they not in effect violating the very Constitution they are sworn to support???
If evangelicals want to impose their "belief" on people who want nothing to do with this gibberish, they should not be upset when they are called on the carpet! Go for it Bill, can't wait for the next show!

[MerlinJames]

>>I live in Black Mountain, NC a mile from Montreat, the presbyterian retreat and home of B. Graham and am subjected to this nonsense on a daily basis. These "christians" practice intolerance, ignorance and arrogance, and I will not be influenced by them!

[BusGreg]

And?????

[PeterAtLarge]

Why should I switch channels? I don't have to escape what I don't agree with. But that doesn't mean I have to squelch my disagreement.

[TheRebel82]

I disagree whole-heartedly with you. Bill Maher is CORRECT. These rethugs have been doing this for the past 30 years, and now that democrats are fighting back we have people like yourself saying thats not the way. I beg to differ, YOU are wrong and Maher is right.

[got2Bkidding]

I saw the show and I too was offended.

Bill believes Christ was a mythological character. Anyone that does not agree with him is...crazy, absurd, illogical and should not be taken seriously, on any subject.

I thought he was the greatest on PI, but I think he's somehow gotten bitter from previous treatments he's suffered.

Jesus Christ would be a democrat. Big c Christians should be. Small c christians won't.

[luckynewman13]

I agree with almost 100% of what Bill Maher says...but I do not think he's capable of really moving anyone that doesn't already agree with him. Good post.