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.
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.
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".
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.
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!!
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."
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?
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.
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!
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.