Earlier I said we should look at judge Pryor's record to decide whether he'd be a good judge. I haven't done that. Maybe someone has. In any case, I think the record is probably boring while this Catholic/abortion controversy is entertaining.
Imagine you look at the record and come to a decision about Pryor. Then imagine that every time you explain what you learned, the listener falls asleep. How to sway people?
It may be that some of the folks who have an opinion about this guy have an opinion based on something real (his record, for instance), but the only opinions they voice are smelly fish. The people won't understand (let alone care about) a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo! If you want to get people on your side, you have to bring out death and deities.
I think this happens a lot. Some politician really believes, perhaps for good reasons, that some course of action would be the best for the country. Explaining why, however, is a problem. So the politician makes up some junk to rile people up and get the job done.
That, in a sense, is the sincerity behind the deceit. The problem is, nobody can see the sincerity. You have to infer it, the way I just did, and even that means giving them the benefit of the doubt.
People notice that what politicians say doesn't hold gravel, let alone water, and there's a credibility problem. Then there's the problem of catching some solid information when what really flies is crap. How to change it, I leave as an exercise to the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment