Like most U.S. citizens. Indeed, like many people around the world, I have sat in front of our television from time to time for the past week, listening to the corporate media’s coverage of the 2004 election campaigns. I have also read what many U.S. and international writers have had to say about this day in both, the corporate and alternative media. Opinions abound - about John Kerry and George Walker Bush and about Democrats and Republicans. Some believe that George Bush is a war-criminal. Others believe John Kerry is traitor. Opinions abound about the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001; about the wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine; about the "war on terrorism"; about the U.S. and world economies; about employment, health care and education and about the 2004 U.S. elections. I have watched and read - sometimes challenged; sometimes with consent; sometimes with disagreement; sometimes with distress; sometimes with prayer and contemplation.

As with many parents, my thoughts often turn to my precious children and to all the children of the world. As with most adults, my thoughts turn to my own life, my loved ones and close friends. My thoughts turn to people in other countries whose homes have been bombed and bulldozed; to parents who have lost their children and families to war; to children who have lost their arms and legs; to dead or maimed parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins and friends. My thoughts turn to the 1100+ U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since March, 2003; to more than 8,000 U.S. soldiers who have been wounded and maimed and to the families of these men and women.

The corporate media tells us that this election will be as no other. They tell us that this will be the most important national election ever. We are told that there will be a greater voter turnout today in the U.S. than in 40 years. They tell us that we have a grave responsibility to vote today in the field of two presidential candidates and political parties.

Last night we watched a PBS show in which "experts" were interviewed and one of the questions asked went something like this: "Americans are divided down the middle and each side is very angry with the other. Why are Americans so divided and angry with one another?"

One of the show’s "experts", Dennis Prager, said Americans are divided because they have two different views of America. He argued that those who favor Bush for their next president view America as a nation that serves as a model and an example of real democracy to the rest of the world. The other half of U.S. citizens believe that America should copy European style governments and would like our country to be "more like France and Sweden", according to Prager.  Here is a copy of Dennis Prager’s biography, as published on Tavis Smiley’s PBS show:

"Bio: Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. He’s also a lecturer and columnist whose writings have appeared in major national and international publications. Prager taught Russian and Jewish history at Brooklyn College and was appointed by President Reagan to the U.S. Delegation to the Vienna Review Conference on the Helsinki Accords. The Los Angeles Times has called him 'an amazingly gifted man and moralist'."

None of the so-called experts on the Tavis Smiley show last night mentioned the influence of the corporate media on the way U.S. citizens feel about one another.

Today, the people of the not-so-united States are engaged in a new civil war. The war is not being fought with bullets yet.  This war is being fought with angry words, bumper stickers, placards, flags and angry votes. What issues are on the minds of Americans who are so angry with one another? The most prominent issues I hear people talk about are legalization of abortion, the death penalty, gay and lesbian rights, the sanctity of marriage, the right to bear arms, crime, terrorism, militarism, the price of gas, taxes and family values. How have these issues gained such prominence that Americans are divided into two roughly equal halves? Admittedly, it is a large question and there is no simple answer. However, one must ask - Who are the purveyors of information on these "hot-button" issues? Where do most Americans obtain their information about the concerns and issues we face personally and as a nation? Who owns and operates the mass media conglomerates that feed Americans information each day? Who designs the political "debates" and who selects the questions asked of political candidates? Who writes the speeches made by political candidates? Who decides what is "newsworthy" for the print media and who are the producers who choose what productions will receive funding in Hollywood movies and New York television situation comedies?

The corporate media appear to abrogate responsibility for what they produce telling us that they only print and produce "what Americans want" - to read, hear and see. How do they determine what Americans want to read, hear and see in their newspapers, televisions and at the theater? If you put dishes of candy and spinach on the table in front of a child, which will most children choose to eat first? If you take a child to MacDonalds Restaurant on a regular basis from the time he or she is 3 years old, will the child grow up to favor processed beef over a well-made dish of eggplant and mushrooms in their diets? Does the corporate media follow the people with their content selections for news and information - or are American minds shaped by the choices of the media bosses with productions of Fear-Factor, The Millionaire, MTV, Law and Order, Cops, JAG, Court TV, Survivor; CSI; Cold Case; Las Vegas; Will and Grace; Two and a Half Men; Everwood; Sex and the City; South Park, The Jerry Springer Show; The Sopranos and the list goes on. These questions can be answered with good old-fashioned common sense. But where common sense may be lacking, behavioral science also weighs in.

"In the same way—after looking at years of accumulated data—we're now recognizing a relationship between violence in the media and social problems. A summary of much of the research and its consequences can be found in the book Visual Intelligence—Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication by Ann Marie Seward Barry.

"The results of a study released in March, 2002 that tracked 700 male and female youths over a seventeen-year period showed a definite relationship between TV viewing habits and acts of aggression and crime in the later life."

• Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others
  
• Children may be more fearful of the world around them
  
• Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others."

After the Dixie Chicks were blasted for making a political statement at their March 10, 2003 concert in London, they were interviewed by Entertainment Magazine.  The interview was published in Entertainment's May, 2003 issue.  In the interview, Natalie Maines stated:

"... If Bush were right there in front of me, I wouldn’t degrade him. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask, and I wouldn’t back down from those. But I wouldn’t ask him with a lot of attitude. There’s no hatred in my heart."

and later in the interview, Maines said,

"I don’t hate people who are for the war. It seems unfathomable that someone would not want to drive us because of our political views. [Their tour bus driver abandoned them one month before their tour started] ... But we’re learning more and more that it’s not unfathomable to a large percentage of the population. Emily got trash dumped in front of her gate and one of those right-wing talk-show hosts said, "Well, what did they expect?" My answer was: Not that! Didn’t expect death threats! Didn’t expect to have 24 hour security outside my house! Violence doesn’t cross my mind when I don’t like what someone said. So, proud to say I didn’t expect that. Don’t feel naive for not expecting that."

If we were to all carefully, honestly and deeply self-examine, I suspect that most Americans do not expect to be treated with violence due to their views.  I suspect that most Americans would also discover the same absence of real hatred in their hearts were they to carefully examine their hearts. When most people are confronted with dramatic images of human suffering, whether it exists in their neighborhood or in Iraq or Palestine, they respond with compassion. On the other hand, Americans seem to be filled with rage toward one another. Why is this so? Where are the seeds of rage sown and how does it grow and blossom? Whatever your answer to these questions, I think we can agree that America is divided and that great divide is dangerous - for us as individuals, as a nation and for the rest of the world. Do those who contribute to our anger have a motive for creating division, strife and anger? If so, what could possibly be their objectives? What threat would a united America pose and to whom?

Can the anger between U.S. citizens be resolved? If so, how can we begin to listen to one another? How can we begin to understand one another? How can we find the kind of consensus and solidarity around issues about which we care most? These are not easy questions to answer. I ask myself that question as a father, brother, husband, friend and as an editor of Axis of Logic. At Axis of Logic we sometimes publish articles that confront the thinking of some readers and anger results. Other times, we publish articles that reach for understanding and unity. Sometimes we publish articles that attempt to do both.

Today, in the voting booths of the United States, people have already begun to act on their respective sides of the Great Divide. What will be the information and emotion upon which they will cast their vote - or choose not to vote at all? Yesterday, one of my daughters told me of a book she has been reading at the behest of her university professor. The author of the book argued that most Americans make their political decisions based upon emotions. I replied with a comment about how there must be manifold cause-and-effect bases upon which people make their political decisions. Some people buy Ford or Toyota automobiles throughout their lives because their parents favored these brands of cars. Others use a particular brand of toothpaste or laundry detergent for the same reasons. Others, make their purchases based upon slick, misleading advertising. A couple of days ago, someone informed me about the new brand of Ketchup - W-Ketchup. It’s a serious product and people are purchasing W-Ketchup because they are told that proceeds from the sales of Heinz ketchup support John Kerry! Some Americans conduct careful research on the advantages and disadvantages of products before making their decision. How do we begin to make choices in our lives that break free from these externally imposed forces and think for ourselves?

To answer this question, I can only return to the need for careful self-examination - a look "into the abyss", if you will. Some folks are born, live and die without ever doing so. It can be a frightening act because of the threat such an act represents to who and what we think we believe and are.

At Axis of Logic, we continue to plumb the depths of our presuppositions and assumptions and clearly admit to our world-view in our Mission Statement. We attempt to argue that world view with sound apologetics. But we also try to reach out to those on the other side of America’s Great Divide ... to listen. Sometimes we modify our views on various issues based upon new information or new analyses of information we’ve already heard. Sometimes our readers tell us that they have modified their views based upon what we publish and write in e-mail correspondence.

When I returned to my office yesterday morning, I was greeted with 508 email messages. Some of them were complimentary about our work. Others asked questions or challenged us. Others carried angry words, verbal attacks, resorting to name-calling and racial or ethnic epithets. Much of my day is consumed by responding to as many of these emails as time allows. To those who attack us verbally, I try always to respond with courtesy and respect, reminding the writer that it is only through civil discourse and polite communication that we can hope to heal the wounds that divide us as a nation ... as a people. It may surprise the reader to know that more often than not, the writer of angry, divisive correspondence, replies with an apology for the tone with which she or he expressed their views.

Whether within or without the voting booth, whether in writing political essays, in written e-mails, in political protests and conferences or in exchange of ideas in casual meetings or social gatherings - of one thing I have absolute clarity and certainty - the healing must begin through honest, careful and thorough self-examination - within each of our own hearts and minds.

© Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com

More articles by Les Blough