THE EPISODE GENERALLY. Oh Bill.
Bill Maher is one of my heroes---I've said this often enough---and last year, when I was in my "everything is the Republicans' fault" phase, I was mightily impressed when he said to his audience and panel, "That's the problem: neither side listens to the other." Starting from then, I began making what I can only call "best efforts" to listen to what Republicans and conservatives are saying. Even when I was sure they were wrong, I tried to consider the possibility that they might in fact be right. The fact is, with both sides so polarized, the truth almost certainly lies in the unexplored and neglected middle ground.
As for Bill Maher, I actually believe that he tries to listen and understand the opposing views, if only to generate ammunition with which to shoot them down.
But when it comes to religion, he is apparently deaf. I wish he'd give a hearing to leftward-titling christians like me who believe that "christian fundamentalists" (who really are anything BUT that) have spent too much time reading the Bible generally and too little time thinking about Christ's message in the Gospels.
I'm really quite fed up with the assumption that religion is the province of the ignorant and bigoted; or that to be religious is to be stupid, uninformed, unable to accept the findings of modern science. Nobody in his right mind would call me stupid; and I don't appreciate people who aren't (consciously) religious slagging off all christian---including those who reject "fundamentalism" as a looney way to approach the teachings of Christ---in one fell swoop.
That's one point on which Bill M. clearly doesn't have an open mind and isn't willing to listen.
I've nothing against atheists. My husband is an atheist, and I'm sorry for that because I think it means that he's missing out on a great deal of intensity, but it doesn't trouble me because he is the kindest person I know and lives---as do so many English atheists I know---a life infused by christian ethics, if not by Christ-consciousness.
THE EPISODE SPECIFICALLY.
In this episode, I was tentatively and provisionally impressed by Representative Issa, a Republican politician who appears----can such things be?---to be capable of line-drawing and discrimination. After looking at his site---and particularly after remembering the whole California "recall" flap--- I can say with conviction that he and I are not exactly on the same page with respect to the issues. And yet he strikes me as someone who is sincerely interested in problem-solving, in building bridges, and in making things work. No? I'm definitely not sure about this; googling him brought up a whole slew of allegations and criticisms by people who know way more about him than I do.
But he was absolutely right about this: the task for Americans in these times is to get Bush to hear them. Calling him an idiot---which he is not----is not going to get the problems solved. Assuming that his Administration IS the problem, we need to get other Republicans to work with us to bring to bear whatever pressure both sides of the spectrum can muster to get him to begin focusing on what Americans actually want rather than on what he thinks we should have.
I know. I know. But we owe it to ourselves---and to the rest of the world---to try. Maybe we can't make him hear, but we ought to be working earnestly at trying, rather than sitting on our asses and jeering at him. The issues now have become too serious for jeering. So I thought Issa had a point; and I also thought he did a good job with the "I don't agree that we did the right thing in Iraq, but I can't afford to say that straight out" aspect of speaking out about it. I've reached the point where I long for slippery ("smarmy", said my friend) diplomacy in political speech, for the semblance of civility (which is actually indistinguishable from the real thing). Tact, my friends, is the real tie that binds---that and the assumption that those whose ideas we oppose at some level also mean well.
Of course I don't really know what this Issa is like; maybe he only seems reasonable but has his opinions laid out and set in stone. Probably that is the case. On the other hand, his demeanor was an example of what's desperately needed in these times. He actually appeared to be thinking while he was talking: a welcome change in these days.
But there again: hard to tell. He made a good impression (for a Republican) but to decide what I think about him specifically would require a lot more research and reading, and this is meant to be an "impressions only" sort of blog. I didn't hate him and I was interested to hear a Republican actually admit that the war in Iraq wasn't the war he thought he was voting on at the critical moment. He didn't strike me as merely a plausible apologist, but....I honestly don't know. I was interested in the things he had to say. I wish there had been time for more.
Penn Jillette, on the other hand---clearly an intelligent man----annoyed the bejesus out of me. He clearly wasn't there to listen, and I don't think he heard anything at all but the cheers of the audience.
I haven't really processed all my reactions to Friday's Real Time and I may live to retract these opinions, but I woke up feeling pissed off about Bill M. continuing to throw out the baby Jesus with the bathwater.
Comments