August 02, 2005
(Updated) Right-Wing Vision: Ignore, Trivialize, Demonize
KXL Hosts Denounce Public Participation
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Over in today's Portland Tribune, the "Sources Say" column describes some local reaction to the forthcoming Community Vision Project out of the Mayor's office.
But over the past few weeks, Lars Larson, Rob Kremer and Jeff Kropf all have been criticizing the project as a waste of time and money. Kropf went even further, denouncing anything with the word "visioning" in it.
In fact, we ourselves heard Kremer & Abrams put the project on their "nonsense" list at the start of this past Sunday's show.
The silly thing is that the process being constructed would allow the sorts of people who listen to KXL the same opportunity as anyone else to offers up their agenda for consideration, injecting their issues, concerns, and solutions into both the visioning process and the strategic plan which will flow out of it.
But, of course, rather than encouraging their listeners to participate in the process, and make all of those issues, concerns, and solutions abundantly clear through this process, the likes of Larson, Kremer, and Kropf instead are doing all they can to virtually ensure that their listeners stay as far away from the process as possible.
Why? Well, that's easy.
Because the livelihoods of the likes of Larson, Kremer, and Kropf depend entirely upon having a City government which doesn't listen to them or their listeners. And the best way to ensure that the City doesn't listen to them is to make sure that the issues, concerns, and solutions of KXL's followers are never actually heard by the City in any official capacity.
If the City had to actually listen to the opinions of KXL's groupies through an official process like the visioning process, they might have to take them into consideration.
In which event, what would be left for the likes of Larson, Kremer, and Kropf to do with themselves and their time?
August 2nd, 2005 Update
We forgot that Rob Kremer has a blog (in fact, we added it recently to our Regional Weblogs list). Sure enough, he posted about his vision problems last Thursday.
Comments (12)
allehseya on 02 Aug 2005
For those interested:
The next Open Meeting is being held tomorrow, (Wednesday) August 3 -- from 6:30 - 8:30PM in the IRCO boardroom. The address is 10301 NE Gleason.
allehseya on 02 Aug 2005
disclaimer: the meeting time posted above is for the Bureau Innovation Project discussions.
The One True b!X on 02 Aug 2005
Specifically, for BIP discussions on the neighborhood system, which is separate (although invariably related) to the community vision process part of BIP.
Chris McMullen on 02 Aug 2005
Here's what Rob Kremer wrote specifically in his blog regarding the subject:
http://robkremer.blogspot.com/2005/07/vision-this.html
I've never participated in a Portland Community meeting (I'm not from there), but I heard dissenting views (anti-density, anti-MAX) are stifled and generally dismissed.
Joe Dixon on 02 Aug 2005
B-b-b-b-but I HEARD they do things that way over there! It's gotta be true! I even heard Rob Kremer was a super-duper MENSA member.
tomhiggins on 02 Aug 2005
Amazing, so the talking heads are herding thier sheeple listeners into a place where not only are thier voices not heard by the powers that be, but they then get to berate those city officals for not listening to the voices they refuse to use in open forums?
Yea, see this is why I love folks like Larson and his sheeple followers. They make it real easy to spot the ditto heads and then bypass around thier selfimposed ignorance trip.
The Right Wing Gheto..or as we call it here in Portland..the Burbs.
-tomhiggins
lisa on 03 Aug 2005
This issue of political polarization in the media and the wet blanket effect it has on political participation on the community level is thoroughly hashed out in this fascinating essay in this week's NY Times Book Review, written by a sorta Conservative circuit court judge who is also a blogger:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/31POSNER.html?pagewanted=3
One paragraph:
"The argument that competition increases polarization assumes that liberals want to read liberal newspapers and conservatives conservative ones. Natural as that assumption is, it conflicts with one of the points on which left and right agree - that people consume news and opinion in order to become well informed about public issues. Were this true, liberals would read conservative newspapers, and conservatives liberal newspapers, just as scientists test their hypotheses by confronting them with data that may refute them. But that is not how ordinary people (or, for that matter, scientists) approach political and social issues. The issues are too numerous, uncertain and complex, and the benefit to an individual of becoming well informed about them too slight, to invite sustained, disinterested attention. Moreover, people don't like being in a state of doubt, so they look for information that will support rather than undermine their existing beliefs. They're also uncomfortable seeing their beliefs challenged on issues that are bound up with their economic welfare, physical safety or religious and moral views."
lisa on 03 Aug 2005
This issue of political polarization in the media and the wet blanket effect it has on political participation on the community level is thoroughly hashed out in this fascinating essay in this week's NY Times Book Review, written by a sorta Conservative circuit court judge who is also a blogger:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/books/review/31POSNER.html?pagewanted=3
One paragraph:
"The argument that competition increases polarization assumes that liberals want to read liberal newspapers and conservatives conservative ones. Natural as that assumption is, it conflicts with one of the points on which left and right agree - that people consume news and opinion in order to become well informed about public issues. Were this true, liberals would read conservative newspapers, and conservatives liberal newspapers, just as scientists test their hypotheses by confronting them with data that may refute them. But that is not how ordinary people (or, for that matter, scientists) approach political and social issues. The issues are too numerous, uncertain and complex, and the benefit to an individual of becoming well informed about them too slight, to invite sustained, disinterested attention. Moreover, people don't like being in a state of doubt, so they look for information that will support rather than undermine their existing beliefs. They're also uncomfortable seeing their beliefs challenged on issues that are bound up with their economic welfare, physical safety or religious and moral views."
lisa on 03 Aug 2005
Nooo! For sure I didn't do the Vincent Twice, Vincent Twice thing!
Garage Wine on 03 Aug 2005
Chris McMullen Says:
Dissenting views are never stifled in Portland, they are simply dismissed:
- aerial tram [... rimshot ...]
- Interstate MAX
-"voter owned" elections
- PGE takeover
- Big Pipe
The One True b!X on 03 Aug 2005
I've never participated in a Portland Community meeting (I'm not from there), but I heard dissenting views (anti-density, anti-MAX) are stifled and generally dismissed.
Well, I've been to more meetings than I can count since launching this site, and here's the reality: On far, far more than a few issues, the KXL crowd never even shows up to say anything. So for them and their radio "leaders" to claim they don't get listened to is crap, because the first step towards being listened to is to show up and say something.
Actually, I guess for the particular crew in question here, the first step would be to stop just sitting at home or in the car listening to KXL tell you not to participant and actually go testify at something instead.
doretta on 03 Aug 2005