A little ‘selective perspective’
“Selective perspective” describes two people seeing or hearing the same thing and having a completely different understanding and opinion. Their comprehension is based on past experiences and insights.
President Trump’s State of the Union address is “Exhibit A.”
As an example, he referred to studying the issue of giving money only to foreign governments that support us. Some thought that was a good idea. Others thought it was bigoted and prejudices. Some even said it was racist.
He recognized Ji Seong- ho, a North Korean defector, who underwent extreme injuries and suffering in order to escape and is now trying to aid others in their efforts to exit the North. Some greatly admired the young man and thought recognizing him to be a good thing. Others thought it was emotionally playing with the audience.
He mentioned a number of items that are beneficial for all Americans. Some applauded and others sat stoically. Understandably some members of congress did not vote for the legislation that produced those good things, but applauding the consequence is a worthy thing.
After the address I did a bit of channel surfing. The reviews were like having listened to two different speeches. The selective perspective was amazingly different. Some was embarrassingly picky. One young reporter noted immigration was perhaps the most important thing and it took him 34 minutes to get to it. At least he got to it.
Who applauded and who didn’t was i nteresting. As guest of Congressman Newt Gingrich, I observed from the balcony as President Clinton entered and gave his State of the Union address. As President Clinton entered Congressman Bob Barr, no Clinton fan, stood and applauded. During the address he rarely applauded even when most did. He later said he applauded as the President entered in respect for the office. Thereafter, he applauded very selectively because of the content.
Some didn’t applaud President Trump at any time this year. Regardless of who passed the legislation the end results, such as, lower taxes, more take home pay, higher employment, and businesses investing in America are good.
Trump spoke of “In God we trust.” Right over his head above the podium are the words, “IN GOD WE TRUST.” Still some abstained from applauding. By quoting the motto he was not trying to merge church and state. Besides, a church is an institution and God is not an institution.
Whatever happened to bipartisanship?
It appears the “party” holds its elected officials responsible for voting for whatever the party leader proposes. To the degree one considers the party leader omniscient, that is good. However, if response is automatic, that makes the party member an automaton. It stifles free creative thought. Are there no members in either party that just happens to think like those of the other party on anything? It appears not.
Actually that is incorrect, 97 bills were passed last year. However, on virtually every major bill there is little or no bipartisanism. Having to toe the line on an orthodox party line makes for a dysfunctional congress.
The reason for party unity on both sides bubbles to the surface occasionally. It is often simply hard core hate for the opposing person, not the position. It is, “Whatever he or she is for, I am against.”
There is nothing bipartisan about mainstream news media reporting on the president. Selective perspective is obvious. FOX News has one perspective and the rest of the mainstream another.
The Rev. Nelson Price is pastoremeritus of Roswell Street Baptist Church in Marietta and a former chairman of the Shorter University Board of Trustees.