I guess I need to figure some things out, for my own sanity.
So, they say that history repeats itself, and that ideals of cultural identity and the political climate in America swing around in cycles. I, for one, am too young to have witnessed many, or any, revolutions of said cycles, but I'm sure it's true. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but I have to assume that a few scary things that I'm witnessing in the political world today are brand new. They're new due to the evolving nature of the media, which is itself new.
If I was writing a dystopian novel (and I may someday), I think I'd spend quite a bit of time studying the precise rhetorical methods of mainstream media today. Heck, an overly manipulative media was Orwell's greatest fear, and that was in the '40s. Now, I don't like bringing up the subject of media bias anymore, because the issue turns immediately to Fox vs. CNN, left vs. right, yada yada yada.
Ironically, the fact that the discussion immediately turns there encapsulates what actually scares me: Compartmentalization and oversimplification of inherently complex and vital-to-life issues. And nowhere is this more evident than in the infantile pitting, in the media, of the two major American political parties against each other.
It seems like people have woken up to the pitfalls of cable news stations like Fox and CNN, but I wonder if many lessons are being learned. Obviously, the two parties have opposed each other forever, which has resulted in idiotic outbursts for decades (see Preston Brooks). But what's the purpose of the intense polarization that's taking place now between the two parties? No informed citizen could ever honestly say that they believe in every policy of a certain party and loathe every policy of the other. The party stances are completely counter-intuitive to their perceived philosophies on a lot of things. And it's not like one's good and one's evil. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle." The parties themselves aren't that simple, so our responses to them probably shouldn't be either. But I digress.
So why the drama, then? Why are the parties drifting irreconcilably apart? As far as I can tell, it's for the lofty ambition of selling advertising space. Perfect archetypal battles between good and evil are the most gripping stories on TV, and in this case, you can even choose which side is which! The media, for better or for worse, is a business. Each year, in order to accommodate our impatient lives, complex arguments are reduced to smaller and smaller soundbites and simplistic party assignations to the point that no actual knowledge is disseminated on the news. Then we get this:
Dude 1: "The Republicans' health care plan is terrible!"
Dude 2: "What part of the plan?"
Dude 1: "Uh, you know, prices are too high, and they want us to pay for it ourselves."
As if that's the entirety of the issue. MAYBE we understand 10% of it, but no more.
The print media, thank goodness, doesn't always follow suit, but in all honesty, dramatic magazines and newspapers sell better than boring, accurate ones as well. Of course, it's not like this is the media's fault, per se. As a business, they pander to the interests and pocketbooks of the consumers. This phenomenon, to me--the oversimplification and lack of focus on real knowledge and solutions--seems like a product not of the media, but human nature (but what isn't, I guess?).
I guess the scary implications to me is this: that such a culture will continue to affect the way actual politics are done, i.e. increased emphasis on party solidarity and antagonism rather than actual attempts to solve problems collaboratively. Please see this hilarious recent Onion article as a satirical, but all-too-sadly-true example of the same. (PS--you could substitute one party for the other in the article--it doesn't matter.)
It seems to me that it's because of this oversimplification that choosing ultra-adamant opinions has become no longer the extreme, but the norm. Saying something loud has become an acceptable substitute for reasoning out a measured response. This, I suspect, is not entirely new, but I fear that with our technological capabilities at this point, the media isn't going to become any more attentive to those measured responses anytime soon. We're not getting stupider as citizens, but I fear we trample on our own beloved democratic rights by limiting our thinking to only two possible options for each issue--the liberal or the conservative--as if the spectrum really is that one-dimensional.
But then again, what do I know? I'm subject to the same soundbites as everyone else, and this progressive-sounding cynicism of mine doesn't make me any more knowledgeable than anyone else with opinions. When someone says "Hillary Clinton is a ______!" and can't back that up with a single quantitative piece of evidence, it's easy to say they're ignorant. But aren't all of us who aren't on the senate floor or in the intelligence meetings pretty darn ignorant about the actual implications of these issues we care so passionately about? The existence of a whole spectrum of opinions, including a center, is what makes democracy work, and keeps us from the brink of destruction. So why are we so adverse to the idea?
My often-cynical buddy Blaine came home from a congressional internship last year with a renewed faith in the people that actually make our decisions. I've always had a probably-unwarranted faith in our politicians and the fact that they're the right people for the job, but it's a faith I continue to cling to. They know the issues, and due to our own apathy, we only pretend to. One one hand, it's good that they know the issues more intimately than others. On the other hand, though, doesn't increased knowledge and participation on the part of the populace theoretically lead to greater freedom and prosperity? I fear we may never know.
These are extremely nebulous and fairly simple issues I'm treating here, but to me they're fascinating. And I suppose they're issues I don't hear talked about a lot, so I thought I'd try to help fill the void, at least to a small degree. But I'd love to hear your opinions on these things. What is to be done about the oversimplification and shrouding of real issues in America? Should anything be done? Do these things affect real politics already, or just cable news politics? Am I crazy to be worried about this? Please weigh in and let's talk about this--if for no other cause than my sanity.
The Power of a Mother’s Story
1 year ago
12 responses:
I know why we are friends. Not only is it because you want to write a dystopian novel someday (yay!), but because you think so much like me. The better part is that you are willing to write about it and are able to better express your ideas than I am because you are truly light years ahead of me when it comes to intelligence.
Since I just read Fahrenheit 451, I would like to entertain a somewhat conspiracy theorist perception. Although Fahrenheit 451 appears to be about government censorship, if you read anything that Ray Bradbury has to say about his book, this is not the case. Really he believes his book is about TV and the media (controlled by the government) filling us full of so much useless information that we don't have time to think about much else. Politics in the book have been so oversimplified in fact, that the presidential race came down to the ugly and the pretty guy. Aren't you at least glad that the oversimplification of Democrat and Republican are a little more complicated than that? Really, we allow other people to make decisions for us, we allow other people to think for us, and we allow other people to put things into neat little packages so that we don't have to think for ourselves. That way, with our decisions made for us we don't have time to think about being unhappy. Our lives are full of what we think is meaningful. We think we have our own opinions, and in the meantime, we have more time to do what supposedly makes our lives full.
Really I am not quite that cynical, and I will never be able to come up with real answers to the real issue at hand, but to some extent, we do allow other people to put things in neat little packages because we don't like to see the world as the confusing place that it actually is. That would mean that we would have to spend more time thinking and less time having "fun." And really, from a psychological perspective, putting things into groups and stereotypes actually serves a purpose...I don't think you are ever going to reach sanity with this issue. Sanity supposedly involves being grounded and choosing a side, when in reality, it is so much more complicated than that. But know this, you have an equally "insane" friend who mulls over issues that will never truly have answers. Maybe sanity isn't as great as everyone thinks it is.
In my opinion, the oversimplification comes directly from the type of political system we have. The way our voting works forces our political system into a framework of two parties. We have what is called a "winner-take-all" voting method. All jurisdictions are split into districts. The person who gets the most votes in a district wins the seat in whatever legislature (Congress or a state legislature). Because of this method, people tend to group behind one candidate in an effort to get him a majority. This results in two main parties. That's why you hear people not voting Libertarian or Green because they think their vote won't count. They're right.
Another approach which I think has merit is the proportional representation method. In proportional voting, voters usually vote for a party. If a party gets 35% of the votes, that party gets 35% of the seats in the legislature. The seats are filled from a party list. So if there are 100 seats in the legislature, that party seats the first 35 people on it's list because it got 35% of the votes. You may be concerned because you're not voting directly for your representative. To remedy this, you would just need to be more active in your party caucuses and conventions - party members vote to fill up the list. Using this system, people don't have a impetus to throw themselves behind one candidate. If you're Green and know you can get 10% of the vote, you'll still vote Green because you'll have 10 members in the legislature - a much bigger voice than none. In a winner-take-all system, that 10% won't help you. You wouldn't get any representation.
Also, an interesting idea for presidential elections is having two rounds. In the first round, everyone running for president is listed. Then the two candidates with the most votes go on to a second round. This also disperses support - people are more willing to vote for alternate parties because they just need to get into the top two slots to go on instead of winner-take-all from the start.
I'm not saying our system is bad. I think it has many advantages such as extremely stable legislatures and non-rapid change (i.e. we only change things when a lot of people really want to). However, do think it contributes to the problem of throwing all issues into just two parties. Thus we get absurd groupings of ideological viewpoints in one party.
Also, I think oversimplification comes from time restraints in our busy society. People don't have time to listen to the details of complex issues even though these issues are of the utmost important. We have jobs, families, and a host of other things to worry about so we leave it to people who do this for a full-time job. Is that bad? I think as long as we have oversight, we can leave many of the details to the experts. We can still find them out if we're so inclined. And if our leaders don't do what we want, we can always vote them out.
And I wouldn't say it's all shrouded. We can find out the information if we have hours to do so. We can watch C-SPAN and read the bills. We can read all of the expert opinion and listen to all the radio interviews. But we don't have time so we must be resigned to the extremely abbreviated version.
By the way, something more refreshing than CNN or Fox News, I recommend listening to NPR (National Public Radio). It's usually on one of the low-numbered stations. Let me know what you think.
So. I'm on my phone and don't like typing on it much but I felt like I needed to add one thing. Coincidentally we discussed president Andrew johnson in one of my classes. Turns out there was a problem with party polarization and the media back then too. Remember Johnson was president after Lincoln so he took up the presidency just after the biggest division to ever show it's face in America, the civil war. Johnson didn't have the support of either political party at the time (he had dissapointed the republicans by not being a rubber stamp). Because of this he wasn't able to get support from the populus because the newspapers were all partisan and wouldn't give Johnson a leg up. So in order to reach the people he went on the road to give speeches to the people. This was unrecedented and was actually article ten of the articles of impeachment against him.
So the point I'm trying to make is that we need to remember that what we are seeing today isn't completely new. Not that we shouldn't be concernres about it or demand change, but bias in the media and highly polarized parties are almost as old as the nation itself.
In support of the question but not in any way helpful towards clarity, I offer these horrifying statistics from the Pew Research Center on media coverage of the recent Balloon Boy fiasco: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1387/views-of-afghanistan-news-troop-fatalities-knowledge. In just a handful of days, the duration of the Afghanistan War will surpass that of the American Revolution (it has already blown the Civil War and both World conflicts out of the water). Why don't we care? I fear our national apathy is actually a symptom rather than a root malady. The disintegration of personal stability through undermining of traditional family roles and responsibilities leaves us lives that are alienated and altogether Hobbsian. When your average American is fighting for basic psychological survival, you can hardly expect him to pursue intellectual luxuries like truth...
Thanks Chris, for the insight on Andrew Johnson and his obstacles. That's precisely what I was wondering, yet failed to mention, concerning whether or not such a phenomenon was indeed new or just a rebirth of the same point on a newer cycle.
My question to you is: how much did such conditions preclude Johnson from getting things done? Obviously, he was an extremely unpopular president, but did these elements have noticeable long-term effects?
Also, Ashley, interesting point about Bradbury and the useless information to distract people from the truth. I had forgotten that.
Good question Jeff, Johnson wasn't able to get much done at all. On the other hand the Legislature had enough republicans to override his veto so they were able to accomplish a lot of things that were on their agenda. According to my professor, the Legislature gained a lot of supremacy over the Executive in this period. It would take several more Presidents to pass through the office before the Executive would gain the same strength that it had under earlier presidents such as Lincoln, Jackson, and Jefferson.
I just have to add one more thing on another point. I don't want to start an argument or anything, but I don't think that people have stopped taking note about the war in Afghanistan. But I think that part of the apathy towards it is the fact that it has been so drawn out. But that is the new nature of war. Conventional warfare as we knew it in the great battles of history isn't realistic in our modern day setting. Guerrilla organizations want long and drawn out conflicts because it wears on the psyche of their opponents and makes success possible against and otherwise unsurmountable foe. In some ways you have to play their game to win it.
Anyways, I should get back to working.
I agree with pretty much everything I've read in the comments so far, but I want to get a bit more specific. Obviously, this isn't the worst time in our country's history in terms of political polarization or media quackery; the Civil War and Spanish-American War respectively attest to this. But you're asking if you're crazy to be worried about this, with the implied question of "Is this something new in our history?" I say the answer to both questions is yes. (Note: My upcoming cynicism is exaggerated for effect.)
The "mainstream media", by which I mean the media outlets that attempt to sell news to the whole population, is steadily losing influence. The typical reaction to this is something like: "Yah, down with the dinosaurs! They were always biased, anyway!" Well, maybe. The problem is what's rising up to take its place: many smaller media outlets that focus on a particular segment of the population. Their technology-assisted ascent has made it much, much easier for Joe Schmoe to listen to only the kind of news he wants to hear. And here's the problem.
People want to listen to information that they agree with. There's really no market for a news source that tells its main audience, "Sorry, you're wrong." And even if you try to present even-handed news, even slight changes in your audience can build up over time to force your hand into polarization. Fox News used to have "Hannity and Colmes", but they had a reputation anyway as a conservative network. Why keep Colmes if he makes conservatives mad and liberals don't watch anymore? Want to Digg a political article? If it's not Pro-Obama or Pro-Ron-Paul, it's never making the front page.
Tea partiers? I don't think I've seen a news story yet that took them as they are - government spending protesters particularly aggrieved by bailouts and health care overhaul proposals. Instead you either hear they're a movement for freedom the likes of which our country hasn't seen in 233 years, or a lynch mob trying to get Obama to move to a plantation.
The problem now is not that we're hearing each other and disagreeing, it's that we never hear each other in the first place.
The same effect applies to politicians and their constituencies, especially with the annoying trend of people donating to try to influence local elections in other parts of the country. The "up-and-coming leaders" of the Republican party (not going to name names) so far seem to me to be walking soundbite machines with no interest in governing for a whole population as a result of this.
And really, though there are serious problems in the country that merit disagreements on how to approach them, this country is still very ideologically homogeneous. It's not like the Civil War disagreements, which dealt with fairly fundamental issues. Our current disagreements are about relatively minor things, which is what makes the increasing discord in this country so sad.
I waited too long to reply and I had to catch up on everyone else's comments.
Here we go.
First of all, as far as proportional representation goes, Dustin failed to mention one thing which validates his idea even more. In a proportional representative government, typically in order to pass legislation once in office, a bill would still have to be approved by the majority of the legislative body (51%). If the majority party took office with only 35% they would have to write legislation that would be approved by at least another 16%. In order to accomplish this, they would form ruling coalitions. In other words, they team up with other parties in order to work out legislation.
The point is, a voter has even FURTHER incentive to support a minor party that represents their views because if they can win seats chances are the ruling party will have to make compromises and their views in one way or another will be represented.
ALSO - Ashley said exactly what I wanted to. There are distractions catered to every personality type that keep us from tuning in to what is really important. If soap operas aren't your thing well there are plenty of pointless you tube videos, Wes Anderson films, indie rock concerts and Urban Outfitters to take your mind off things.
Professor Koybaeva mentioned in class the other day how Americans suffer from information overload. It's difficult to know where to apply yourself and hard to sacrifice things you enjoy for things that may be more important but render less satisfaction and make you feel depressed and hopeless (like being informed.) Not that being informed makes you depressed and hopeless, but initially it does because you feel powerless to do anything about it.
Which brings me to my final point. My favorite chapter of Atlas Shrugged. A coal burning train full of passengers is making it's way towards a tunnel through a mountain that was made for a newer model of train that doesn't emit noxious (deadly) fumes. My memory is a little fuzzy, it's been a few years but Dagny tries to get someone to stop the train. It's written so beautifully, as the train pulls closer and closer, more and more people are informed that if this train is not stopped everyone inside it will die from carbon monoxide poisoning. For every individual that receives this information there is a moment of choice where it is in their hands to stop the situation, but because of time and money and fear each individual, in turn, passes the responsibility to the next person. Ultimately nothing is done and everyone dies.
I feel that I won't be too harshly judged amongst all these cynics here but I think more and more people are becoming aware of this problem (and others facing us) and realizing more and more that it is growing out of our hands. We are more and more powerless to do anything about it. You know how you notice your car is leaking a little oil and you don't do anything about it until it just breaks down? I think that as a society we have a tendency to see the problem from a long way off and we just sit back and watch it.
I think change will happen somehow someway, but I don't think it will be pretty. Change will happen when we've lost our chance to have any choice about it.
Also I liked
"intellectual luxuries like truth"
Laurel was spot on. It's maslow's hierarchy of needs. If basic needs are not being met who cares about principles and bureaucracy and truth?
This is really interesting thanks for the tag.
If nothing else, I'm glad to know that so many of my friends have thought about this. Confirmation bias is a scary thing, but I presume that's been around since at least the Renaissance, if not the beginning of time.
I agree that many of the disagreements on basic issues today seem to be on relatively minor discrepancies. On one hand, maybe that's a sign that deep down, we really are in concert about fundamental issues, and that the next time something "of that magnitude" comes up, we'll attack it more evenly. On the other hand, though, fighting for the sake of fighting is only effective to a point.
"My often-cynical buddy Blaine came home from a congressional internship last year with a renewed faith in the people that actually make our decisions."
Saw the same, or similar, in Grayson Weeks, who interned for Harry Reid and the Whitehouse in Spring/Summer. He came out saying that both sides are full of good people with everyone's best interest in mind.
I think that's bullsh*t.
Both sides in the senate are full of people who are experts at making people think they have their best interests in mind. The closer you are to them, the more likely you think they are doing what's best for you. These are men and women so skilled in interpersonal relationship building that they could probably sway almost anyone in a one on one conversation.
This is, of course, all my opinion. My opinion, further, is that this capability for gaining trust says nothing of these senators' actual investment in my well being.
There is one complicated issue here: No one actually thinks what they are doing is bad. I should say very few people do. So it never flies very well when people like me try to convince others that "Orrin Hatch is an ignorant, backward, selfish, power-mongering criminal," (he is), because we all believe intrinsically that Orrin Hatch, at his core, probably believes he is doing "good." Of course, the terrorists who crashed airplanes in to the World Trade Center believed (to the point of self sacrifice) that they were doing good. We judge it as bad because it caused suffering. So, when Hatch throws his weight behind stopping Universal Health Care, an action that will result in over 40,000 deaths per year among uninsured American populations, I feel extremely comfortable calling him criminal. It would take a dozen or so 9-11s to kill so many innocent people.
Which leads me to my disagreement with this point:
"I agree that many of the disagreements on basic issues today seem to be on relatively minor discrepancies."
I don't think so. I think the disagreements are bigger than we realize. Yes, I agree with the tea-party folks about corporate tentacles influencing all the members of both parties. I had a nice conversation with them at their 4th of July booth at Willow Park. We agree on much, but the issues we disagree on are enormous. I believe that taxes should be raised, a lot, and that medical care should be single-payer. We see the world in fundamentally different ways. I believe that the republican health care policies are murderous, animalistic, ancient and ignorant. I think that the democrats are all sissies and ought to step up the rhetoric, and say it how it is: Capitalistic health care is murderous, Insurance corporations are disgusting.
You're right, John--I spoke a little hastily in saying that the differences that divide us are less significant than in the past. There obviously are fundamental rifts in ideologies that exist, and the health care debate illuminates that well.
You're also spot on when you say that capability for gaining trust says nothing of actual investment in well-being, and I also agree that most politicians believe they actually are "in the right," whatever that means. I have to take issue, though, with your point that such is intrinsically bad for the people. If there are 100 senators with 100 different ideas about what's best for the country, and they're all working toward what they truly believe is right, then what more could one ask for?
Saying each one has "everyone's best interest in mind" may be a little naive (through Grayson generally isn't, in my experience), but I do find it hard to believe that they're all conniving schemers with underhanded bents on interpersonal communication. The one senator I know personally (not from Utah) sure isn't.
I'm no Hatch apologist by any means, but in my opinion, if you call him a criminal (and you have an argument), then you'd probably have to call every federal public official a criminal for making decisions that will ultimately lead to deaths for one reason or another. The health care debate may contain a more direct link between decisions and death than most issues, but I'm guessing that Hatch believes his decisions will ultimately save more lives in the long run. That's not to say he's right--and blocking universal health care isn't, in my opinion--but I'd say it'd be pretty hard to convict him of any crime for his intentions, or even say he's not doing his job. Besides, nowadays you can get out of murder pretty easily by pleading "temporary insanity." Chances are, there's a little bit of that going on all around us.
The question is, what do we do about it?
As if to crystallize our discussion about the gaping differences between parties, over half of recently polled republicans think Acorn stole last year's election -- that Obama didn't actually win, but in fact was propelled to false victor by what would amount to over 9 million fraudulent ballots (undertaken by an organization with 2 million members, who have not been shown to have cast one single fraudulent ballot, seeing as how registration fraud and voter fraud are two very different things)
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html
Post a Comment