It is not difficult to make the argument that the ongoing campaign to capture the upcoming American general election has demonstrated the extent to which electronic media have come to dominate the political discourse. Leaks, revelations, asides, refutations, smears, allegations, and rumors travel instantly, gaining momentum and traction among the wilderness of the connected populus before possibly surfacing in the publications of the more inertia bound disseminators. This appears, on its surface, to lead us towards the realization of a real populism, an unrestrained, volatile, frothy discourse on which the ideas of merit will rise, imbued with a natural buoyancy by their inherent value.
An obvious example employed by those that hold this position is the rise and candidacy of Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States. Largely driven by a low-level, internet savvy campaign, Obama overcame the powerful, coordinated machinery of the Democratic old guard, machinery focused on message control in the older media. His fundraising efforts have been fueled by an unprecedented number of small donations by lower income and younger citizens, the web based operation allowing him a flexibility he might not enjoy otherwise. American progressives leapt to support him, countless blogs and discussion forums latching on his early and repeated opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He has been carried by an unprecedented wave of internet populism.
Obama, in many ways, is a Reagan for the Age of the Internet. He sits at a rare convergence of politics, economics, and media, and he is uniquely qualified to take advantage of his position. He is elegant, young, and educated. His speeches are notable for their eloquence and projection of genuine concern. His personal discipline is incredibly well maintained, as is the discipline of his political apparatus. However, the efficacy of his campaign's strategy actually serves to illustrate the flaws and dangers of the current environment. The unity of voice that his message has produced is sadly familiar. The term 'echo chamber' has been used to describe much of the discourse occurring in electronic fora, and as tired as the phrase has already become, it is tellingly accurate.
A central responsibility of the traditional media, and in particular newspapers, is to report accurate, relevant, and timely stories. It seems clear that this is partially to blame for the falling influence of real journalism in the national discourse. How can a newspaper, restricted by accountability and bound to accuracy and the appearance of fairness, compete with organizations and individuals that mix traditional reporting with bloggers, rumors, and politically informed agendas, often indistinguishably? In discharging their obligations, newspapers necessarily become slower and more cautious than their younger competitors. Proponents of new media like to argue that the mainstream media is tired, outdated, and obsolete. They argue that new media gives voice to the voiceless, empowers the powerless, lifts the veil that shrouds the gap between the elite and the humble. There is no doubt that these new forms of communication have broad appeal, and have engaged hundreds of thousands of people.
Unfortunately, this has not, in general, led to a grand new era in American republicanism. It is in human nature to be tribal, and one doesn't have to look very hard to find this writ large on the manner in which people have employed these new media. It is not clear at all that the electorate is any more educated or informed than it has been in the past, unless talking points and soundbites are considered knowledge. Instead we find tribes, collections of like-minded people who cluster together, group-think laced through the strains of their discourse. Christopher Buckley is fired from the National Review, his famously conservative father's magazine, for endorsing Barack Obama. His colleague Kathleen Parker questions the wisdom of selecting Sarah Palin as a potential Vice President, and is drowned in violent, abusive email. David Frum raises legitimate points on Rachel Maddow's show, and is buried in arguments that don't address the fundamental issue he is trying to raise. The public commentary on left-leaning news sites is scathing, ignorant, and reactionary, single-minded and monolithic. The public commentary on right-leaning news sites is scathing, ignorant, and reactionary, single-minded and monolithic. Opposite viewpoints are howled at with a fervor that defies reason. There is little argument, just scorn.
This is the current that flows beneath our national conversation. It is rarely exposed, but all the more memorable when it is. The McCain campaign is dancing on the edge of this current in the final run to the election, but it would be foolish to assume that the same type of reactionary tribalism doesn't exist on the left. We the People display our worst natures when we consistently fail to recognize that there are frequently legitimate, reasoned, intelligent objections to our deepest held theories and opinions, when we don't even take the time to listen to our opponents. How much faith do we have in our beliefs and philosophies if we are incapable of defending them, or even listening to criticism?
It is asking a towering feat of a man to stand astride this gap, but that is the job that Barack Obama is going to face. The most frightening aspect of an angry mob is its tendency to turn on its own. Obama will likely immediately face choices that are going to anger his supporters, and the poisoned atmosphere of the run up to the election already has the right steaming. It would serve us all to recognize that unilateralism is just as dangerous in thought as it is in foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment