Recently I have been reading a lot about disruptions at “town-hall” style meetings, non-factual twitter postings, and “astro-turf” movements. Most of the editorials and backlash from the polity has been decidedly negative, and decrying the imminent collapse of our democratic civilization. Let me start this blog-post with the simple and obvious, then hopefully give some historic perspective; before ending with the simple conclusion that this recent behavior is neither new, nor unexpected, nor necessarily bad for civic discourse.
The first point is somewhat obvious; these political actions are all supremely artificial and contrived. They are mechanistic and designed. I even think Sarah Palin’s “ghost tweeter” (I am not buying that it is her doing this, and I am claiming this new term as mine) is meant to achieve a specific purpose and a specific response. Exaggerating opposite political ideas and delineating clear political differences has been part of our historic tradition since day one. Look the exaggerated prose of the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist letters, through Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech, Debs’ agitation, Father Coughlin’s radio polemics, and many more examples which I am sure you all can bring up. (yes…stepwinder, I just equated Federalist 37 with Palin’s twitters) Opposing political idealogues need to present the views against the “mainstream” in clear, often incendiary ways, or their message can be lost. I posit that this is not only necessary for a fully functioning democratic system, but is a natural product of civic discourse. Letterman’s off-color joke, and Ann Coulter are the industrial waste of a factory of political ideas.
This is nothing new, and what I am saying is nothing that we haven’t thought of already. When we think of it rationally it becomes somewhat entertaining. Horace Walpole in the 18th century wrote, “The world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.” This is an apt discussion on politics in a democratic system. Those who have buy-in into the prevailing ideology react to exaggerated opposition with emotional responses. This is not bad, but it needs perspective.
This emotional, and often-times negative battle between opposing ideologies, goes back a long way in United States history. I am also inclined to remember Aristophanes, the Athenian author of the play, “The Frogs.” In this play, Dionysius travels to Hades to seek the dead poet who will return to save Athens from its contemporary crisis. The play concludes with a heated, often negative, personal debate between Euripides, the modernist, and Aeschylus, the traditional, moralist. Aristophanes’ message is that the poet is vital to the essence of democracy, and that a play (the artificial creation) can necessary component of political expression. Today’s society seems more sophisticated than Athenian citizen, but our political drama plays out in a similar sense. And at the end, this is what Civic “bad-boy” behavior, “tweeting,” and “Astro-turf” movements really are, political theater that has been around a long time.
Nice post, Hexx. You should do this more often! Who else can go the distance between a piece in the NY Times, Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” and Aristophanes?
I’ll give you that the tone of being ON THE VERGE is part of our political DNA but am willing to believe there’s something of note in the current discourse… or lack of it. In the wired age are we no longer tethered by some reasonable interpretation of the facts? Seems like there’s a race to “spin” and this isn’t just about interpretation but the facts themselves.
The Federalists and Antifederalists certainly thought the other path would lead to destruction but a debate over the difficult to predict outcome of a plan is different from accusing the opposition of death panels and state sanctioned euthanasia. It seems to me that playing games with words on the page is a different type of debate and that this obstructs the debate we should be having over possible outcomes.
I know I have a deep concern over families who can’t afford the medical care they need to go to school or work free from some of those most basic concerns. I also know that I don’t know the best way to construct any kind of national plan to address it. I would like to hear a multitude of perspectives on that question without having to wade through outlandish accusations that are divorced from reality.
We need voices on the stage that can’t be shouted down to remind us of who we claim to be. I’ll give that this is part of our political theater too. So many people are simply changing the channel though, and I think that’s a real cost of the current scenario.
I agree that something must be done to give Americans more access to health services. Like Hexxu and Stepwinder, I also agree that the public discourse has become political drama. Unfortunately, instead of educating themselves on the healthcare crisis many people are buying into the sensationalism of the new media. Where in the bill is there anything about “death squads?” It sort of makes me understand the Federalists’ position in 1798 when the Sedition Act was made into law. Just like today, sensationalist tactics were being used by the Jeffersonian newspapers against Adams and the Federalists. Worrying about what the masses would do, many leading Federalists supported the Sedition Act. Freedom of the press is important to a democratic society, but the people in that society must take what the media presents to them with a “grain of salt.” They must research the issues themselves to get to the truth. But, just as in the days of the first President Adams, many citizens seem to be happy relying on what they hear or read in the media.
Sorry, above I said: “Where in teh bill is there anything about “death squads.” I meant to say death panels.
I do not believe that there should be a “national plan” to address health care concerns. It is an unfortunate development that has occurred over time to make us think that health care SHOULD BE a national government issue. This type of social inertia is hard to combat, as it has slowly grown in size to the extent that it now steamrolls everything in its path. Such issues belong to state governments. They know how to best serve their citizens; the national government’s standardization would be too unwieldy and inequitable. If such issues as health care are in fact within the purview of ANY government (and that is a big “if”), then it should belong to the states. I advocate a dynamic conservatism, which would devolve most social issues to the responsibility of the states.
beavs et al.,
I think that the policy issue debate is a forum best served elsewhere. My commentary is on the construction of civic discourse, not a single issue. Whether it be Russia, “Cash for Clunkers,” or health care, the phenomena of irrational soundbite ideology has always been there, as I think is already agreed upon. I think a bigger issue here is democracy as a medium for a national debate. The incendiary passions are being stirred up and affectively mobilize many of the under-educated, or those unable or unwilling to properly research the data. I disgaree with Stepwinder about the cost causing harm…instead I think the “hype” will actually stimulate more research, and more reasoned solutions will be presented. By steering the policy agenda through emotive means, the net effect could be more effort to sift through the “crud,” not wallowing in it. This leaves us with a net benefit. Something to think about i think.
Let me make sure I understand you hex: You are saying that emotion-driven public debates, in forums such as town hall meetings, are a positive good in a democratic nation? If so, is there someone saying that it is a negative? I ask out of ignorance, as grad school has left me all but ignorant of current events.
I also believe that these town hall meetings are positive signs of a health democracy. However, I wish more reason were inserted into our public discourse. The unfortunate truth, from my point of view, is that the town hall meeting emotion we are seeing is genuine and is the result people realizing that their elected representatives have not really been representing the greatest common good for some time now in US history. Maybe if our representatives were thinking in the best interest of the whole, and not specific groups/sectors, we would not be in the place where emotion-driven meetings were necessary.
I know, Publius said in Fed 10 that an extended sphere with a multiplicity of interest groups will benefit a large republic. However, it seems to me that Congress has not been representing a multiplicity of interests…it only represents the interests of itself and the ivory towered ivied halls that bred their majority ideology. It really SHOULDN’T be a surprise to our Speaker of the House that these views exist out there…at least not if they’d been listening to the actual pulse of the people.
And hey…stepwinder, don’t I get a “yellow” shout out for revealing the construct of human nature in political dialogue? No? Just trying to get to the fringe!
You know you can pick these categories yourself, right? It’s a virtual buffet of color… just help yourself to a whole heaping pile of it!
I, however, think you would have to reveal something about humanity writ large to EARN it. I see commentary about us and our political system. Not sure you can generalize that. In fact, to your point about the emotional extremes leading to a more reasoned position, Anthony Downs’s “Economic Theory of Democracy” would support that in a two-party system. According to him, it all plays out a little differently under other political schemes.
You know me… I have almost unlimited appreciation for most extremes. I wouldn’t shut anyone down. I’m simply watching the “ordinary folk” who don’t look at these debates as sport and wondering if some aren’t being shut out. This happens to describe the guy I’m married to and a good number of people I’ve talked to from other networks.
Which brings me to an opportunity to better refine one of my points… I do think there is something productive in watching these clips and being disgusted by our own behavior. My congressman was actually the guy who got shouted down in the clips getting played all over the world. The meetings subsequent to that one have all managed to proceed in a much more civil way. All the opinions are still there but there is still the opportunity to listen and be heard. I happen to think our system works best when it includes those kinds of opportunities.
And that’s all I’m going to say about that.
I hope the current debate will be productive–I am usually an optimist. But, those being vocal (on both sides) have sensationalized their arguments. For instance, on one side we are hearing about euthanasia of the very sick or very old and on the other side we are hearing about the swastika and Brooks Brothers-wearing suit mobs. To me, the bantering seems to be getting worse each day. I don’t know what the solution to the health care problem is, nor would I even try to propose a solution. However, the present debate seems to be counteractive. I hope stepwinder is correct in her assertion that “there is something productive by watching these clips and being disgusted by our own behavior.”