We are Losing (Have Lost)
the Ability
to
Civilly Discuss the Issues
© David Burton 2019
We are Losing (Have Lost)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The inability to civilly debate and discuss the issues of importance in
Congress dates back at least well over a century and a half. “On May 19, 1856, Senator Charles
Sumner of Massachusetts, a prominent voice in the anti-slavery movement, delivered an impassioned
speech denouncing the compromises that helped perpetuate slavery and led to . . . confrontations
in Kansas. Sumner began by denouncing the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the
concept of popular sovereignty, in which residents of new states could decide whether to make
slavery legal.
“. . . the spread of fear and misinformation on social media sites and talk radio has caused cognitive dissonance in many Americans. ‘Today, folks will only consume ‘news’ that simply reinforces what they believe to be true (whether or not it is true). People only surround themselves with like-minded folks. To do so, psychologically, produces a situation whereby people become rigid and more extreme in their viewpoints. With so many ‘news’ outlets available and algorithms on social media that ‘select’ what we will consume, people are increasingly becoming narrower and isolated in the consumption of real news.’ “. . . social media . . . is a system that incentivizes outrage . . . ‘The content that gets the most retweets and shares seems always more likely to be content with strong emotion or reaction. Research from scholars in cognition and neuroscience speak to how we are drawn to this kind of content online, which certainly complicates hopes for nuanced, thoughtful discourse in the digital realm.’ “ . . . the nation’s polarized political and social postures {has} two major causes: 1) the rise of the internet and the fall of the ‘gatekeepers’ who screened much of the vitriolic aspects of public forums that existed before the age of the web; and 2) the rise of ‘big money’ in American politics at all levels, which necessitates candidates’ moving further out on the political spectrum each election to distinguish themselves and attract contributions. “. . . one reason for the present decline in civility has been an intentional strategy to amplify certain views by creating think tanks that sponsor biased research results, fund so-called astroturf organizations (the opposite of grassroots groups) and use unreliable sources that call what they distribute ‘news.’ Much of it is, in fact, deliberately intended as misinformation. “ ‘Perhaps the most important factor was the end of the Fairness in Media regulations under President Reagan and the failure to reinstate them,’ . . . The fairness doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission, introduced in 1949, required licensed broadcasters to present issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the FCC’s view — honest, equitable and balanced. It was repealed in 1987 because of the proliferation of cable channels and, among other reasons, it was thought to undermine the First Amendment. “ ‘This deregulation made it highly profitable to masquerade as a news outlet while ratcheting up inflammatory rhetoric that undermines healthy debate. At the same time, we’ve seen consolidation in media so that most media outlets are connected with one of a very small number of very powerful corporations, and they have considerable influence on government and public opinion alike.’ “ More recently, some political leaders have found it expedient to cooperate with news outlets that are trying to influence public opinion while crowding out informed debate. ‘And the money that funds this strategy is now protected as a form of free speech by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. So to a great extent the current predicament has its roots in government actions that can be reversed.’ “. . . the proliferation of news and political media platforms and the 24/7 news cycle seemed like a good thing initially. ‘Instead of waiting for the nightly news with Walter Cronkite or Huntley-Brinkley, you could catch up at any time.‘ “At the same time, when the FCC rolled back its requirement for news programmers to provide equal time to opposing views, cable news channels eventually became ‘siloed.’ As a result . . . ‘people walk around with completely different views of the world depending on their choice of a ‘news’ channel.’ “Then came social media and blogs, where everyone could become a pundit and a self-anointed ‘journalist.’ {We} now see ‘acrid commentary’ on Facebook and other platforms. ‘Automate this in-your-face style of pseudojournalism along with ‘likes’ and commentary provided by bots and you have the formula for changing public opinion for whatever purpose you desire’ . . . “. . . journalists serve a critically important role in a free and democratic society. ‘But many large media corporations are making coverage decisions based on interests of sponsorship and ratings. And social media, which has become a major vehicle for news consumption, can foster incivility. [Emphasis mine] People are able to comment or post under the cloak of anonymity, some of which are not even ‘people’ but bots. Further, not all news stories on social media are vetted or fact-checked, with some that are purposely false or designed to provoke conflict.’ “. . . {Some trace} the decline of civility to the early 1960s with the advent of call-in radio talk shows. ‘. . . people could express ideas/opinions without having to support them with solid argument, and certainly without having to own them.’ “Then . . . a new trend began to develop on television.‘What had once only appeared in trashy newspaper tabloids sold at the back of newsstands, now appeared daily on TV. We were regularly treated to all kinds of dysfunctional exhibitions, and as the trend deepened, the more outrageous the better. . . . With them came the erosion of propriety and, very subtly, civility.’ “The shock jock culture gave birth to social media — ‘anonymity gone wild. It allows all manner of both well-developed opinions and pure foolish or even hateful diatribe to coexist at the same level.’ “When you combine these technological developments with the culture of fear spawned by 9/11 and the growing trend toward more ideological defined political parties, you have a recipe for incivility writ large as the defining character of our time. [Emphasis mine] But as horrible and influential as 9/11 was, what was far more influential was our political and national response. ‘We responded with ‘Be afraid. Be very afraid.’ We color-coded fear. We frightened ourselves beyond terrorists’ wildest dreams, and we have lived in that atmosphere ever since. It is that atmosphere of fear which has allowed us to be manipulated, and which has contributed more to the erosion of civility and thoughtfulness than anything else.’ “Fear makes civility a luxury and reduces many Americans to black-and-white thinking and political extremes. ‘For perhaps the first time ever, we have a president whose instant and often thoughtless reactions to the mundane, the horrible, and things of great international importance are instantaneously blasted worldwide for all to experience. . . . {It’s not clear} which is worse — that no one seems to care much any longer, or that he {the current president} is capable of inciting numbers of unthinking people to acts of violence. This is a whole new moment in our history which requires national thoughtfulness and agreed-upon boundaries.’ “. . . ‘We have a president who capitalizes off that fear every day. Fear is the oxygen of a social media frenzy that pushes us into tribalism and compels us to accept this idea of alternative facts.’ “. . . ‘This is about globalists versus nationalists. . . . the communication technology we have today {is} being irresponsibly used to mobilize large groups of people who are angered by their economic condition to harm the weakest and most vulnerable among us.’ “Many Americans have chosen ideology over reason, . . . in part because ideology is easier to sell. ‘This has been intentional. Conflict is clickbait. Conflict is higher ratings. . . . the election of President Trump is not the cause of our civic illness. It is a symptom.’ “. . . President Trump has contributed to the rise of incivility. He calls his opponents pejorative names like ‘Little Marco,’ ‘Lying Ted,’ ‘Crooked Hillary,’ ‘Crazy Bernie.’ He allows rude and coarse behavior at his rallies and has intentionally pursued a strategy of encouraging meanness, division and incivility. ‘As such, he has given cover to the angry voices of Americans frustrated by rapid changes in the country’s cultural and economic landscape.’ “But the trend didn’t start with Trump, nor will it end with him. Politics in the past quarter-century has become all about winning — nothing else. There’s been a decline of the political center resulting in less willingness to compromise. Displays of anger, intimidation, and threats of violence have become a regular part of our political discourse. Statesmanship is all but dead. - - - “Recently, when U.S. Rep Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., was referred to in a fundraising email as a ‘domestic terrorist’ by a group of college Republicans, it promoted a spike in threats against her life. ‘When speakers are shouted off university stages or uninvited to forums because their views clash with some student opinions, something is very wrong.’ [Emphasis mine] “As we have seen, incivility is not new. ‘It is part of human nature and, thus, as old as democracy itself. What is new is the reach of social media, bringing incivility, and worse, into our lives on a near constant basis. President Trump did not create this moment. He represents it perfectly.’ “. . . the United States is not in a good place right now, and our national politics is increasingly an abject failure. ‘We see the signs of democratic decay all around us: politicians who behave worse than children on social media, the attempt to normalize calls to hate and violence, the drive to shout down those with whom we disagree. These trends are worrisome and must be turned back if our democracy is going to survive. But states are not seceding. There are still many good people in our public life and good citizens who have figured out how to work together. They can help lead us through this moment.’ ” (Ref. 4) We are witnessing the incivility that exists in Congress and in the public at large. Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of this incivility is occurring on our college campuses, where, to a discomforting degree our supposedly best and brightest are being taught to be uncivil. It has become distressingly obvious that America’s college campuses are the places where the right to free expression is being undermined. Censorship is not only imposed by our university administrators, but students themselves are a source of censorship when they choose to treat their political opponents with disdain and incivility. On many campuses, the liberal Left is pushing their radical agenda against American values by denying conservatives the opportunity to speak and to debate the issues. “Fear of the ‘other side’ has fostered a toxic political tribalism. “Thomas Jefferson once wrote that ‘the price of freedom is eternal vigilance,’ and Americans have taken the fight for their individual liberties seriously. But while it is true that freedom must be defended, freedom also loses its credibility in the eyes of opponents if it is abused. “{Today’s} American college students are no exception. In their own way, they are determined to prevent others from stifling their freedom. What they don’t realize is as they claw for their rights, they are shredding the very foundation those rights stand on. “When conservative students {try to} host a lecture or activism event, {they must} remain on constant alert for demonstrators who {want only to} silence their speech. . . . “Countless conservative events have been shut down by dissenting voices who can become violent and physical in an attempt to shut down words they feel are ‘hateful.’ - - - “Students on the left have a . . . concern when it comes to rights. They often fight to protect the feelings of individuals who have historically been denied rights by society. It doesn’t matter whether they have reason to fear those individuals losing rights again. In the minds of progressive activists, they are defending the civil liberties of others. - - - “The right, when silenced by the left, begins to yell louder. The more words they can say, the better, as that proves they have the right to say them. Those words, however, often turn into dangling red meat for their opposition. They holster the ‘own the libs’ mentality, mocking liberals as snowflakes ‘triggered’ at everything. “The left feels their existence and rights are threatened, so they protest, grinding away on the limits of ‘peaceful’ assembly. And they justify in their minds that storming stages and super-soaking speakers is acceptable: They’re just defending their rights. “Shouting shameful things or forming a mob to silence your opponents sullies the intended purpose of the First Amendment. This amendment protects us from the government infringing on our rights, but the standard for exercising that right shouldn’t be merely what we can get away with legally. “We are so blessed to have the freedom to speak freely and organize ourselves to demonstrate as we wish without government-mandated muzzles. But what good is that protection if citizens are silencing each other’s speech or resorting to aggressive messaging? [Emphasis mine] - - - “Being able to engage with those we disagree with is important—we are a community of souls and should treat each other as such. The respect we show our foes reveals the respect we have for the Bill of Rights. “When we use our freedom for hostile purposes, we exploit the intention the Founders had for the First Amendment. Freedom requires responsible use, and the proper use of freedom optimizes its purpose. “Our standard for free expression should not be what we can get away with legally. If we continue down this path, language will continue to be associated with hatred, and assembly with mob rule. - - - “If either side truly wants to stop this endless cycle of shouting matches, cancelled events, and lawsuits, they are going to have to start gaining composure in difficult situations. - - - “When we face true injustice, or people who seek to erode our rights, we should stand firm for those rights. But we must do it with respect to the other side, even if they are not respectful in return.” (Ref. 5) Toward the end of the twentieth century we witnessed the disgraceful demagoguery of Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy. The senator who finally stood up to him was Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith who rebuked him with the words: “I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American. I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny – fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 3, Page 8) It is most unfortunate that, once again, the American political scene is cursed with the four horsemen of calumny – fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear. We arguably now have the most divisive Congress in memory. As former President Gerald Ford said: “If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave.” (Ref. 3, Page 61) Despite today’s unseemly actions, lack of action, and vituperative words coming from the U.S. Congress, it is worthwhile to take note of the fact that “Congress, for all of its faults, has not been the unbroken parade of clowns and thieves and posturing windbags so often portrayed.” (Ref. 3, Page 10) Let us all hope that common sense and American idealism will once more prevail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References:
|
| 16 August 2019 {Article 373; Politics_49} |