The Barking RINO Essay #8
A central discussion of political science is weighing the
actual political knowledge of the American public. In 1964 Dr. Converse
determined objectively that 95% of the public was technically ignorant.[1] As
dismal as this sounds, since that first study, repeated studies have verified
this proximate number. Most Americans are unaware of the name or term of their
elected officials, what the Constitution actually means or how laws come to
exist. As noted social scientist Richard Fenno wrote in his seminal text, Home
Style, most of us vote for candidates that “seem like a nice guy.”[2]
Yet today, amid the flurry of social media, especially among older and
predominately male demographics, everyone seems to have an opinion and a
willingness to share it. Consequently, some of the questions that might spring
to mind include: Where are these opinions coming from? What is the difference
between an opinion and a fact? How do we know who to believe?
First of all, I want to suggest that two of the consequences
of the 24/7 news cycle is that (POINT ONE) consumers of the news have easier access to
awareness of political issues and topics. If it was the intention that “we the
people” hold the reins of power in our democracy, issue awareness is probably a
good thing. But what is the contextual foundation that these media factoids are
being applied against? For example, a recent topic was the “cuts” in benefits
for veterans.[3] After much online
ballyhoos back and forth, this bi-partisan bill actually reduced the annual increases in veteran benefits: in other
words, it was a less of an increase but still a net increase. Gauging from the
social media conversations, most of those that commented on this topic did not
understand that the bill was neither an actual cut nor that it was a bipartisan
effort to reduce deficit and ultimately debt. And, in a period of
exceptionally low economic growth, one wonders how big annual increases
actually need to be in order to keep up with the cost of living.
None-the-less, passions were fired up. What is interesting
is that ‘Joe six pack’ was engaged in this issue. Never mind that Joe’s facts
were wrong or that Joe’s foundation of political knowledge for applying these
facts was equally murky. What we know is that Joe is receiving this political
information from the news media…and that he is watching. Joe wants to learn and
participate in our democracy. The good that is demonstrated by this example is
that Joe and all his friends and foes, seemingly want to engage in the issues
that test our nation and concern us about our collective future. Find me a box,
I want to step on top of it and applaud Joe and his friends, sincerely. American
philosopher Mortimer Adler tells us that the pursuit of the truth, in this case
knowledge, is the basis for a good life. In fact, Adler tells us that the
pursuit of the truth is the highest calling any human animal is capable of.[4]
But how could Joe’s opinion be so poorly formed?
Historically the media was the ‘fourth leg of government’ or
the ‘watchdog of government.’ I would argue that despite the tsunami of
available information and opinion that the internet provides, along with
traditional radio, television, newspapers and magazines, Americans continue to
be politically ignorant (uneducated). This is not to say that they are stupid.
Today, amid the intense competition for viewers, the media
has sacrificed accuracy on the altar of expediency. Additionally, unscrupulous online
outlets simply provide un-vetting opinion in the guise of facts. In other
words, they are intentionally being deceitful. An excellent example of this is
the recent news stories that partisan economist Paul Krugman had filed for
bankruptcy. [5] This story indicates that
not only are the facts for stories poorly researched before they are passed
along but that online news sources are, at best, unreliable. Finally, as John
Gottshalk, former Publisher and CEO of the Omaha World Herald once stated while
holding up a copy of the newspaper he held (paraphrasing), ‘This is an
advertising vehicle. We use the news to sell ads.’ In other words, the single “duty”
of the media is to create wealth, through the sale of advertisements, for
investors. News, like music on the radio, is the bait that attracts the
audience.
Gone are the days of reliable truth and accuracy in the media.(POINT TWO)
Today, in an effort to maximize profits in a highly competitive
industry, news sources have to engage in appealing to overt ‘audience bias’ in
order to develop and maintain the largest audience possible. (Advertisers pay for ‘reach and frequency’ or
audience size. The larger the size of the audience, the more advertisers are
willing to pay to have their name and sales pitch in front of the audience.
This is why TV ads during the ‘Super Bowl’ or the Olympics are more expensive
than ads during college football games: larger audience.) We all know that
Fox News is not, ‘fair and balanced’ or that the token Conservative on MSNBC is
simply a battering post for a liberal bias served up to the delight of an
ensconced progressive audience seeking reaffirmation that their views are correct.
Ergo, when we see interaction among online social media
users – the arguments are predictable and based upon the talking points of
media that one imbibes. This media has a demonstrated history of using bias in
reporting, shirking accuracy in favor of expediency and providing (low cost)
content (news) in the form of facts when it is actually the opinion of an employee purported to be an “expert” who
colludes with the medium to maximize ad sales.
How
do we know what the truth is? We don’t...especially
in the social sciences.
Outside of the realm of science
and mathematics, there are few truths which can be empirically demonstrated and
reliable tested. Gravity is a truth but the existence of ‘good’ is subjective.
When it comes to politics we need
to understand that ‘the truth’ is especially murky and usually relative. Some
will employ, ‘the greater good’ argument – which is a nice way to pick and
choose the facts that apply and those facts that are dismissed. A disciplined
thinker will engage uncomfortable facts since it forces her to ‘test’ her
truths. A truth which is unable to withstand vigorous testing is dogma. In his
book, Six Great Ideas, Adler tells us to replace truths once we have learned that they are less-accurate or incomplete.[6] This
means that the disciplined thinker must constantly vet their assumptions by
engaging in fruitful debates – most often debates that occur within their own
head. An unvetted truth is simply an opinion that is no more valid that any
other opinion. “De gustibus non est disputandum.”[7] In other words, you prefer
chocolate, and I prefer Strawberry.
Thus, we are called to test our own truths first. Never mind the partisan meanderings which provide little more than acrimony, distrust and divide. (Partisanship is about overtly demonstrating your group membership and loyalty. It is the fulfillment of the choice to abstain from individualism in favor of group membership) [10]
If you want a debate – challenge your own beliefs…or those of people whom you agree with.
In parting, the divisions in America are historical
divisions. The nature of the human mind is to segregate into groups where a
commonality conjoins us. When the data to recognize this bond is absent, schema
allows us to ‘fill-in’ the missing parts in order to make sense of our reality.
This automatic process which occurs in our head has historically been a
survival, ‘fight or flight’ mechanism. Today, we call it racism, sexism, Republicanism,
Progressivism, Nebraskaism (okay, I made that last one up). But no matter how hard we
try not to – we will innately bind ourselves to groups since groups provide
security and enhance the opportunity to procreate. It is as fundamental to our existence
as breathing and eating. But we can choose to not allow this tendency to
control how we perceive and interact with the world.
The fundamental tenant of our Representative Democracy is
that “we the people” must learn to agreeable disagree, or how to debate important
issues. The tug-and-pull of government is the process whereby ideas are vetted –with
the hope that the outcome is a better idea. When we lose the ability to discuss
difficult, hard, complicated issues with those we disagree with – we have given
up the pursuit of the truth in favor of the allure of dogma and inevitably the
death of truth. We are allowing ourselves to tolerate a lie because we are
simply too lazy to pursue the truth. In a metaphysical sense, I suggest, we
have given up on God. When we no longer pursue the truth, in all aspects of our
imperfect lives, we no longer seek the beauty that this world has to offer –
replacing it with the modern lies of consumption including: everyone should be skinny, members of the group I belong to use this brand (BMW, Nike, Coke), and everyone should think the way I do.
In the end, the tolerance and fruitful engagement of those we disagree with makes us smarter, our ideas better vetted and our debates eventually lead to better real-world solutions; solutions that can actually change the quality of people’s lives. But the moment we engage in comfort of mindless regurgitation of media talking points – we become sycophantic automatons that have given up on the one thing we know our Maker entrusted us with, “Cogito ergo sum.”[8] (*)
How do begin to pursue the truth? By exploring our
individual values. If “I” am the one who gets to determine “good” from “bad” and
since the nature of man is sin,[9]
then my perspective will be based on self-interest and, by definition, errant. We
begin by searching for an external yardstick of truth to vet our individual values
and truths against. And if you have read this far, I bid you good luck for
taking the first step in a journey that, by design, will never end.
(*) An interesting theological theory suggests that the self-awareness of our own mortality is the planted-seed by which our Creator beckons us to search for (It/ Her/ Him.) That in the pursuit of the truth, in order to answer the only question every human being asks, "Why?" we will become aware that of the few things we take with us to the grave (and presumably the after-life) including: an understanding of who we are, the formation of what the truth is, and what our values really are.
(*) An interesting theological theory suggests that the self-awareness of our own mortality is the planted-seed by which our Creator beckons us to search for (It/ Her/ Him.) That in the pursuit of the truth, in order to answer the only question every human being asks, "Why?" we will become aware that of the few things we take with us to the grave (and presumably the after-life) including: an understanding of who we are, the formation of what the truth is, and what our values really are.
Works Cited
(2012). 2012 American Values Survey.
Washington D.C. : Pew Research Center.
Adler, M. (1981). Six Great Ideas. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
(2010). Americans' Outlook for U.S. Morality
Remains Bleak. Omaha: Gallup.
(2013). Civic Engagement in the Digital Age.
Washington D.C. : Pew Reserach Center.
Converse, P. E. (1964). The Nature of Belief Systems
in Mass Publics. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society,
206 - 261.
Fenno, R. F. (2003). Home Style - House Members in
Their Districts. New York: Longman.
(2013). Growth & Opportunity Project.
Washington D.C. : The Republican National Committee.
Weber Shandwick. (2011). Civility in America.
New York City : KRC Reserach Powell Tate.
[1]
(Converse, 1964)
[2]
(Fenno, 2003)
[4]
(Adler, 1981)
[5]
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/03/breitbart-krugman-bankruptcy/62952/
[6]
(Adler, 1981)
[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_gustibus_non_est_disputandum
[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
[9]
See the writings of Jefferson, St. Paul, Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Adler (Example
- Romans 3:10)
[10] (Theiss Morse, 2014)
[10] (Theiss Morse, 2014)