07.29.09
A Derth of Debate
There is an information deficit in the United States today. I say this not to suggest that somehow we aren’t smart enough, or our vast networks of knowledge distribution are deficient, but simply to suggest that people seem to be increasing incapable of getting the knowledge that they need to make informed and rational decisions.
In this age, where everything you could possibly want to know is literally at your fingertips, the notion that this is even possible sounds crazy. This is especially offensive to those proponents of modern information technology who point to developments like Wikipedia and Twitter as symbols of undeniable progress in realm of human communication. And so they are.
However, the problem is this: the easy availability of this information allows people to live in an echo chamber in which their instincts and ideas are never challenged. Increasingly, no one needs to hear an opinion that might conflict with their own, or challenge long held assumptions. We are protected from knowledge; insulated from learning in a very self-enforced way. No more does the average citizen need to put up with the thoughts of an informed opposition. Wish them away and only look at that which pleases you.
No where is the more evident than in the political debate in America today. Every day elected officials refute factual information, argue about information that is literally decades old, disagree on the nature of events in the larger world that are taken badly out of context, and rely on untried or untrue assumptions. Worse, there is always a pundit or op-ed contributor who is happy to reinforce these ill-formed ideas.
This damages the political debate. It suffers from the disappearance of a usable opposition. On a project like healthcare for example, what is needed is genuinely informed opinion that is capable of making rational decisions. When such opposition is disingenuous, or even completely irrational (as in the case of Martin Feldstein or Senator Jim DiMent. Mr. Feldstien suggests that the rich will voluntarily impoverish themselves if they have to pay and extra $2000 a year in taxes, and Senator DiMint has convinced himself and adherents that any kind of government plan is akin to welcoming the Red Army into Georgia). Both men ignore the very real problems with healthcare in the United States. It IS devouring huge amounts of federal money, yet it does not provide the same level of care as do the systems in countries with a comparable GDP. The need for a debate on the best way forward is very real, but such debate needs to be constructive and useful. Anything else is simply an attention devouring sideshow.
Worse, the American people, largely uninformed and trapped within the narrow bubbles of information that modernity allows are unable to divorce the realities of modern politics from these manufactured visions. Partly this is due to the difficulty in obtaining any real information, but partly it is a very real failure of intellectuals and other manufacturers of opinion to give clear and concise information to people.
Ultimately the artificers of artificiality are winning the debate in America through their ability to simply cast doubt on every possible way forward. Many of the major objections that are presented to the public are inventions and lies that ignore very pressing and important realities. We cannot move forward by simple denial. Like those twisted fools that still deny the moon landings and the holocaust, modern political opposition defines itself simply by its ability to deny the very possibility of progress, not by any claim to a great truth or deeper understanding. There is a certain irony to the fact that the political right now offers the greatest contributions to the deconstructionist movement in our contemporary intellectual culture, since it was they who first launched an attack against such thinking in our universities.
Nevertheless readers, I would like to leave you with this. We must find a way forward. The world will not wait for us, and history has never rewarded the hesitant. Argue if you will, but make sure your reasoning and your logic is sound. We only need the contributions of those committed to the future. The rest of you can stay behind.