A University of Missouri analysis of recent political blogs - i.e., basically meaningless, but fun to talk about - indicates politics are getting nastier due to digital media. Why? The digital world has made it easier for polarized interest groups (which is basically every interest group) to reach other people who are similarly polarized.
What to do? University of Missouri-Columbia associate professor of communication Ben Warner recommends a 'balanced approach' to finding information. That's right, academics. He says you need to turn on Fox News once in a while.
"One side is going to lose in every political discussion," says Warner. "The danger with this open hostility found in digital media toward the other side in politics is that it undermines the legitimacy of the people that we disagree with politically. It's important to recognize that people who disagree with you aren't 'evil' or 'trying to destroy America;' they just have different perspectives."
Well, in point of fact some people are trying to destroy America. It's become fashionable for people to invoke "McCarthyism" any time anyone objects to their cultural Chia pet but they found plenty of people who acknowledged they wanted to ruin the country. Some postdocs who work with birds poison cats for fun; they are not morally profound vigilantes out to stick it to Big Cat, they are mentally goofy.
Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002, was cited for campaign blog viciousness while blogs campaigning for Obama in 2008 were noted as asking users to remain respectful.
"The conversation on the Obama blogs matched the respectful tone modeled by the campaign itself," said Warner. "Senator John McCain wasn't an 'evil villain' but a 'misguided politician who should be respected for his service to the country.'"
Ummmm, not to bore anyone with history or data but President Obama was campaigning against the guy whose name was on campaign finance reform. Sen. McCain had to take public financing and Sen. Obama reneged on his campaign pledge to also take public financing and keep the playing field level. As a result he was able to raise and spend more money than Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry spent - combined. It's easy to let even 50% of your work be positive when you can spend twice as much as the opposition. By comparison, Dean was trying to get the Democratic nomination - he was not getting presidential campaign money - and was speaking out against a sitting President at least a few people disliked. Bush clobbered Sen. Kerry in a landslide in 2004 so obviously neither nice nor angry efforts worked very well.
Warner notes that blogs could assist in turning "scattered political frustrations" into "passionate mobs."
"There are times when passionate mobs are precisely what society needs. Yet, we all need to realize our nation is filled with diverse perspectives," Warner says. "Ideological warfare does little to heal divisions in society, but trust in each other can preserve a healthy democracy."
When are the times passionate mobs are needed? The unemployment rate is 12% in California - since that only counts people who have filed for unemployment in the last four weeks and we are years into a recession, that means it is more like 20%. The government solution seems to be more spending and taxes so the government is not listening to people, it is catering to special interests; like its own union employees.
Is Occupy Wall Street a passionate mob? If so, which left wing bloggers did they read? Maybe some of the money they got in donations should go toward outreach efforts for National Review.
Comments