technology and Public Debate: A response to Christopher Lasch's The Lost Art of Argument

I wrote this essay as a response to Christopher Lasch's book Revolt of the Elites, specifically chapter nine, The Lost Art of Argument ( http://tinyurl.com/25vqnu9 ). Originally, the essay was meant to respond to the impact of technology on public discourse but I expanded it to a perhaps pompous level that includes discussion of democracy and other high-minded principles. We'll see what grade I get for it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Lasch wrote his Revolt of the Elites in 1996 he probably didn't foresee the meteorical rise of the internet or the political success of the Tea Party. He never expected that the word forum, derived from the greek term for a social meeting place, would come to be recognized as meaning a shady corner of the web where the anonymous could bicker endlessly. Lasch's hopes have come true, only they've arisen as his nightmares: The internet has created an arena for debate so fierce that the viewers no longer care to act on the outcomes, but rather only sit and watch the neverending battle. Barack Obama has refused to appear on Fox News, not, as Lasch had hoped, to “recover [his] self-respect by challenging the media's status as arbiters of public discussion,” but because he is afraid to enter into the deliberately and openly partisan world that Lasch so desperately wants to return.

Lasch's ideas are noble and altruistic. He imagines a world where the public is still interested in public debate and where are a partisan is willing to subscribe to the newspapers and journals of his rivals, to get the other point of view rather than to mock. Unfortunately, our civilization has moved on. Gone is the “shining city on a hill” idealism that many have tried to resurrect (including Reagan himself). Lasch is recalling an America that had saved itself from destruction and risen from the ashes to defeat a 500 year empire in a seemingly altruistic move to help our Cuban neighbors, an America that would go on to single-handedly save Europe from its own imperialistic tendencies. Americans then were interested in directing the course of their nation. There was a vigor and love of discourse then that had fueled everything from muckraking to the creation of the National Parks that is gone and will not return.

Much of that has to do with how busy our world now is. When you can instantly see the reports of “18 Killed in Baghdad Bombing” going to your local city council meeting to talk about plans for a new dog park seems a bit self-absorbed. Why watch the presidential debates when you can watch the football game in HD? No one subscribes to two newspapers today. They either get the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Simply put, the supply of intellectually consumable content in our society far outstrips the demand, and we're finally seeing the effects.

In order to return to “15,000” strong crowds attending political debates, we would first need to shut down most of the entertainment industry. The simple fact is that when Lincoln and Douglas rolled into town, there was nothing else to do but attend the debates. They served as both rich demonstrations of the power of a democratic society and as entertainment (if in a snooty, high minded sort of way, similar to attending the full performance of Wagner's ring cycle). Without either of those factors, they wouldn't have worked, or at least wouldn't have been as notable.

So, what then is the solution? The current path seems to indicate a trend towards the “ignorance is bliss” school of thought, and since Lasch wrote his book 14 years ago, we've probably progressed further towards that point then he would like. It would be so nice to forget our cares and let an oligarchy of experts lead us. Of course, such a path could only lead to the destruction of democracy, either in de facto terms caused by the apathy of the public (the fact that the Tea Party is winning primaries seems to indicate this is already happening) or by a gradual legal disintegration of our civil and democratic liberties brought about by our leaders who know better than us.

The alternative is this: Cherish and protect the bastions of true journalism that we have left (I would mention PBS, the Economist, and the BBC, but I'm biased), foster a sense of appreciation for knowledge about the world in the school system by making a current events class mandatory in Junior high and high school (hopefully with good teachers so you don't make children hate such knowledge), and stop worrying about the people who aren’t participating. Of course, you'll still create an elite by doing this, but an elite made up of members of the public with dissenting opinions is better than seven or eight elites sitting around a table making every decision.

None of this, of course, guarantees liberty and justice for all. The role of public discourse, of grand debates and partisan newspapers that Lasch wants isn't coming back. Instead, it will consist of the well-informed making informative blog posts, Facebook comments that engender a true discussion rather than bickering, and most importantly, people realizing that they aren't too busy for politics today. In the end we can only hope that you'll Tivo the big game rather than watch it live so you can learn about your country's position in the world, that you'll decide to attend that city council meeting even though the weight of the world seems to already rest on your shoulders. In the end, we can only hope that ourselves and those around us have enough of a stake in our political system to desire to protect and shape it for the better.