The discussion was starting to heat up and the insults were starting to fly. The conversation had begun innocently enough as a disagreement over the Iranian president’s right to speak at Columbia University but had evolved into an all out rhetorical war. “The president is an idiot!” “Hilary Clinton is a communist!” “Republicans are Nazi’s!” “Global warming is a myth!” Just to name a few of the things said as the original topic became lost on the fray. It was amazing to me how quickly things escalated to a pointless jumble of one-line jabs that sounded like a collection of the week’s worse talk radio rants. Neither man heard the other and they each used the opportunity to vent simplistic retorts based on limited knowledge of the issues. As we watched the two red-faced friends flailing away at each other my son asked me, “Why are they so mad at each other? Weren’t they just joking around a minute ago?” Yes son,” I shrugged, “But sometimes friends get on each others nerves.” “What are they even talking about?” He looked at me quizzically. I just shook my head, “I don’t really know and I don’t think they do either.”
Welcome to the world of debate in present day America where informed and reasoned discussion has been replaced with hot button based rhetoric. It’s easier to call George Bush an idiot then it is to provide details of policies he has implemented that you dislike. Comparing Hilary Clinton to the devil is more fun than studying her positions on issues and expressing intelligently why you disagree. I am the first to admit that I am ill informed on the details of some of today’s most significant issues. For that reason I tend to stay away from debating where I lack the knowledge to provide relevant argument. For example, I might have some thoughts about whether humans are causing Global Warming but my limited knowledge of the details of the subject leaves me without a strong position. That alone is enough to make me a denier in one camp and a radical in the other for not taking a firm position regardless.
So why has political discussion become so shallow at all levels? Maybe there are too many outlets for opinion. Talk Radio, the Internet, cable and satellite television all provide a non-stop flow of information, some of which is flawed, misleading or just plain false. That’s not to say that all of those venues are bad nor am I suggesting any kind of censorship. I just wonder sometimes whether they may be too much of a good thing. How many of the ideas and opinions floating around in peoples heads are the result of what is little more than gossip glossed over by a slick looking website or spouted by a sharp looking commentator? How many biases about a person, place or thing are based on the railings of a talk radio chatterbox? Perhaps my even suggesting that some of what is said on talk radio might not be the truth makes me a liberal loon who wants to bring back the fairness doctrine.
I also believe that our culture offers too many distractions for many people to stay well informed. We are a people who love entertainment and leisure and as long as we are comfortable with our lives we are content. Why else are voter turnouts so low? Barely 50% of eligible voters vote during presidential elections and far less for local or non-presidential elections. Politics just do not interest the masses beyond where they perceive it to affect the daily lives. People get ideas and sometimes they express them loudly but for many people what’s for lunch today is more important than whom the next president will be.
While channel surfing several months ago I stumbled upon something that greatly inspired me to start thinking about this subject. Supreme court justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer were having a debate about some of the current issues pertinent to the court. My first impression was amazement at the intellect of both men. In my more radical days in college I confess that I had viewed justice Scalia of something of a right wing redneck. Their vocabulary often went over my head and they both expressed opinions thoroughly and confidently. I was also taken by the respect they had for each other, they even took time to playfully jab one another. These men were diametrically opposed to each other on some of the topics yet they both made compelling arguments where a listener could consider both based on fact not fluff. If only we could hear something like this in a presidential debate as opposed to the canned and rehearsed responses the candidates generally produce. Sometimes when I listen to politicians express opinions I feel that they are insulting the American public’s intelligence with their careful and often open ended answers to questions. Then I wonder if maybe they are simply doing what they need to win in today’s America.
As for the two arguing friends; they stormed away from each other in anger but within an hour they were laughing together over a beer. After all, one of them hasn’t voted in years and the other always votes straight ticket.
