Politics in the Age of Pundits
“Instead of actual debate about ideas and issues with real
consequences, the (United States) is trapped in a political
discourse that increasingly resembles professional
wrestling…”
So writes pundit Ann Coulter in her book “Slander.” The quote,
which is accurate and eloquent, gives readers hope that perhaps a
popular media critic is – at last – prepared to rise above the
mud-slinging world of contemporary political commentary and offer
intelligent, unbiased analysis of political problems. What we are
given, instead, is a truly astounding case of hypocrisy and
(unconscious) self-mockery, as Coulter spends most of her career
degrading political dialogue far beyond anything that has come
before her.
She jokes that Timothy McVeigh, instead of bombing the Oklahoma
City federal buildings, should have destroyed the New York Times
and murdered its staff. She describes Bill Clinton as a “horny
hick,” a “lunatic” who “masturbates in the sinks”; naturally, “if
you don’t hate Clinton… you don’t love your country.” American
journalists are “retarded,” of course. As for liberals, not only do
they “hate every religion except Islam” along with America, but in
fact “liberals hate society and want to bring it down to reinforce
their sense of invincibility.”
I give these examples not because I want to demonstrate that Ann
Coulter is somehow an isolated or unusual case, but because
Coulter, as her success indicates, is merely indicative of a larger
trend among those writers/speakers who Americans turn to for
political commentary these days.
Rather than offering rational, intelligent analysis of important
and relevant subjects, those who pass for popular political
commentators are principally concerned with discrediting and
lampooning – by whatever methods – all those who do not subscribe
to the correct political ideology. Books and columns are written
with language that seems designed more for petty children arguing
on the playground than adults who live and die by the decisions
Americans make in the voting booths. The result is that
partisanship is given a boost and instead of resolving issues
dialectically, we build walls around our rigid stances on issues,
vowing never to cooperate or listen to the “other side.”
There is no monopoly on this sort of punditry; conservatives and
liberals have both participated in the exchange. For every Ann
Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage and Bill O’ Reilly that
jousts for the right, the left can claim a Micheal Moore, Al
Franken or Jim Hightower. It’s not that none of these writers have
ever said anything worth listening to, for many of them certainly
have. But on the whole, these writers are more concerned with
calling each other names and exposing irrelevant (or unintended)
shortcomings in the others’ writings than with offering tangible
suggestions for the right direction for policymakers to take.
Democracy, as anyone who has taken a political science course
can attest, draws its strength from the input of a wide range of
thinking individuals, each with their own contribution to make. It
is consensus, and not disagreement, that is the desired goal of
such debate. The Constitutional Convention itself was little more
than a series of drawn-out compromises. Thus, when those who
influence our political opinions are more concerned with fueling
discord than with investigating the best solutions to our problems,
what results is a clash of factions in which opinions become
monochromatic and there is little, if no, common ground.
There are, fortunately, still plenty of careful, rational
political commentators working. Although it is the Michel Moores
and Rush Limbaughs who rule the popular market, those who seek a
different approach can still read the Economist or the New Republic
or watch Jim Lehrer on PBS and get an idea of how popular political
dialogue could, and should, operate. In fact, we should be thankful
that there are still those in the networks and in publishing
willing to uphold respectable standards of debate.
Although such media exists, however, the more books that are
sold under the appeal of “gotcha!” journalism, the more media
corporations are going to search out these authors to publish and
promote; such is the nature of the market. It is, then, up to us to
be intelligent consumers and to demonstrate that there should be
little place in a democratic society for the sort of commentary
that tops the bestseller lists these days.
Brent is a freshman studying philosophy. His column runs every
Tuesday.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.