Saturday, August 06, 2005
Politics Should Make Us Smarter
I dislike the current American approach toward politics. You've heard the reverently held democratic ideal that "every vote counts." Political correctness dubbed it a social moral to merely vote, as if standing in line and pulling a lever cures bad legislation. I submit that it would be better for our collective welfare to instead revere a slightly modified ideal, "informed votes count."
The root of the problem, of course, lies in that it is nearly impossible to adequately inform each voter in a vast heterogeneous citizenry. To make matters worse, the "age of information" quickly ushered in the "age of misinformation." The mass media machine, an inevitable puppet of ratings, indiscriminately inundates us with shallow, disjointed, divisive, distracting, irrelevant, partial, biased, or even flat-out false information. In these times where even the village idiot has his own virtual soapbox (this being exhibit A), swimming through the data is a daunting task.
However, can't we at least put up a resistance to the pageant that is now our presidential campaigns? Do we really have to fall for vague, media-friendly soundbytes with no substance, or for who can best contrive a 'winner' image? Do our politicians really have to become gutless people-pleasers for mass consumption? We're so conditioned by hype the World Wrestling Federation would envy that a good politician is now defined by a remarkable smile and superior question-dodging ability.
You know they do that because it works on our apparently lazy psyches. Can't we at least try to think a little harder before the debates are held in swimsuits?
The root of the problem, of course, lies in that it is nearly impossible to adequately inform each voter in a vast heterogeneous citizenry. To make matters worse, the "age of information" quickly ushered in the "age of misinformation." The mass media machine, an inevitable puppet of ratings, indiscriminately inundates us with shallow, disjointed, divisive, distracting, irrelevant, partial, biased, or even flat-out false information. In these times where even the village idiot has his own virtual soapbox (this being exhibit A), swimming through the data is a daunting task.
However, can't we at least put up a resistance to the pageant that is now our presidential campaigns? Do we really have to fall for vague, media-friendly soundbytes with no substance, or for who can best contrive a 'winner' image? Do our politicians really have to become gutless people-pleasers for mass consumption? We're so conditioned by hype the World Wrestling Federation would envy that a good politician is now defined by a remarkable smile and superior question-dodging ability.
You know they do that because it works on our apparently lazy psyches. Can't we at least try to think a little harder before the debates are held in swimsuits?
Comments:
The reason I like The Daily Show so much is that it revels in making fun of exactly what you dislike. It's a parody of all those crappy news shows out there that inundate us with mis- or useless information. The problem is, it's actually become the primary source of news for a lot of people, which is not the purpose at all. When people treat it seriously, it simply becomes a partial, biased news show full of fluff pieces, which is exactly what they are mocking.
The fact that there are people out there who take the show so seriously just serves to emphasize your point.
The fact that there are people out there who take the show so seriously just serves to emphasize your point.
Yes, you're right.
What I most lament is not so much that it is difficult to be definitively informed, but that we seem to have lost even the will to be critical thinkers.
Even analysts are more likely to recall the "posture" and "confidence" of a candidate instead of, say, the strength of his argument (or lack thereof).
Post a Comment
What I most lament is not so much that it is difficult to be definitively informed, but that we seem to have lost even the will to be critical thinkers.
Even analysts are more likely to recall the "posture" and "confidence" of a candidate instead of, say, the strength of his argument (or lack thereof).
