Comment on this story

Only if we allow it to be

It is a common perception in America today that the country is deeply divided politically. And listening to the tone of the debate on every issue from the war in Iraq to gay marriage, it would certainly seem that this perception is well-founded. However, in a recent book entitled, Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina points out that just because America is divided, it does not necessarily follow that the chasm separating us is particularly wide or deep.

A recent article by Joe Klein in Time quotes a new Annenberg poll that estimates that approximately 7% of Americans listened to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show during the month of July, while approximately 8% saw Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. And while their respective devotees are predictably mirror-image opposites when it comes to the issues, that leaves approximately 85% of Americans who subscribed to neither Moore’s nor Limbaugh’s unique forms of infotainment.

Fiorina argues that political discourse in America has been hijacked by political fanatics on the left and the right in much the same way that Islamic jihadists have hijacked an entire religion. The “political purists,” as he terms them, view public debate as warfare, complete with an “anything goes” mentality. Television shows such as CNN’s Crossfire, with its studio audience either cheering or jeering their favorite or most-despised political mouthpieces, and Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, perhaps the purest form of meat-head entertainment this side of the Jerry Springer Show, are prime examples of the newest form of low-brow rhetorical sparring where, if you don’t agree with a certain pundit’s point of view, you run a good chance of being assaulted—well, verbally anyway.

What all this is doing for or to America is unclear, but it is safe to say that intelligent political discourse is suffering—and that can’t be good for the country. While we may not agree with many of his policies, reducing our lexicon regarding President Bush to epithets serves no useful purpose. And whether we are anti-war in Iraq or pro-choice when it comes to abortion or believe in civil unions but not gay marriage, there are numerous thoughtful, intelligent, serious-minded books, periodicals, and newspapers written on all sides of a litany of topics that—if we’ll just take the time to read them—will better inform and challenge us on all the issues that face us as Americans.

One criticism that the U.S. currently faces from much of the rest of the world is that we’re just not very smart. While it’s certainly easy to take issue with that assessment since there is much empirical evidence to suggest that Americans as a group are the world leaders when it comes to channeling their gray matter toward higher purposes, what our critics may really mean —and where they may have a point—is that we’re not very well informed as a citizenry.

On a local level, our visceral, over-our-dead-bodies aversion to a state income tax (even if it is more equitable and less regressive than having the highest sales tax rates in the country) is proof that we are sometimes susceptible to falling prey to “soundbite politics.” And as U.S. citizens in an election year, it is incumbent upon us to be as well-informed about the issues that face our nation as we can be before we cast our ballot this November.

While not always as easily accessible as your TV remote, intelligent discourse on all the issues is as close as your local library or bookstore. And, if you do have to get your news from television, you’re likely to find more in-depth coverage on P.B.S. than on the O’Reilly Factor.

As for periodical reading material, New Republic, The Economist, National Review, The New Yorker, and The National Interest are but a few of the excellent journalistic weeklies, monthlies, and quarterlies that cover the gamut of liberal, moderate, and conservative points of view. Taking, for example, the issue of war in Iraq, picking up the summer edition of The National Interest entitled “Iraq At The Turn”, you’ll read an array of qualitative essays by renowned scholars and statesmen such as James Schlesinger, Yevgeny Primakov, Dimitri Simes, Daniel Byman and Francis Fukuyama. But don’t look for simplistic “Bush is an idiot”-style demagoguery because you won’t find it. What you will find is a former Russian Prime Minister examining the-short sightedness of the Bush administration when it came to post-war Iraq in an essay entitled “Auditing Arrogance,” balanced with a sympathetic piece entitled “Transferring Sovereignty” by a former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and much more.

All this is to say that one need not live on a steady diet of Michael Moore and Al Franken any more than one needs to subject themselves only to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Intelligent and rewarding discourse does exist, and we would all do well to turn down the volume on the political rhetoric and seek it out—not only so that we won’t sound as buffoonish as the screaming heads on TV when we discuss politics—but, more importantly, so we’ll live up to our obligation as citizens and make an informed decision when we cast our ballots this November.

August 19, 2004 • Vol. 14, No. 34 © 2004 Metro Pulse