Reader debate: Is America ungovernable? | The Economist.
Yes it is broken. And yes it has become ungovernable.
It’s about time a publication such as the Economist treats the real larger problem of the forum in which public debate is conducted in America. It is however very disappointing to see that the Economist sides with the view that nothing out of the ordinary is going on.
In fact, Rome is burning.
For starters, You can not have a healthy democracy without an informed citizenry. In this regard, US media institutions do not fulfill their important role as the fourth pillar of government. They have been faced with a conflict of interest as they have become corporations and have been under growing pressure to interpret their statutory object ever more strictly (the object of the company is … to maximize profits.) And as any decent fan of Spiderman will know from the not so endearing character Mr Paterson, Editor-in-chief at the Daily Bugle, “If it bleeds, it leads”.
With the FCC’s 1987 decision to repeal of the “fairness doctrine”, sensationalism led the way to greater profitability. Media’s profit margins were no longer restrained by the obligation to inform the public in an honest and equitable fashion of events of public importance. And so the deluge of asinine pundits and their deliberate shenanigans began their work in every home in America.
So the idea that a majority of American’s believe this or that, terrifyingly loses its force as a compelling argument.
I dare say that not all opinions are equal. Some people indeed speak with more authority then others. Those who have reached a position on a subject after considerable thought and information, do not have the same resonance as those who support Sarah Palin, for example because she’s “a mom” or “she stands for what America is”. See their inability to explain why they support her her: http://bit.ly/8sVZ4Z They can’t because its like asking someone why they like chocolate or why they’ve fallen in love. It is not a rational informed decision.
And so we must distinguish between between rational and emotional decision-making. Both are very important in human behavior and both are indispensable, but they are also very different and more or less suitable for different exercises. The science of pushing emotional buttons in conjunction with broadcasting technology has completely changed the democratic landscape. On the Science of Public Relations (aka: propaganda) and its application to modern politics, see BBC’s 4 part special The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis.
So all the above is important to understand how intellectual lightweights have taken over congress in unprecedented numbers. And that is a sacrilege to the venerable institution. Those lightweights are more likely to be malleable to their corporate sponsors. And so the vocation has become professionalized re-election. Just as News chiefs are no longer in the business of informing but in the business of ratings, congressmen are not in the business of solving problems, but in the business of re-election. And that requires first and foremost, financing. See Lawrence Lessig’s efforts: http://bit.ly/5htaPc
In sports there is such a thing as fair play and we find it admirable. A healthy sense that while we are adversaries, ultimately we’re all in this together, to play ball. In politics too there has to be a minimum duty of care to debate and confront ideas fairly. And this has all but disappeared. Demagoguery is rampant.
Campaign Finance reform seems to be the absolute first step necessary for any change for the better. Otherwise the countries immobilism will simply lead America to be crushed under its own weight, plundered by its wealthiest and outpaced by other nations to be reckoned with. Considering America has half of the worlds fire power this should be a worrisome prospect for the entire human race.
Rome is burning and someone should start to cry “Fire”.
