Letters to the Editor
-
Say WHAT?
Let's see...we have an argument based on a premise that has not been established (that political discourse has become markedly more polarized and uncivil). Certainly there is a great deal of incivility currently, but a "gut feeling" that this is much worse than it has been many times in the past is truthiness, rather than established truth. As for polarization, it is simply a matter of logic that if one party moves sharply in one direction, people not in that party, even if holding the same views they have always held, will be closer to having an "opposite" view than they have previously.
Sunstein then seems to say that we hold our sharply polarized beliefs because we have not been exposed to complex, competing arguments. I love a good argument-fest, but I do think it works better if one has solid information from which to make those arguments. And where, pray tell, are we supposed to GET that information? Sunstein blandly notes news organizations that are up front about their political orientation as an issue of polarization rather than abdication of the responsibilities of a free press. He then suggests that the INTERNET is to blame because the media simply aren't doing what they're supposed to do. So if you're a Fox news devotee, it's the Net's fault that when you go online you look for views that confirm your bias? Completely missing from his thinking is the recognition that people who WANT the facts, and who want to read complex arguments BASED on the facts, HAVE to use the Internet (and those uncivil, polarizing blogs)to get that information. (Also missing from his thinking is the recognition that we do NOT have competing right-leaning and left-leaning news organizations. We have extremely right-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist news organizations. NPR is NOT "liberal," for Pete's sake.) Nor does Sunstein give credit to the many blogs that link regularly to other sources of information, with opposing points of view, and that give readers space to question both the facts and the opinions of posts and to develop those wonderful "complex, completing arguments" right under their noses. Oh, those terrible blogs -- all that uncivil discourse leading to (perhaps) well-formed opinions -- what will become of democracy?
I notice that most of the commentators who wring their hands over the "incivility" of our political discourse never want to examine WHO is being uncivil to WHICH degree: if you say a political figure is lying, and s/he IS lying, that is not incivility, it's a fact. If you are being deprived of your civil rights, it is the essence of civility to say so -- often, loudly, and in every possible forum -- until civility is restored. Protesting abrogation of constitutional protections is patriotic, if not "polite." Although I hope it is not his intention, Mr. Sunstein seems to suggest that it is rude of victims to call out their victimizers.Does he hear no echoes from history -- has he no knowledge of how this argument has been used against blacks, gays, Jews, women.....? Quick, someone -- send him a link to the lyrics of "It Isn't Nice."
Of course, it is hard to give much credence to the thinking skills of someone who can recognize Hannity's shortcomings but is fond of O'Reilly because he has always been fair and balanced to HIM. If Mr. Sunstein can maintain this ridiculous position, it is clear that he, at least, has learned how to insulate himself from any points of view other than those that confirm his own experience.
-
Incisive
Yet another argument against the tenure system. The brain cells sicken, the neurotransmitters dry up, but the fingers still move across the keyboard in their accustomed patterns.
"Democracy is the first casualty of political discourse" -- that says it all.
Were I a dean at U. Chicago, I'd see if I couldn't entice Mr. Sunstein to find a better salary elsewhere -- and use the freed funds to hire someone with a functioning neocortex. Salon's own unsalaried Suzy Shedd (v. supra) would be a top candidate.
-
re: say what
Well said and what comes to my mind in this time of polarization where are the opposites to these folk who get far more air time and legitimacy?
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Lou Dobbs
etc
The increasingly extreme push by the right since Reagan (including our best Republican President Bill Clinton, just ask Greenspan) has made people like myself more vocal and defiant because it is a matter of survival. When people like Coulter can spew the hate filled murderous diatribes that she does and it goes unchecked, uncorrected and even applauded, well sorry it isn't Al Gore's internet to blame, it is the corporate and political stench that has infected this land.
That is not to say there isn't an echo chamber on both sides, there is and it is human nature, right or wrong.
However intelligent people on opposite sides of the divide usually are willingly to try dialogue but it is rare to find the airtime and secondly those able to discuss rationally and calmly, agreeing to disagree without it sinking into a form of "Jane you ignorant slut." Because it isn't entertaining enough or guarantees ratings
Finally NPR liberal, the NYTimes liberal?? Bill O'Reilly not polarizing? Good night and good luck.
-
RFLMAO
Irony, thy name is Heuvelen!
Here's my favorite quote from *this* particular article:
"A liberal might argue, though, that liberals are by definition more diversity-minded and more tolerant of the views of others."
RFLMAO!!!!
That just made my day.
Thanks!
-
What's the point?
That guy described as a "legal sage" what are his qualifications to talk about the internet? Of course he is entitled to his opinion, but why should we care about it? Because he wrote a book which expresses controversial views?
It's easy to be controversial, it's not so easy to add something valuable to public discourse. If we want the quality of that discourse to increase, then we have to stop paying attention to people who are controversial in favour of people who have insights.