Thanks, Ben, for a very interesting interview. Cass' argument reminds me of James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds." In this book, Surowiecki argues that group decisions can be more "intelligent" in some cases contrary to the popular notion of "mob mentality" or "group think."

Central to Surowiecki's argument, however, is that the right conditions must occur for crowd wisdom to be effective. This environment is basically an environment that encourages and respects different ideas and also has a method for aggregating knowledge.

Hmm. Kind of sounds like the ideas behind Democracy, doesn't it?

What are you some namby pamby liberal twist? How dare you make such accusations, why people like you....

I kid, I jest at your expense, my apologies. I agree whole heartedly and the antipathy is frightening.

I'm not sure where this ends up. It reminds me of so much that was said about television--the harbinger of intellectual degradation--which proved party true and party false.

Mr. Sunstein doesn't seem to be suggesting anything that can be "done" about the problem except recognizing it for what it is--a reflection of larger patterns that will have their way regardless of the medium.

I agree that understanding the opposition is necessary and accepting that they are as transfixed by the group dynamic on the right as well as the left. But I'm not sure using the idea as a context for Obama is such a good idea. (Unless maybe you want a job from him.) Edwards and Hillary are candidates who also get the point and practice it.

But so what? The "cause" of the problem goes deeper than the medium. I think he establishes that inadvertently. The psychology of the "right," and "left" (an arbitrary polarity in the first place) is consistent throughout history and cultures. What else is new? The group seems to thrive on opposition--or demonization as it is now called. If it's not the lady across the street who lets her dog poop on your lawn it's those damn pinkos who want free health insurance.

The blogs have made it possible for the first time for those who do not have a platform in the media or at an institution to show what they have to offer on the basis of merit alone, and that is what makes it exciting to me. It expands the dialogue to include those who have nothing else at stake--no network, no boss, no constituency.

That's a "freedom" I'm not sure we've seen before and that is what makes it interesting in tracking its impact. It is actually an opportunity to see what "ordinary" people think without the usual agendas.

As my mother once said, you can be a professor and be dumb as a rock.

There is no middle ground with "moderate" republicans who march in lock step with Tom Delay and vote for an impeachment on constitutionally frivolous grounds. None.

There is no middle ground with respect to the criminal act committed by the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. None.

There was no middle ground when the Clintons tried to pass universal health care and the GOP instructed their members not to vote for any compromise, but to bring the whole thing crashing down so as to set them up for the next election. It worked great, and they weren't punished for not being bi-partisan, were they?

As others have mentioned, anyone so myopic as to be aware of only the charming O'Reilly from his own TV appearances, and ignores the totality of the man's pathological behavior, has nothing valuable to offer.

"Maybe now liberals think the U.S. should have signed the Kyoto Protocol, and that Bush's refusal to sign it was a big mistake. I think a lot of liberals believe that, but no Democrats in the Senate supported U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. A reasonable view is that it was a terrible idea for the United States."

The reasonable view is that the Democrats of the Senate are politicians. They want to hold onto their seats. So, while the Kyoto Protocol would be good for the US, they were afraid to implement it because it would be hard for a while. Putting the Kyoto Protocol into effect would be very unpopular, and Senators need to be popular enough to be reelected.

Here is the problem with such a writer. He is convinced that Obama is a great guy. But lots of people were convinced that Bush was a great guy. Bush appeared moderate during his first campaign, but he didn't turn out to be moderate. In a way, the ideas this author cites as being a bad thing are traps he has fallen into. A group of like minded individuals become more liberal or conservative in discussions. But, this guy is too close to Obama to make an objective determination. Unfortunately, I doubt that he would admit to the case.

I've thought a lot about the ideas Sunstein explores over the years, and basically agree that the Internet tends to generate echo chambers. It enables people of like minds to get together and rant and commiserate- and naturally we like to do that. The commons- which in my deformative years were the 3 TV networks and newspapers that tried to at least couch their positions in logically defensible terms- represented a baseline that has since been replaced by whatever sources we consumer/kings want. We no longer have to even hear, much less consider, any views that do not echo our own.

I've examined my own views and the means by which I form and present them in light of the above, and agree with many who have posted here already that despite the above there is a substantial difference between my views and those of the fascist Right- and the heart of that difference lies in the way that I hold them. I don't believe in "fair and balanced"- I believe in objective truth, and in the idea that any views that I have- even and especially the emotional ones- must also be factually and logically defensible; that they are true in the real world not because I have them or want the world to be that way, but because they stand on their own. The neo-cons do not believe in this kind of truth. Taking their cues from society at large, where belief in the sanctity of the Almighty Self's Feelings trumps everything- they believe truth is whatever they want it to be, thus requires no factual basis or rational defense. I can tell you not only what I think/feel, but why- in rational terms and with information from reliable sources. In years of trying I have NEVER been able to get a neo-con to even state, much less defend their own positions in anything but emotional terms. They only seem capable of saying I am simply wrong, not patriotic, that I'm going to hell etc. And interestingly enough- never to my face. I write letters to the editor where I live, and I know they are literally the talk of the town because I hear about it. The last one was made an assignment in a local high school civics class. But no-one has ever engaged me in a conversation about them. Ever.

And in light of what I have just said, why would they? They can simply gossip, then go online, click up the latest hateful nugget (Hating Mexicans seems to be the topic du jour now), then the Forward and Reply All buttons. It'd all be fun and games- but people vote on this basis.

In short then- the Internet dumbs us down only to the degree we are willing to be dumb. The stupidity that used to hide itself in silence now struts proudly in cyberspace with no fear of embarrasment or rebuttal.