It’s that time again. Candidates are shaking hands in mom and pop diners in Iowa and New Hampshire, raising money and squabbling on debate stages, jostling for headlines and caucus votes, and positioning themselves as the future of their respective parties in the hopes of earning the honor of running for the country’s highest office. Elections are arguably the most profound example of non-violent social action, a testimony to social democracy and a great symbol of public involvement.
Within the next year, Americans will begin consuming countless political messages in a variety of formats, some more respectable than others: TV talking-heads, talk-radio hosts, internet chat rooms, online and print news — which will be shared, re-shared, commented on and liked in a variety of social media outlets. If the previous legislative sessions serve as an example, next year’s election cycle could prove to be one of the more contentious on record, as issues regarding race, class, gender, sexuality and religion will become manifest in matters such as immigration reform, healthcare, national security, economics, environmental protection and the role of government. Each topic is worthy of debate, and as should be expected of the world’s leading democracy, competing visions for America’s future will be deconstructed and argued. Yet, as recent history shows, in today’s information-saturated world, the exchange of ideas can come at a high intellectual and social cost.
In today’s 24-hour entertainment-driven news world, the nuanced truths of a matter sometimes seem largely irrelevant, replaced instead with trite sound bites spouted by pseudo-intellectuals and power-seeking entertainers posing as philosopher kings. Are these people more interested in dogma and winning ratings battles than cultural awareness, empathy, and complex political and social understanding? The latter seems to be seen as weakness, the former power. With such an ethic fueling the chase for ratings, emotional appeals to ideology are kings of the sandbox. Left unchecked, the complexities of important issues can be cornered by propaganda, emotional manipulation, and gross oversimplification dressing up as the so-called “right” and only way to solve political and social concerns. The weapons of choice appear to play on the basest instincts of viewers’ preconceived stereotypes, while using abstract language like “conservative,” “liberal,” “real” Americans and “truth” to purposefully ostracize anyone who disagrees. Such vitriol has certainly helped foster a particularly potent age of toxic political discourse, turning serious debates into trivialized melodrama worthy of daytime soaps or the WWE. With this spirit, intellectual, nuanced conversation loses out to shouting matches and omnipresent ads, each employing a recipe of logical fallacies: a dash of ad hominem, a sprinkle of “either-or,” a cup of “slippery-slope” and a main dish of “red herring.” This formula has potentially wide-ranging negative effects, perhaps provoking a culture to hyperbolize its perceived and real differences with very little historical and in-depth understanding of the issues at play.
Like truth, the blame is complex. The media is certainly not only to blame, and there are many examples of men and women of great intellectual integrity participating in the political process in numerous ways. Furthermore, no one political party has the market cornered on truth and wisdom. The fact is, everyone, the media, politicians and citizens should all be held accountable. So before the election season kicks into hyper-drive, we need to see things as they are. Each of these three groups is the potential villain and hero of the election news theater, and each group needs to be held accountable to a standard of high-mindedness in regard to the numerous and complicated social and political issues worthy of serious public debate, discourse worthy of our great nation.
On Monday, Nov. 16th at 4 p.m. in Cone Chapel, the Harding chapter of The Roosevelt Institute, a non-partisan think-tank for students interested in politics and culture, will host the first of a series of “Fireside Chats: Conversations in Politics and Culture.” This first panel discussion will tackle the role of the media in contemporary political discourse. Featured on the panel will be viewpoints from various political perspectives: Dr. Jack Shock, professor of communication and former Chair of the Communication Department; Gwen Moritz, editor of Arkansas Business; Lindsey Millar, editor of The Arkansas Times; and Arkansas State Representative Les Eaves. We in Roosevelt hope to create a space where nuanced conversations regarding politics and culture can be had openly. We hope to move against the cultural norm that implies that conversations regarding political, cultural and social issues must be dominated by boorish behavior, one-liners and shouting matches. We welcome students, administrators and faculty alike to come participate in what will be a lively, thought provoking, relevant and timely conversation from some of Arkansas’ most talented and reputable experts.
