Can Democracy Survive All This Talk?

In the early days of our democracy, newspapers were financed, not by advertising and circulation, but by political parties and patronage. If a newspaper editor’s party was in power, that newspaper also became the local government printing office.

So in political reporting — local, state and national — the gloves were never on. Rhetoric was aflame, and politicians needed a thick skin.

Then came the Penny Press, supported by advertising, and the Associated Press, supported by newspapers that needed to share telegraph time. They combined to promote the concept of objectivity.

In the social media/blogosphere/talk age, we seem to have regressed to our origins. President Obama, or a Republican counterpart, does something. Anything. And it begins.

Pundits from the opposite camp, in blogs and broadcasts, hammer away. Quotes and facts are presented out of context, hyperbole is employed, logic is banished, buttons are pushed.

If it stopped there, it would be mere annoyance, easily muted by a variety of tricks. Knowing that politicians gauge their response to crucial issues by these extremes, and preach to their choir, assures acid-infused gridlock.

Around 1800, the politicians were calling the tune, and the newspapers marched. In today’s fractured age, the roles seem reversed.

(At this point, being a student of media history, I should stop and apologize for oversimplifying grand, complex processes. But in the spirit of what I’m writing about, maybe I should instead tell you to shut up.)

Social media, talk radio/TV, and the blogosphere define the narrow stip of territory and being hammers, easily find nails just on the other side of their border. The rhetoric drives away any alternative viewpoints, ridiculing as they exit. Compromise is a dirty word.

To say that government and its citizens are polarized is bad enough. The extent to which everyone seems to enjoy it is worse.

I consider myself a centrist, liberal but also an evangelical. When I write political-based content, I admit to bias, but I also strive to be fair.

In today’s political world, that equates to being abandoned and ignored as a relic of the past — the elderly relative at the family gatherings who realizes no one expects or really wants him to speak.

To the crusaders from the outer border, those who are not with them are not only against them, but hate the country and the values on which it was founded, advocating instead a dangerous fascism/socialism.

From that perspective, you can count Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Tip O’Neill, among the group of ideologically tainted America-haters.

Think of how our country would progress if both political parties would simply compromise, as in years past, recognizing that neither will ever have the votes to accomplish its singular agenda.

But, goaded by their media bandleaders, they dig in, and blame the other side when nothing happens. And, of course, nothing happens — except for the bad repercussions of nothing happening.

I confess to enjoying the prospect of verbal evisceration. It is tempting to identify the extremists as hating America, damaging it even as they advocate the ideology that they love more than country. (Oops, I think I just did.)

But that’s beside the point, fun though it may be. And I doubt that writing like this will leave Boehner and Pelosi, McConnell and Reid weeping repentantly on the steps of the Capitol.

Instead, let’s just say this. It’s bad for the country. Our democracy will survive; it always does. Maybe its resiliency emboldens the narrow-minded.

My generation is hopelessly partisan and vicious, and our leaders have forfeited leadership. Maybe those who come behind will set it aside, and know when to advocate, and when to buckle down and govern.

But for now, the problem isn’t biting political commentary; it has always been there, and it should be protected as free speech. The tragedy is two parties of politicians who heed when they should lead, and voters who demand less.