Sturm und Strauss

I was thinking about Jon Mendelson's post on the use of simple, divisive political messaging and the lack of nuance among some of the TV news providers. FOX News and Rush Limbaugh are the most obvious and odious, but I've seen equally stark polemics from the far left of the spectrum where the primary currency seems to be paranoid conspiracy theories and vacuous relativism. The why and how of that messaging is a fascinating topic to me, especially since the tone of those broadcasts and writings either reflects contemporary thinking or drives it.

Stephen Colbert does a brilliant job lampooning this kind of ham-fisted Manichaeanism when he asks questions like: "George W. Bush: great president or the greatest president?" Humor is a powerful force to expose the lunacy of self-fulfilling categories but mostly appeals to the politically cynical. If one only sees politics as laughably mad, then one never embraces politics and just mocks from the sidelines. Still, it adds warmth and color to the Sturm und Drang of modern American politics.

But the numbers suggest that denaturing the influence of newsertainment (just made that up) will not be easy. I constantly chat with well-meaning and nice folks who have whole quivers of talking points derived from FOX: "liberals hate America", "there is no separation of church and state", "the homosexual agenda", "culture of life", etc. Newsertainment thrives because it is mostly entertainment by eloquent and engaging personalities who package ideas as starkly as possible to make it all fun and easy to swallow.

At the same time, there may be a slightly more devilish consequence that fulfills the neoconservative Straussian notion that sometimes the body politic needs to be told noble lies for its own good. Most neocons actually deny that such elitist and Platonic notions color their agendas, but do assert a kind of triumphalism associated with freedom and democracy that is so simplistic as to effectively be an untruth. I would have loved American foreign policy to have found a way to oppose communism while not supporting dictatorial regimes back in the day, but we have the history we created and must live with it and the dark background it provides to all modern foreign policy. Wrapping foreign adventurism in triumphal declarations doesn't change the realities on the ground.

It's odd, Plato and Strauss just reminded me of Ayn Rand in their belief that categorical definitions should be shaped by hopes--celebratory--rather than mired in naturalism. Did she call it Romantic Realism? All three have a tendency towards elitism, as well, although Objectivists may quibble over that in Randian apologetics. But Rand at least would have been opposed to lies and simple dichotomies, I think, and much more inclined to challenge the common man and woman to do better at understanding the depth of issues in formulating his or her opinion. Anything else would have stunk of mental slavery.

But even if the impact of 24/7 newsertainment turns nice folks into partial zombies, it is also pervasive and invasive enough that it spreads moral empathy more rapidly than at any point in history. Abu Ghraib, murders and rapes by soldiers, torture debates, civilian casualties, the fates of dogs in Iraq are all seen, projected and packaged to appeal to our moral outrage. When we see horror, we agree that our men and women should not be doing it. We have a need to see ourselves as civilized and fair in the face of horror and voices like Ann Coulter become increasingly marginalized as they struggle to convince us otherwise. And that aspect of newsertainment doesn't bother me so much, though I still prefer McNeil-Lehrer.