We’re not a divided people; we’re a bunch of divided persons
: Robert Samuelson says it’s not true that we’re a polarized, right-left, red-blue, us-them nation:
One of today
5 responses to “We’re not a divided people; we’re a bunch of divided persons”
-
But then what accounts for the popularity of Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Howard Dean, the vehemence of the Bush-hatred, the vehemence of Clinton-hatred, etc. etc.?
-
Hatred? Just because O’Reilly points out the facts doesn’t means he hates Clinton. Same with Moore, he’s just trying to sell crappy books and movies.
That is all. -
It is true that if you polled most Americans, 99% would be in perfect agreement about the basic ideas the country is founded on. Democracy, tolerance, religious freedom, the protection of the rights of minorities, etc. (polls like this have been doen with exactly these results). The problem is that those ideals, the ideals upon which this country is based, conflict with each other. We belive in majority rule and equality before the law, and in respecting the beliefs of different religions, but we also believe in the rights of the individual and in giving those who have gotten a bad start a helping hand, and the right of people to ignore religion if they so choose, and thus we have battles over everything from abortion rights to affirmative action to our exact role in the rest of the world. The personal divisions that Jeff talks about are built right into our system. One of my favorite book titles ever addresses this subject exactly: Samuel Huntington’s “American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony.” Worth checking out.
As for why O’Reilly and Moore and all the others are popular: well, just to rant a little off the top of my head, I’d say it’s because these are very complicated problems, and whenever problems are very complicated, people are overjoyed to be presented with what seem like very simple solutions, especially solutions that appeal to their own sense of themselves as right thinking, good people. Simplification makes these problems, which are essentially insoluble, look like the result of nothing more than the stupidity of the other guy. It feeds not just into some sort of us versus them tribalism, but also into the frustration of dealing with things for which there are no easy answers, or possibly no answers at all. It’s a a way of setting the problem aside and not having to think about it so hard. It’s a way of avoiding, or perhaps caving in, to the weight of moral responsibility that being a citizen of a democracy places on people. I sometimes think that the more people rant about issues in a simple-minded, accusatory way, the more likely it is that they’ve seem the impossibility of the problem full in the face, and have run hiding from it. And then they turn and blame the other guy for doing the exact same thing.
And I’ll stop ranting now, before I use up all of Jeff’s server space. -
Also many of those people on the “other side” whatever side they are, really ARE dishonest or bad people.
-
Polarizing your audience, like marketing to your audience, is just a form of shorthand. If the average TV program (or any media brand) was as messy, divided, random, flawed and complicated as the average human life, nobody would watch it.
Brands are simple. People are not. But that’s precisely why we like the former.
(Sorry, Jeff, my brain seems to have been taken over by the Marketing Monster this week.)
