Division? Hell, no. It’s called democracy

Division? Hell, no. It’s called democracy

: In today’s Times, Andrew Kohut of Pew starts to recyle the well-worn meme about more partisan media yielding a more partisan nation. But at the end of his op-ed, he takes a 180 (if not a U-turn) and acknowledges that, no, Mr. Little, the sky may not be falling after all:

Still, perhaps all is not lost.

In his new book, “The Wisdom of Crowds,” James Surowiecki argues eloquently that “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, often smarter than the smartest people in them.” That’s because a diversity of experience, opinion and knowledge can render the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Whether a more partisan news environment undermines or enhances the cognitive diversity of American culture – or diminishes the “gut rationality” of the public – remains to be seen.

“The public’s judgment has been pretty good over the past 75 years, when we pretended that we didn’t have a partisan media,” said Maxine Isaacs, a lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “Everyone knew that we did. It’s now just more overt.”

Yup. When we care about issues — which aren’t necessarily the issues media think we should care about — we manage to get our smarts together and do pretty damned well, through eras of press of greater and lesser yellow hues. The Internet and cable choices and weblogs and all these new sources of — uh-oh — partisan media will, I believe, only help the process of democracy as we air more opinions and more diverse viewpoints. It’s called democracy.

6 responses to “Division? Hell, no. It’s called democracy”

  1. anne.elke Avatar
    anne.elke

    “Yup. When we care about issues — which aren’t necessarily the issues media think we should care about”
    So explain to us all how your petty sniping and snarking is your caring about the issues.

  2. DC Avatar

    It also manifests itself in the jury system. I tried about 30 cases before juries in Manhattan during my time as a prosecutor, and while it was occasionally frustrating to learn that they were focused on something both sides found trivial, at the end of the analysis we invariably found that they were simply cutting to the chase and trying to do justice. Dialogue among strangers, in a semi-structured setting with sufficient gravitas, usually leads to a pragmatic answer to a given set of questions, at least in my limited experience. You’ve raised a far more interesting and far-reaching point than you may have initially intended.

  3. James Stephenson Avatar
    James Stephenson

    Well Jeff do not let Michael Moore and some other of the so called smart people hear you say this.
    I agree though. In the last 75 years America has made few mistakes for the top leadership. Carter was screwed by the Great Society and maybe a little too smart. People in his cabinet said they would wake up every day and not know what they would be working on. While Reagan’s cabinet would wake up every morning and know exactly what they would be doing that day. I only point out Carter, because while I do not care for his coddling of Cuba, I think he gets a bad rap. And this from someone who given the chance would have voted for Reagan in 1980. Turned 18 in ’86.
    I felt that even Clinton was not a bad pick, he listened to the polls more than his beliefs. Or his cabinets, which kept him running in the middle.
    Anyway, I trust the American People all of em. I just wish once we get 75% voting. Then we could see what America really wants.

  4. Tom Paine Avatar
    Tom Paine

    > which aren’t necessarily the issues media think we should care about

  5. old maltese Avatar
    old maltese

    Just wondering: how does a 180 differ from a U-turn?