In his January 8, 2018 column, David Brooks of the New York Times points out the hazards the anti-Trump movement reducing issues to a smug “fairy tale”, its insularity, and lowbrowism.
“This isn’t just a struggle over a president. It’s a struggle over what rules we’re going to play by after Trump. Are we all going to descend permanently into the Trump standard of acceptable behavior?
Or, are we going to restore the distinction between excellence and mediocrity, truth and a lie? Are we going to insist on the difference between a genuine expert and an ill-informed blowhard? Are we going to restore the distinction between those institutions like the Congressional Budget Office that operate by professional standards and speak with legitimate authority, and the propaganda mills that don’t?”
This reminds me of when America “won” the Iraq War. We may have shocked and awed a country into surrender and deposed its rulers, but we had no plan for what to do afterwards. We’ve been paying for that ever since and our country’s reputation was greatly diminished.
The same could happen domestically if those looking to oust Trump, which includes me, don’t consider the long view.
2 comments On Fair Tales, Insularity and Lowbrowism Threaten Anti-Trump Movement
This is an important consideration, Steve. I have to admit that I feel diminished in my ability to influence when electronic media is so fast and so ubiquitous with their judgements and spins of every little news item (news-worthy or otherwise). I think the way to address this requires a wholesale rejection of media for a period of time to get their attention and make them see we are not buying what they’re currently selling. And this goes for media across the spectrum. Then, and perhaps only then, can we right our democracy and return to a more balanced and earnest debate of our county’s best interests.
Ted, I share your feeling of diminished ability due to speed and prevalence of opinionated, often manipulative electronic media. That feeling is one of the reasons I created this blog, as a sort of refuge, a more quiet, slower, more reasoned medium. But “wholesale rejection of media”? Where else would we find facts, evidence and data from which to draw our own conclusions, raise our own questions, form our own opinions, decide on our own actions? It is impossible for us to be everywhere, all the time to experience what is happening first hand. Unless we choose to shut out the world, we rely on others to do this for us. Rather than reject the media, I am making the effort to be aware of bias, trying to filter it out of what I consume and try to avoid lazy “System 1”, automatic, uncontrolled thinking and instead allocate attention for more thoughtful consideration of information. The quantity of what I process will go down, but hopefully the quality of my response to it will go up. So maybe what’s required is a wholesale slowing down of media consumption, like savoring good meals of choice rather than continuously snacking on the junk food that is continuously offered to us.
Comments are closed.