A writer who has addressed the effects of
social media on current day politics is Andrew Marantz. Early in his book, Anti-Social, he
describes an encounter with three journalists who have utilized social media to
spread their form of journalism. Marantz
writes:
[Cassandra] Fairbanks, [Luke] Rudkowski, and [Tim]
Pool didn’t agree on well-developed policy agenda. What they shared was closer to an attitude –
an instinctive aversion to anything mainstream.
They often expressed this in terms of their antipathy to the
establishment wings of the Democratic and Republican parties, but their guiding
principles seemed more temperamental than political. Things they liked: energy, scrappiness, rebellion. Things they disliked: institutionalism, incrementalism, the status
quo. If something could be described as
an emanation of the Man, then they were against it.[1]
This blogger can’t verify this characterization;
he is not aware of these journalists beyond Marantz’s description. But he feels these overall biases do reflect
how a lot of current politics is being conducted. And as such, it goes a long way to explain
why one finds the polarized nature one observes at the national and even local
levels of politics.
As
this blog repeatedly describes, a federated politics is one in which citizens share
a sense of partnership. When one calls
out, “Hey, partner,” certain assumptions come into play. One would be an ability to engage in
discussion reasonably and reflectively, to problem-solve and negotiate. In turn, such approaches to political
intercourse count on institutional modes of discussion that are calm, disciplined
– not jumping to conclusions – and empathetic.
To
the extent these journalists represent what one is apt to find on social media
and, given its popularity, it is not difficult to see how a reliance on social
media for one’s information leads to the anti-federated landscape that one
finds in contemporary America. And to
boot, Marantz goes on to describe how well organized this element of the
political class is. They even have a VIP
element.
He
gives this group more substantive description by writing:
The
VIPs shared a common set of enemies – the Clintons, the Bushes, the globalists,
the mainstream media – but they didn’t agree on everything. Some were more anti-Semitic than others. Some were more openly racist than
others. Some emphasized misogyny,
whereas others were more passionate about Islamophobia. Still others, rather than committing to any
consistent ideology, rotated through evocative tropes about Davos or the Deep
State. Each of them espoused opinions
that were so politically retrograde, so morally repugnant, or so self-evidently
deceitful that no reputable news organization would ever hire them. And yet, in the twenty-first century, they
didn’t need traditional jobs. Instead,
they could mobilize and monetize a following on social media.[2]
All this results on messaging undermining the acceptance
of basic factual information which until recently the bulk of Americans secured
from those reputable news sources.
Of course, as many have pointed out, this inability
to agree on facts undermines any chance at productive discourse. And when, as a result of this disruption, a
faction within a nation has become large enough to affect political outcomes, that
polity is in trouble.
The
next posting will share how Marantz describes what possibly motivates this type
of mischief. The last quote above hints
at what that might be. Possible answers
might include ideological commitment or monetary rewards. Readers are invited to guess what Marantz
judges this motivation to be. One might
also ask: is one type – beliefs or
dollars – more ominous than the other?
Of course, whatever motivates most, there is no guarantee that all involved
are similarly disposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment