Decius wrote:
I don't feel it. Our politics has become deeply partisan. Few people are willing to maintain a healthy disengagement from identification with one of the ruling parties. They use the network to seek out information that confirms their prejudices, true or not. There are minor ways in which this helps. I can access legislation being considered, and I can speak out. But there are major ways in which it doesn't help. People do not know how to think critically. They don't really seek truth. They seek social validation. The truth is rarely the most comfortable option. It has a tendency to challenge you.

I have mixed fellings on this matter.

On the one hand, I see parallels in this discussion to the long (and unnoticed, alas ;) commentary I made about music in this age. I think the foundation exists, but the tools don't yet. We're in the relative stone age... blogs are a lot like newspapers writ small and the much vaunted transformative power of the internet in politics has been, to date, in fundraising and the dissemination of information to the base. The tools to do more than that are in progress, but I think they'll get there in much the same way that I'm hopeful that the tools to find and enjoy a lot more different artists will eventually come into being.

At present, there is certainly a strong echo chamber effect, in which people look to have their opinions validated and get that satisfaction, but at the same time, these blogs couldn't exist without a healthy stream of oppositional writing either. That is, a lot, i dare say most, of the content of the lefty poliblogs are rebuttals or excoriations of righty poliblogs or politicians. That means, at least, that the writers have probably read an opposing view point. At least some of the readers will take the time to do the same, perhaps at first in order to get fodder for their own disapproval, but eventually one is forced, i think, with the fact that reading a viewpoint *only* to find stuff to thrash is a waste of your time... it's more useful to actually critically evaluate it.

Too, i think it's necessary to view this all in the context of the present offline climate, to the extent it's separable. I mentioned in another post earlier that there has been a concerted effort on the part of an influential and determined conservative base to actively undermine the value of subtlety, nuance and reasoned discourse. Starting with the derision of "massachussetts liberal elites" through to the false everyman populism of W and his ilk, and most crucially the framing of every issue as one of good versus evil. When you begin to frame everything in absolutist terms, there's no room for negotiation or subtlety, only opposition. When one position is thought to be absoultely right, then there is no other alternative but that any other position is absolutely wrong. I don't know that the internet can, itself, have much of a positive or negative effect on that. It may be that it has an amplifying effect on the existing culture and atmosphere... in fact, I think it probably does. But that's missing the forest for the trees. The big picture is that the tone in the country is all wrong, and it's that way because a particular group of people found it to their advantage to make it so, and because the public and the media were lazy or complicit (in some cases because they were literally bought, too, I'd imagine).

You're not wrong in saying that people have a hard time facing the truth, but that statement also assumes an absolute view of truth. I recognize that such an absolute truth does generally exist, but not necessarily that everyone must see it in the same light. In a healthy environment, exposure to oppositional viewpoints and the supporting evidence doesn't have to convince someone completely to reverse their position. There's value in small changes over time. Ultimately the internet's lack of inherent filters (one hopes that will continue to be the case) will positively enable that. First we have to get people back to thinking critically and challenging their own assumptions... i agree with you whole heartedly on that fact. But the internet can't force the matter. I don't know that Gore thinks it will, but I imagine he sees the potential that I see. What I'm hoping the book lays out is a proposal for changing the tone and attitudes for the better in this country. The title suggests, at least, that he shares my views on how we got here, and I expect he has more than just "The internet might help" in terms of a way forward.

RE: Book Excerpt: The Assault on Reason by Al Gore