I previously asked questions about whether or not we can define the current political divide in the United States as a cold civil war. In the mean time, ongoing debate here on Contributing Factor has helped answer, at least in part, some of my questions.
The posts and comments have presented this answer in the form of an idea that we seem to repeat frequently: “Then we are at an impasse,” or “Then we disagree.” As I understand such a comment, once we utter it, we create a barrier through which we can achieve no compromise.
From my understanding, compromise is the fundamental objective of diplomacy. When sides cannot compromise, then diplomacy has failed. If the issues at stake require action by one side or another if they do not achieve compromise, then in my view, the sides have reached some state of conflict beyond that which required diplomacy to begin with.
In a cold civil war, the battlefield is politics and the goal is the ownership of the means by which one side can enforce their ideals on another. This state of affairs differs from normal politics in that the ideals in question are ones the other side is fundamentally, even morally, opposed to and must continue to resist even after those ideals become law and are enforced.
If this definition holds true, then I believe that we find ourselves in the midst of a cold civil war in the United States. Even among the posters and commenters on this site, the lines seem to be clearly drawn beyond which no negotiation can take place. This is not an indictment of either side, but rather an acknowledgement that further changes in views by either side threatens to compromise their fundamentals.
Of course, the definition I present here may still be flawed, but it is my operating hypothesis. What remains for me to define is how such a war is fought and, more importantly, how it is ended.
Posts
21 comments:
And how does allowing all media outlets to spiral off into their own worlds of echo-chamber punditry where they echo the preconceived notions of their readership serve your desire for consensus?
At a guess, I spend roughly three hours a day, quite often more, reading the news. From a variety of sources including the radio, papers, magazines, online sources and just about everywhere except television. Sources ranging across the spectrum from good to crap. Grappling with the news, trying to find the correlations, to synthesize the vast amounts of data into something sensical. Something balanced. And at the end of the day I hold what I found up to the light and if something indicates that what I thought that morning might need to be reassessed, then it is time to do so. And then I go to sleep and get up to do it again.
That's not normal and I don't expect very many other Americans do the same. I mentioned my British friend who tells me most educated people in his homeland take several papers and synthesize their news by comparative analysis of the biased sources. It's a nice idea and I certainly practice that myself, but do you seriously think the average American is willing or has time to do the same? How do we expect them to be informed citizens in that environment when they're already not meeting that standard in the current one?
I believe that the model you are advocating is a recipe for the continuing disintegration of debate in this country from an active engagement to all of us retreating into the redoubts of our own belief systems, allied with those of like minds and closed to the incursion of other ideas and ideals. Stagnation. Which won't lead to amity, though it may well escalate to calamity.
Let me say this by way of declaring that I don't think we're in a cold civil war, though I take your meaning in this post about our debates on this site.
On more than one occassion you have written words to the effect that "if that's where you're at on the issue, you're obligated to do something about it." Words to that effect have come about in different contexts. I've never been able to get you to say what you mean, but I think I know. You mean, if I may fill the void, revolution, armed conflict. You mean that if I feel that strongly, I need to go punch someone in the nose -- or worse.
Now, clearly those same ideas would apply to many of the ideals you've put forth. And yet, despite what I would classify as a much greater willingness (and in fact perhaps a higher value placed on that action as a "right" action -- justifiable) to do just that on your part, you haven't.
I'm sure that sounds like a challenge, but it isn't. My point is that as heated as discussion and even argument has gotten here -- as petty as it has sometimes become (and I'm pointing fingers at all of us, myself included) -- we haven't even come to blows.
Had we come to blows, had we been having a beer and lost our tempers and pummeled one another, we would have gone off to lick our wounds and probably come back and apologized to one another. If not, none of us, I am SURE, would have pursued a vendetta against another. Maybe we'd never speak to the person again or drink with them, but there would be no further or escalated violence.
My point is this: it's easy to shout at one another over the Internet or on TV or the radio. It's easy to see "the other." But in reality, there is much more that unites us than divides us. The number of people actually crazy enough to take up arms and start a "civil" shooting war over these issues is so small that they would quickly be put down by more rational heads . . . who would then go back to shouting at one another.
We might, as you say, not be able to negotiate further, but we've all shown the ability to accept that sometimes we don't get our way. Sure, we continue to argue in hopes that our point will be made and change will ensue, but our very system continues to hold out the hope that any temporary damage (as we might see it) can be reversed.
This might seem at odds with some of the views I've expressed here. I have been critical of government and have demonstrated my suspicion of it. That puts me in line with many of the founders as surely as Denny's militaristic approach to our safety does.
It is the definition of extreme for people to not be able to find common ground or, in the absence of that, to feel the need to violently oppose a system as flexible and egalitarian as our own. Extreme people do exist. There are people who will bomb an abortion clinic instead of merely picketing. There are people who will fly planes into buildings instead of protesting or lobbying or picking a real fight. But most of us, outraged as we might be, are not extreme. We recognize that the destruction of a civil war, especially a hot one, is not the answer to our problems. At least not the ones we have.
Now, when survival is threatened, as in Scott's (I think it was) scenario where access to water is an issue, then people revert to uncivilized behavior and all bets are off.
That's why it's probably a good thing that there are people out there who are adamant about ensuring, to the extent that we can, that our environment is secure and, tough as it is for me to say this, it might be a good thing that there are people who are adamant that we need to wage war (as opposed to other methods) to destroy terrorists.
We disagree on methodology, but only a fool thinks there is no threat of environmental extinction and only a fool thinks there aren't terrorists in the world. I'm not willing to take up arms against any of you because I think you've got a bad plan for dealing with those issues.
David, quickly, I do not think that action has to be violent, as you suggest, though it can be. What I am trying to understand is the nature of the conflict at hand so that it can be dealt with effectively. Ironically, its the failure to do that very thing that led to the situation as it exists in Iraq, and I think the potential exists in this rhetorical war as well.
Scott, to the contrary of the statement in your first paragraph, I think consensus comes from the grind. The allegory I'm thinking of involves something about grinding wheat into flour, but I don't have time to develop it now.
More will follow...
Scott -- You read lots of news, and you synthesize. Great. The Brits do it, too, I guess. I've seen a Mexican newsstand, and I assume they try to do it, too. Heck, I even try. Then you say, "but do you seriously think the average American is willing or has time to do the same?"
You obviously think the answer is "no," and you therefore consider yourself an above-average American.
So, my question is: from where should the merely average American get his or her news?
If not from a back-breaking, time-consuming synthesis such as the one you described, and not from "echo-chambers" of "punditry", then from where?
If there really is a Golden Oracle of Unbiased Truth, then point us to it (and read it yourself, for goodness' sake, and spend those three hours some other way).
But if, as I suspect, there really isn't a Golden Oracle of Unbiased Truth, a Pure Stream of Neutral Journalistic Integrity... then the questions become a little stickier:
Why isn't there one? Will there ever be one? Has there ever been one? How would we recognize one if it came into being? On what basis do we hold out the hope that we are more capable than the Brits and the Mexicans of producing referee-quality journalists in our schools? Why continue insisting on a theoretical ideal that consistently proves impossible to put into practice? Etc.
What if, instead of echo-chamber redoubts of self-serving punditry, those differently-worldviewed publications shared time and prestige on the national stage (as they do, apparantly, in other countries) and served average American citizens in their quest to be as well-informed as you consider yourself to be?
If I could only choose one source for news... I never would, but if I did? NPR.
Scott, I have to agree with you about NPR, if it had to be a national news source, especially because of its wide use of independent reporting.
As much as I dislike the overuse of them by the MSM, what about AP?
And in answer to your other questions... I don't think it would work. And by all accounts I've read and heard I don't think it works terribly well elsewhere either. I reiterate that there is no reason why we cannot ask people to rise above their base instincts to lie cheat swindle and lie some more and give good, honest, fact-based reports. It's not that far to reach. We do it every day when we chose not to lie cheat and steal in our daily lives. Why ask less of 'them' than we do of ourselves. Why is the concept of professional standards so hard to grasp? Or so hard to believe possible?
AP is fine. And by its service (and Reuters and the other smaller services) it allows small town newspapers to survive. They have high standards, but generate so much copy and appear in so many papers, many of them competing in the same markets, that a certain... vanilla scent pervades the air. Overuse of wire pieces tends to give print media a veneer of lockstep uniformity that isn't necessarily the case.
Of slightly lesser concern for me is the potential for any errors being magnified since it's not one paper they're reporting for (a contained problem) but all papers (a widespread problem). But on the whole, that problem seems potential, not kinetic. I'm not aware of any acts of egregious perfidy in recent times by AP.
And Denny, since I am lucky enough to live in one of the most dynamic NPR markets in the nation (KUOW/KPLU), I also rely upon them for local perspective that is complimentary of the three local papers I peruse daily.
And Chris... No, I'm not an average American. I read faster than most for one thing. But what I am saying isn't that I'm better than or whatever. I'm saying that from what I can tell, the "average" American doesn't have the time to devote to it like I do at the moment.
Based on anecdotal evidence, I don't see the desire either but if you don't have time, it's a moot point because the basis was time more than inclination.
If this partisan entropy is allowed to fester and the whole thing devolves into polarized "us for us and them for them" news sources, how many will 'cross the aisle'. And who will find the time to sort the gold out of that much dross? How much more seductive then, the path of least resistance... or at least inertia?
Why is the concept of professional standards so hard to grasp? Or so hard to believe possible?
Those are two very different questions, one of which is insulting to our collective intelligence and the other of which ignores a lot of empirical evidence about human nature.
One humourous/ironic thing occurred to me while I was "offline" this evening: Maybe Scott should watch more TV news. It might help him see where I (and Denny?) are coming from a little better. After a vicarious hour of Dayton's finest, I was ready to strangle anyone who said anything about "news."
"How do we expect them to be informed citizens in that environment when they're already not meeting that standard in the current one?"
Scott, it is for precisely this reason that I think a different model is needed. For whatever reasons may exist, Americans do not have time to perform an important part of being informed, which is synthesis.
I think that creating a news reporting environment where differing viewpoints on the news are being presented would go a long way toward aiding that synthesis. Certainly, this approach is an annoyance to someone like you or I who just wants access to the facts, but to most Americans it would represent the difference between being informed and not.
"Why is the concept of professional standards so hard to grasp? Or so hard to believe possible?
I guess I wonder about your definition of professional standards. Previously, I presented a professional standard that runs contrary to the standard you present. What makes that standard less or not at all professional?
Further, I am at odds with the standards of professional journalism because I believe they are self-proclaimed standards that are being used to obscure the truth about journalism and the news. Certainly, professions should have standards, what I question is whether the currently existing standards are sufficient for the requirements of the profession. Standards only work when they can adapt to the situation that exists.
To use your Tacoma Narrows Bridge example, if the standards used by Roman engineers to build bridges were applied to your bridge, it would have collapsed. Instead, as technology has changed, the standards of civil engineering have also changed, allowing for your bridge to exist at all.
I believe the same adaptation applies to journalism. Societies change, and I believe that the standards of a societal profession like journalism must change along with them. We don't still report the news with minstrels or town criers or newspapers where even the letters to the editor where written by the editor because the demands of society have changed. I believe modern traditional journalism needs to undergo the same kind of changes that happened to those previous enterprises if it is going to survive.
David, my exhortation to action has never been about wanting people to resort to violence to achieve their objectives. In fact, far to the contrary, I simply want people to use the tools our republic has already granted us if they feel strongly about an issue.
As an example, in the past few years I have been an almost pathological letter writer to my federal representatives. Such writing represents action on my part to be involved in and influence the actions of Congress. In some cases, my writing along with the writing of thousands and millions of others have influenced Congress to pursue a different course.
There are many other examples of action similar to this one such as participating in political campaigns, running for office, supporting advocacy groups, etc. that all represent opportunities to act without the kind of final action you suggest.
In the specific example I could remember of making such a statement, I recall saying that I believe that if someone legitimately thought that Bush had violated the Constitution, then that person should do something about it. The most obvious course for doing something about it would be a concerted effort to bring impeachment against the president and to encourage Congress to seek a conviction.
Just to be clear on another aspect of this whole cold civil war idea, I think we may be putting too much emphasis on the literal definition of war. Again I refer to what I believe is the primary action of a cold civil war, which is political action on one side forced on the other for which the other has no recourse.
In a way, our republican system has always had some of the nature of a cold civil war or a cold revolution (sorry, I couldn't resist). Every two to six years, partisans have the opportunity to ouster their government for whatever reasons they choose. Even within a given term of office, representatives can be overthrown via impeachment. Further, when one group of partisans gains political power, they can sometimes wield it over their opponents without immediate recourse.
I think what makes this period in American history different from the normal (dis)function of the American republic is the nature of the issues and the potential consequences. While the cold civil warriors will likely never trade blows themselves, their political actions could have consequences that will affect peoples' lives and livelihoods for generations to come, supporting some at the cost of others.
No side in this conflict is innocent of fielding actions with those kinds of consequences, nor is either side immune to the consequences of the other. The only constant is that the consequences are real and enduring.
I am not trying to be dramatic here (I am be failing in spite of my intentions), but instead I am trying to give a name to the tension that seems to pervade our entire society right now.
As a point of reference, I am starting to compare the current period to other periods when I believe cold civil wars may have also occurred. Three periods come to mind: Reconstruction, The Great Depression, and the Civil Rights Movement. My investigation has thus far been only cursory, but I see striking parallels in the politics and rhetoric of each of these periods.
Denny,
I believe the same adaptation applies to journalism. Societies change, and I believe that the standards of a societal profession like journalism must change along with them. We don't still report the news with minstrels or town criers or newspapers where even the letters to the editor where written by the editor because the demands of society have changed. I believe modern traditional journalism needs to undergo the same kind of changes that happened to those previous enterprises if it is going to survive.
Your examples are all of a technological nature. They have nothing to do with the concept of, for lack of a better word - fair - reporting. I think the adaptation we need in the modern day is to S-L-O-W d-o-w-n. Technology has changed things -- it has put even more pressure on news orgs to be fast and first, often at the expense of truth and accuracy. The standard isn't the problem; it's people not living up to it that is the problem.
David, my exhortation to action has never been about wanting people to resort to violence to achieve their objectives.
Good to know. Everything in that comment makes sense to me.
I am starting to compare the current period to other periods when I believe cold civil wars may have also occurred. . . . My investigation has thus far been only cursory, but I see striking parallels in the politics and rhetoric of each of these periods.
This sounds interesting. I think you'll find striking paralells everywhere you look because I think there is always an ideological tension wherever you have a diverse populace together. There has long been a "conservative" vs. "liberal" ideological battle being waged.
"I think you'll find striking paralells everywhere you look because I think there is always an ideological tension wherever you have a diverse populace together."
David, you are right to an extent. As I presented in my original response, there is a certain element of conflict in the republican system in general. What I am looking at (for?) is instances when that conflict took on a different, more strident tone that moved from republican dysfunction to divisiveness.
I think it is that divisiveness that forms the core of a cold civil war, if it exists at all. Again, at this point, my entire hypothesis is theoretical. I am not convinced but merely wondering.
I think it is an interesting line of inquiry. Good luck with it.
"Your examples are all of a technological nature. They have nothing to do with the concept of, for lack of a better word - fair - reporting."
Certainly, they are all of a technological nature, but those technological changes have societal effects in that they change the average citizen's relationship with the news. I believe very firmly that those standards of relationship between the citizen and the news must drive the way the news is reported.
Modern media delivery creates an opportunity, in my view, to change the way news is reported because it can take advantage of new models of--as Scott terms it--synthesis. I think modern society's overload of input means that the news has to be reported in a way that stands out in the cacophony of other competition.
Hence my appeal to news reporting that abandons the existing standards of sterile (masked) neutrality (bias stripped of meaning) in favor of passionate, perspective-based, yet objective and fair reporting. From my view, this change is evolution not abandonment.
During a conversation with Denny, it occurred to me to refer him to the website of the Society for Professional Journalists to verify the credentials of someone he was trying to follow up on... when it occurred to me that in the course of this discussion, it would behoove us to read their code of ethics, so we would know what I'm talking about and why I think what Time is doing is unethical and unprofessional and everyone who works for Time should be asked to surrender their SPJ credentials...
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
If TIME is not asked to surrender its credentials, what will that say about the SPJ?
I don't know... nothing good by my read of things. That the abuses of the stated standard are being largely perpetrated by the management (read: "Non-journalists" as Stegner has stressed he should be labelled) it is possible that the only support any journalists fighting from within the magazine will have is their professional organization... I would like to see them decry this erosion of Journalistic standards, ethics and practices all the same.
We'll see what happens. I will be writing them a letter of enquiry on the subject, but private organizations of this sort handle these things internally, and the internal struggles aren't always apparent to outsiders.
Post a Comment