The Lonely Center

Too often I’m saddened to leave an encounter with one or more of my Conservative friends without having some discussion about public issues.  On occasion one of them might preface conversation by declaring the doors to those topics closed.  Maybe it’s with some good reason. Experience has shown that anger is often the first by-product of sharing opinion.

There was a time (in my lifetime - maybe even in the lifetime of my dog!!) when public issues were mostly just that – public. People were less inclined to take a difference of opinion as a personal attack.  It wasn’t that heated exchange was not possible or opinion stubbornly held, but it wasn’t so defining as to personality or character.

There was also a great center where lots of folks had blended values. Certain socially “liberal” adherence combined with fiscal “conservatism”, for example.  Or perhaps relatively strict religious ethics combined with progressive entitlements.

This blend of opinion was not due to a blatant disregard for natural law or well being, but simply recognition that human beings are essentially flawed and that knowledge is often short on the facts or tardy in the understanding of evolving history.  The net result of this recognition (with interaction) can be political self-deprecation and change. Hopefully, it was change for the better.

Currently change has been supplanted by a unique kind of confrontation and it lives in the extreme ends of the political/social spectrum.  Unfortunately the extreme ends, fed by confirmation bias (an “echo” phenomenon), have been growing toward the center until the center is becoming a sparsely populated and lonely place, indeed.

As I have written several times in this blog, I peg the beginning of this current socio-political schism with the 1987 “repeal” of the Fairness Doctrine. It was a 39 year old policy doctrine of the FCC which required all licensed media to broadcast both sides of controversial issues.  It immerged out of WWII and the realization that limiting opinion was critical to the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe.

After Ronald Reagan ordered its repeal, the Democratic Congress immediately passed a law to make it permanent, but it was successfully vetoed by Reagan. Rush Limbaugh (et al) emerged from his slimy cocoon less than a year later.

No one could or would foresee the speed of communication that would transpire over the next 3 decades and its impact on bias reporting. Therefore no one in power foresaw the echo chambers that have come to define early 21^st century America.

Donald Trump is entirely the product of this echo-mania.  The biases that grew exponentially during the years from Reagan to Obama exploded like an algae bloom in 2015. Even though Trump committed or said many deleterious things (any one of which would have torpedoed a Presidential candidacy in the past) it didn’t make any difference.  His Presidency and Administration, as we painfully live through, are an obvious result of voters so profoundly bias that his antics are nothing more than white noise.

But apart from surviving Trump, how do we bring back the center and, more importantly, bring back civil discussion to public issues? Lip service has been given by both sides of the confrontation. They usually say we need to focus on those things we have in common.  It’s unfortunate that lip service to date has not been extended to advocacy

As was tragically obvious in the 1930s & 1940s and as we can see around the world today, authoritarian régimes have one important thing in common and a counter to successful democracies. They control the dissemination of mass communications and discredit (if not outright suppress) competing viewpoints. There is nothing new or magical in the understanding of that reality.

What is less obvious is the need Authoritarian governments have to thrive is to be planted in societies that are hardened and inflexible in their respective political philosophies. Pitting one side against another is the “weed and feed” aspect of echo-mania, liberally spread by Authoritarian leaders.

The United States is not succumbing to a 20^th century style of Totalitarianism. Not yet anyway. However, the embracing of those social divisions by Republican power brokers to be a bulwark against their fear of the “masses” is quite real.

They use bias communication to make use of “immigrants”, “socialists”,  “abortionists”, “environmentalists”, gun control activists, “atheists”(or anyone non-Christian), and “Liberals” in general as potential threats against national “safety” and American “ideals”.  In reality it is simply manipulation to retain power. If you don’t believe me, tune your radio to AM.

If leaders really wanted to end division they would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (or something like it) as law. It would subject opinion to the light of day and make all politicians question just who to pander to for votes. Opponents to such a law would argue it was an infringement of “freedom”.  Freedom for them is to remain deep in their dark, cavernous echo-chambers like the roaches they are.