Sarah Palin and the Demise of Public Discourse

            I wonder how many doctoral dissertations will be written over the next several years aimed at exploring the cultural phenomenon that is Sarah Palin.  It is hard to imagine a scenario in which one would undertake such a study and come to the conclusion that the impact she has wielded on culture has been even marginally positive.  Here we had a person so clearly over their head as a vice-presidential candidate who, nevertheless, is being highly rewarded by a particular substrand of the American population.  Sarah’s stunning ignorance on policy issues was spun as “independence;” an inability to answer questions with even a semblance of articulateness, we were told, was a sign of her “anti-elite” roots; and her engaging in the most crass demagoguery was attributed to her “rogouishness.”  It is hard to imagine a single point of intersection with culture that Sarah did not cheapen the quality of our public discourse, and now, with the publication of a “best seller,” we get to hear even more gems of wisdom.

 

            Perhaps Palin is an easy target for a bigger phenomenon.  It has not been so long that Charles Barkley told us he was not a “role model,” as if a person gets to choose that role!  He was but a minor example of those who plug themselves into public discussion with seemingly no awareness of the responsibility they bear for the things they say.  Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jim Cramer, Bernard Goldberg are all examples of folks whose participation in public dialog leave our public discourse more impoverished.  What we need is a mechanism to remind these folks that with great blessing (a major “bully platform”) comes great responsibility.  One thinks of the line from A Christmas Carol, when the ghost of Marley, bearing the chains of injustices carried out in his own life, warns Scrooge that the chain he bears himself is a “ponderous one.”  What ponderous chain does someone like Rush Limbaugh bear for his “contribution” to public discourse?  He used to refer to himself as having “talent on loan from God.”  I used to wonder what Rush thinks God is going to say when he returns that talent, in light of his use of it.

 

            The dynamics of all this are very complex.  A willing and interested audience, coupled with freedom of speech and the freedom to market virtually any idea, not matter how harmful, the reduction of our age to a “sound bite” mentality, are all things that contribute to an environment in which such negative influences on public discourse are allowed to flourish.  I am a strong advocate of freedom of speech, for example, but I am also an advocate for finding a stronger way of tying folks to the damage they do to our public discourse.  I can see the problem, but am less clear on the way forward.  Ideas?

 

Comments

[zero]

why not begin with a truly educated populace? were we, starting very young, taught to think, question, ponder, discern; really know about history, the world, this nation, the constitution and how government works (not for the good of the people or the nation) we might have more among us who are willing to think for themselves instead of letting others do their thinking for them, who would rather watch cspan than stoopid tv and glean fact instead of swallowing what people like palin want them to accept without question. the emperor absolutely has no clothes! we need citizens who see that and that's not what there is. of course, educated persons are dangerous to the status quo. giving up on being a democrat or a republican would also be helpful. everyone an independent swayed not by the likes of a rush or a palin or anyone else; insistent that those who would influence earn that trust. tall orders and very wishful thinking.....

hi ya, mr loopy! =]

[Kate]

Along with what zero said, we need to value learning again. I think the thing that most aggravates me about some in politics is the intellectual laziness. It's as if they think because they've been elected that they know everything now that they'll ever need to make decisions. It's time to study up on real issues instead of trying to govern with only the guidance of the chain e-mails that show up in your inbox.

Congratualtions Chuck, my rants are much less articulate and grammatically incorrect. ;@)

Hey all!

[Kate]

My rants have typos also.

[Kate]

I haven't been commenting much lately. I forgot that my humor doesn't work well with the written word. When I said Chuck post was a "rant", I meant it wasn't rant-like at all. Back to lurking.

[zero]

oh no you don't, kate! you have to stay here and talk to me. you don't rant. and the flow of thought on blogging trumps typos and grammar especially when chuck can't even spell his own name correctly! love that piggie......

david needs to come back too and no lurking. be here!

[zero]

a recurring thought i have about sarah palin is about john mccain. why was he so willing to unleash this person on the nation?

[jerry]

Remember when W first came on to the national scene? The media made a game of asking him, "who's the leader of Kazakistan?" or "where on the map is Kazakistan?". I thought to myself, "this guy will never get elected!" The (righty) establishment wanted it so and the "people" went along with it.

Last year, Palin would rather shoot a Moose than read a magazine, but now she gets 4+ years to read magazines, etc., and the (righty) establishment unbelievably may want to anoint her. Can the "people" actually go a long with it? If we let history be our guide...

[zero]

hey, jerry!

palin, like reagan, are just fronts for the power elite. new facts are coming out about reagan's october surprise (the connection between the repubs and iranians prior to the 1980 election). i fear that the "people" really don't have much say in anything about what goes on in this country. just look at how the financial crisis has unfolded and how the dems are trying to give what power wants while pretending to be "for" the people. the worst example is obama. closely followed by reid and pelosi. when they say they are doing something for "us" it makes me extremely concerned. that some of us get that we are just pawns for those in power only makes life more difficult. we try and fail time and again to fight for what's right and what's best for america not just a few. oh, and w didn't get elected. anyone who wants to know more about how it all works should read the book, family of secrets by russ baker; about the bush family going back to grandpa prescott. it's hair raising.

[jerry@hall-way.com]

I agree with your observations, zero. "Democracy" isn't inherently "bad", but the way we currently do it is extremely flawed (for the reasons you point out). "Capitalism" isn't inherently bad, but when you add in "greed" and "power", you get: the "Internet Bubble", "Housing Bubble", and now the "Financial Bubble". The reward for Wall Street? $Billions in "bail out", $billions in bonuses, and now an opportunity to show spectacular performance as a result of the "recovery".

We the "people" (pawns) have gone along with the program - the official merger of "Wall Street" with "Main Street". And since we have "privatized" our faith and churches are gagged by 501(c)(3), and we kind of like living out our faith in a "comfortable" way, well it's easy to see how we can arrive in such a state as we are now in.

[Philip Koplin]

I was browsing some of my old favorites and was pleased to discover that this site has revived.

Here's the best take I've seen on Palin:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/21-1

[zero]

"Even they, however, did not know what she meant. No one did, nor will anyone ever really grasp her meaning that day. And that's the point. In the Zen universe of Sarah Palin, meaning is the most meaningless thing of all!"

this is from the common dreams article that philip linked. and boy is that ever on target. meaning is the most meaningless thing of all. palin is reagan and w rolled into one. who else is she characteristic of? and for the love of pete, WHY do such persons attract a following?

[chuck]

Well, well, well, zero, kate, phil, jerry... Dang, it's a veritable reunion:) Great to see you all here. I'll be posting more, but need some help getting enough circulation to make it worthwhile. Thoughts?

[zero]

we aren't worthwhile enough?!?!?!!?!

[zero]

with that said......

how about another blog at huffington (which is where i found out about this blog)? or alert those who were regulars here and let them know you are at it again or those from your former communities like the seminary?

and you could post more often to keep people coming back. habit is a huge part of keeping a following for anything so this is your chicken and egg question, mr chuch.

[jerry]

Let's be "fair and balanced" - also put something on: http://hannity.blogs.foxnews.com/ ;-)

Great to "see" you again, Philip!

Happy Thanksgiving my friends!

[zero]

that would be interesting, jerry.

happy thanksgiving to everyone everyday!