 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
Polemical Hacks, Bastardized Gonzo,
and the Death Of Democracy - Page 2
By Eric Kaufmann
Durrant contrasts "anomic democracy" with "deliberative democracy," his concept of the delicate balance between discussion and dialogue. Discussion, in his definition, involves the subjective framing of issues and the use of persuasive tactics, a component that today overshadows dialogue, that is, the nuanced discourse, compromise, and shared understanding necessary for dealing with complex issues.
To demonstrate that persuasion has overwhelmed dialogue, it is only necessary to look at what passes for political scholarship in publishing. A new breed of commentators has gained precedence, a group Alan Wolfe terms "the new pamphleteers" based on the characteristics their writing shares with the incendiary pamphlets of the colonial era. The acceptance of this style can be directly attributed to the growth of New Journalism, particularly to the development of Gonzo journalism by Dr. Hunter S. Thompson in the 1960s, a method of writing involving extreme subjectivity and personal involvement in the story in order to give precise impressions of the event and of the personalities of those involved (Othitis 2). Thompson differs, however, in that he acknowledges subjectivity, and, in addition, is entirely without political affiliation, preferring to write what he has personally experienced. The new pamphleteers, in contrast, adopt and then misuse the free-flowing style by portraying their own subjective opinions as objective truth, and dismissing counterarguments with cliché-ridden personal attacks on their opponents. From this the public is given commentary that describes Bush as having a "middle-finger foreign policy," casts liberals as terrorist appeasers, and features foreign affairs reports from individuals who have never left the country (Wolfe 12). These attitudes leave the public increasingly misinformed about, and alienated from, political processes. These conditions, as factors in Durrant's conception of anomic democracy, contribute to the development of widespread perceptions that characterize government as "incompetent, unresponsive, out of control, and above the law" (25).
Empirical evidence, in the form of voter turnout and election surveys, confirms the growing disinterest in politics. While voter turnout is not necessarily an indicator of citizens' participation in civic affairs, the dereliction of what is a relatively simple aspect of civic engagement raises the question as to how committed citizens are to democracy in the United States . In 1964, voter turnout began a steady decline, and after 1972 it has not risen above 60% (Winders 836). Even in the highly divisive 2004 elections, turnout was estimated at only 59%, a number that does not stand out with respect to historic levels (Gans 12). Polls conducted by the 1994 National Election Study (NES) indicate that a majority of voters of all ages did not trust the government to do the right thing, thought that a sizable number of individuals in government were corrupt, said they had no say in national government, and agreed that national politicians did not care what they thought (Bennett 47).
Even more disturbing are the attitudes expressed by young adults, those individuals who will soon be called upon to fill prominent positions in public life, and to maintain and strengthen the political system in the United States. An indicator studied by NES (individuals under twenty years old), and also by UCLA (surveys of incoming freshman), is the degree to which young people engage in political conversations. NES found that only 6% of those surveyed spoke of politics everyday, and 67% said they almost never did. Only 15% of UCLA respondents reported frequent political conversations, an all-time low in thirty years of surveying (Bennett 48). Although it is noted that throughout the twentieth century younger people have consistently been less interested in government affairs, there is a profound difference between the present and earlier time periods. In the past, although unengaged, the young people surveyed were more idealistic about public institutions than their elders. Today, "the facts are clear and compelling: today's youth express overwhelmingly cynical views about government and political leaders, and they cite their cynicism as a reason for indifference to and disengagement from politics" (Bennett 50).