Democracy in Peril

The proverbial straw has been placed on this writer's camel's back. For more than thirty years I have watched as the tone of American political and social discourse has deteriorated into this week's mindless screaming and yelling directed at members of Congress trying to host constituent town meetings to discuss impending health care reform legislation. Perhaps even worse than the paranoid anger, was the outright ignorance of many in the protesting mobs. My favorite example of out and out stupidity was the man in South Carolina who screamed at his Congressman to keep the government's hands off his Medicare. Say what?

Way back in 1787, when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to write a constitution for our fledgling nation, many, if not most of them were uncomfortable with the idea of making our new national government too democratic. Granted, these men represented a very elite segment of the population of the United States. Besides being economically well off, propertied, and formally educated, the fact that they could all read and write set them miles apart from the vast majority of the people they were claiming to represent. A number of respected historians and political scientists, like Charles Beard, noting these facts, have concluded that the aim of the Founders was to create a national government less interested in equality and democratic institutions, but dedicated instead, to perpetuating the wealth and holdings of a burgeoning American aristocracy.

However, there may have been more to all this than simple self-interest. Since these men were almost all schooled in the classics of western civilization, the self-inflicted demise of Athenian democracy could not have escaped them. Indeed, one need look no further than James Madison's and Alexander Hamilton's writings in The Federalist Papers, to find plenty of warnings about the dangers of "the wrath of the majority." Too much government, they argued, in the hands of people unskilled in governing ultimately leads to "mobocracy," rather than improving democracy. Madison argued that democracy fails when reasonable discourse between individuals with legitimate differences is overwhelmed by passion, fear, and anger. In his 1954 novel, Sir William Golding wrote a chilling story about this very issue in Lord of the Flies.

Without a doubt, the phenomenon of passions overwhelming reason has been a fairly consistent theme in American history. From the Salem Witch Trials to the murder of Kansas abortionist Dr. George Tiller, the specter of Madison's "mobocracy" has always been with us. But over the past thirty years, it seems that the pace toward the failure of civil discourse has been accelerating in the United States. It is my contention that this acceleration is not due to an increase in the number of malevolent threats to our society, as they have always been present, but rather it is the result of changes in the manner in which information is disseminated.

Twenty-four hour cable TV, syndicated radio talk shows, streaming video on the Internet, have all blossomed in less than one generation. We are bombarded with more raw information than any people at any time in all of human history. But more than the sheer volume of electronic content, what is most troubling for the endurance of our democratic republic, is the inflammatory nature of so much of that content. Today, we do not have to share the same limited sources for news and information. Instead, many Americans are seeking out media sources that reinforce their own political and social biases, rather than using the media to broaden their understanding of complex issues. Even worse, the capitalists who own most of the media outlets have discovered that ratings, and therefore profits go up as the rhetoric gets more rabid. Watching a fool like Fox's Glenn Beck insanely ranting-on about how he would like to kill documentary film producer, Michael Moore, is reminiscent of 1930s' Nazi footage of Joseph Goebbels calling for the elimination of Germany's Jews.

Ironically, the Nazi propaganda machine could only reach its full potential after the fledgling democracy of the Weimar Republic had been destroyed. While in the United States, the high priests of broadcast lunacy operate under the complete protection of our democratic institutions. There was a time of course, when that was not so, and it wasn't all that long ago. Back in 1949, when network television was in its infancy, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a policy that came to be known as the Fairness Doctrine. Claiming that the airways used by radio and television were a public trust, the FCC mandated that broadcasters had to air contrasting points of view when they were presenting an editorial opinion on public issues. For example, if a network like Fox wanted to give over air time for the opinions of Sean Hannity on President Obama's economic stimulus package, they would have to provide time for someone like Bill Moyers to rebut Hannity's conclusions.

From 1949 until 1987, radio and television news organizations worked very hard to remain neutral on most issues, choosing to air factual information, supported by confirmed sources, rather than vocalize opinion. Anyone who cares to take the time to look can view archival recordings of Walter Cronkite reporting the news on CBS, or Chet Huntley on NBC. No ranting, no lunacy, and no huggy bear segments were ever allowed. Just straight reporting on the days news. If a network were to broadcast its opinion, it would always be clearly stated as such and time would be afforded parties with differing views. Perhaps the greatest example of this was Edward R. Murrow's scathing expose of the smear tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. McCarthy was afforded Murrow's time slot two weeks later to present his rebuttal. Can you even imagine Bill O'Reilly giving over his air-time for an entire show to allow someone like James Carville to challenge his opinions? Or on the other side, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, having to grant equal time to Rush Limbaugh? No, I don't think so either.

Of course, were the Fairness Doctrine still in place, many of the above mentioned pundits would not be on the air in the first place. The closest they would get to a microphone would be to ask a customer, "Would you like fries with that sir?"

So what happened? Remember the "Great Communicator?" When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981, his administration launched an all out assault on government regulations. Any program limiting the private sector was bad, anything promoting private enterprise was good. One can draw a pretty clear line from the collapse of the American economy in 2008 back to the slash and burn de-regulation policies of the Reaganites in the 1980s. This was also the beginning of a great technological revolution in electronic communication. Broadband cable had just become commercially viable, giving birth to a whole new industry, cable TV. And that industry was vigorously lobbying the White House to get rid of, you guessed it, the Fairness Doctrine. The cable networks knew they could not compete with the news gathering capabilities of the major broadcast networks, as the costs would drive them into bankruptcy. They wanted, instead, to air the much cheaper slanted opinion and infotainment programming, without the FCC's interference. The goal was profit, not accuracy. And the way to get there, along with airing endless reruns of Lucy and Leave it to Beaver, was to turn news reporting into opinionated chit-chat.

The Congress, controlled by the Democrats in the 1980s, tried to head this off by passing legislation to turn the FCC's Fairness Doctrine into federal statutory law. The FCC regulations were always vulnerable to presidential executive orders countermanding them. But a federal law was totally immune to executive orders. In 1987, a bipartisan bill converting the Fairness Doctrine into law was passed by both houses of Congress, only to be vetoed by President Reagan. Once the president vetoed the bill, all Republican support melted away and the Fairness Doctrine was doomed. By 1988, President Reagan had appointed new commissioners to the FCC and no one even bothered to try and renew the doctrine.

So what was the result? Today, anyone with a microphone and a camera can be an "expert" on any subject. Add in the Internet and You Tube, and the crazies now run the assylum. Back in 1906 it took the combined will of the Progressives in Congress and the White House to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act, to finally rid the nation of the patent medicine industry. Millions of Americans were dying from phony cures, laced with opium and alcohol, and many more were suffering at the hands of a totally unregulated food processing industry. Under the new law, Congress created the Food and Drug Administration and very quickly medicines were safe and effective, and processed foods were no longer killing people. The debate over the passage of this law was passionate and fierce. Powerful interests lined up on both sides to lobby for their respective positions. In the end, Congress voted, the President signed, and the American people, both for and against, benefitted. In the end, our political system worked in 1906 because people agreed to disagree.

The very foundation of the pluralistic democracy created by our Constitution rests on two important, yet fragile foundations. First, our system cannot function if we replace civil discourse with the bullying tactics of fear and intimidation. From the outset, Americans have passionately disagreed over fundamental issues, yet we have allowed discussion and compromise to rule at the end of the day. Secondly, duly elected officials must be allowed to govern. Ours is a republic, not a direct democracy. No one is obligated to agree with those in power, but disagreement that turns into insurrection is tantamount to treason. One's opinions does not make one a patriot, no matter how loudly one shouts them. Upholding the principles laid down in our Constitution is the stuff of true patriotism.

In the decade of the 1850s, both of these foundational principles were ignored and the result was the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict in all of American history. Do any of us really want to wander down that path again? I believe it is time for us to ratchet down the rhetoric and muffle the voices of extremism. Like it or not, our political system only works when it is governed from the center. As a firm believer in the First Amendment I do not want to set limits on free speech. But I do think it is time that we allow our opponents to be heard, and turn a deaf ear to those who just want to shout. A resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine might just do the trick. By the way, if you want to put a real scare into the purveyors of extremism, just mention those two words and watch them burst into an uncontrollable rage. So you tell me, why would any rational person be opposed to Fairness?