I watched the Daily Show and Colbert Report tonight, filmed at 5PM in the midst of the New Hampshire brouhaha, and in light of the results we've now seen, I was cringing at the sheer arrogance of the pundits Stewart summarized and the blogger Colbert interviewed. "I don't think she was sincere," this Salon guy said, talking about one of the stupid things we were riled up about just hours ago. I was cringing not just because their arrogance had come into sheer contrast with reality, but because they had fooled me into going along with it, and all the shame was squarely on my shoulders.
Like so many other people, I'm beginning to feel fed up with the echo chamber. And I have abnormally high tolerance. I have watched every debate, Republican and Democratic, in the past year, and suddenly I am utterly fed up. It's only a week after the first actual election and already the high-pitched punditry has reached levels I've never seen before. It's taken a tough hit for me to realize how terrible it is, but it was a well-needed hit. It's only going to get worse from here on in, so it's time to get serious.
What's happened to politics in this country?
I think Clinton's voice crack is a case study in Al Gore's assault on reason, especially because (as even Olbermann was reluctantly admitting) it probably had an impact on the election. New Hampshire voters, seeing this clip shown once, would be gratified to hear something different about Hillary's dedication, although compared to what's going on in Kenya and Pakistan it's quite the non-event. Now imagine them listening to this clip of Clinton's voice crack over half a dozen times, repeated on the evening news, even played on NPR-- it is not only a non-event but it's a tired, overplayed non-event. Finally, add the pundits into this. It's the same as 95% of the situations the networks employ pundits for. Another example: Obama taking off his flag pin. There is nothing interesting they could possibly say about either of these things... except to summon up their meanest and vilest spirits, and inject cynicism and doubt. So they ask the meanest question: is this all an act? Did he, or she, do it just to stir up the electorate, to send a message?
When we talk and type we are often not thinking about what we're saying. I'm not saying we purposefully try to make other people angry. But negligence is an agent of malice. These pundits, of which that Colbert Report blogger was an example no matter how friendly, are simply saying what comes off of the top of their heads without thinking about how that makes people feel. George Saunders' braindead megaphone is a great metaphor. The louder and more direct you get, the more people will gather around, even if you're being an idiot. In the world of the mass media, that strategy succeeds because they need people gathering around to get ad money.
Al Gore claims in The Assault on Reason that the Internet is our final hope. Here we are on a mass medium where information is basically free, we aren't trying to sell each other anything, and nobody is forced to tune in to the loud, obnoxious, unneeded punditry. So, why are the same things happening here? Is the mainstream media still dictating what we talk about? No: Clinton's voice crack is reposted here because it's just as interesting to us as it is to the TV viewers. Why can't we say something nicer about it, then? Well, when we are mindful and look at things with the right perspective, we can. That's where all these "stop hating on Hillary" diaries come from.
But I have a confession to make. I didn't pen any of the "stop hating" diaries. Like the pundits, like the worst of the bloggers, I was quietly gloating about it, putting on a brand new Obama sticker and eagerly awaiting New Hampshire victory. "She's run a vicious campaign," I thought to myself. "It's high time to see her suffer a little."
I was only trying to get what I wanted: a new face in the White House. But since when was it useful to make anyone suffer? My motive is stupid: even if the country gains from it, I still go on with my own life, so there's nothing to get excited about. Other people's motives on the Internet can be even stupider: they might not even be interested in politics at all, they just want people to come by their blog and read what they're saying. We dub such behavior "trolling" because it's easier to point out the mote in their eyes than recognize the beams in our own. The fact of the matter is that there is no mental barrier to entry on the Internet and as long as we feel the need to spout off without thinking about the huge variety of people that will come see what we've done and how they'll react, we will shut out the calm, rational, and intelligent.
It's simply impossible to avoid this attitude if you watch or read any form of news media, even Kos, so I'm beginning to feel like it's time to tune out. Watching and reading all these exciting news pieces in between Iowa and New Hampshire made it impossible for me to think for myself, or reevaluate my feelings. Ironically, this is exactly what Hillary was going on about when she cracked up. Politics is not a game where we cheer on our horse as he rounds the first corner in the lead, and mindlessly get all deflated when he rounds the second corner slightly behind. We are deciding the future of this entire country. We should be grateful to the people of New Hampshire that they were able to recognize this: the citizens of all ages who voted for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards out of their own convictions. Even if the swing for Hillary was a knee-jerk reaction to this or other events in the punditry overload, they were at least saying it themselves and not getting caught up in this farce of a national dialogue.