EA WorldView - Archives: August 2010 - US Politics and Media: Why Glenn Beck Is Good for America (Haddigan)

Tuesday

Aug102010

US Politics and Media: Why Glenn Beck Is Good for America (Haddigan)

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 1:24

The history of the United States is one of extremes, a tale of how contending visions of the past should shape the nation’s future. The concept of "America" is a continuous conflict between a respect for traditional explanations of the individual’s responsibilities in a virtuous society and a yearning to unleash modern philosophies of the "Rights of Man".

This battle, since the first settlements in America, has been, largely fought out in the media. Glenn Beck on the Right, and Chris Matthews on the Left, are but the latest manifestations of the eternal struggle for the American Soul.

Recognition of the long history of partisan division in the US over fundamental ideas about politics is needed to calm the disquiet Beck and Matthews provoke in contemporary society. Both might promote an ideology of fear of the "other side", but America has prospered in the past --- and will in the future --- despite dire warnings about their predecessors and successors in the American media. Indeed, you can argue convincingly that the United States benefits from the existence of a partisan media.

The political media have continually forced the populace to evaluate what it means to be "American". Through struggles from the Pilgrims and Puritans through the revolutionaries of the War for Independence to the Civil War, in the conflicts to come in Populism and Progessivism, Fundmentalism (creationism) and Social Gospelism (evolutionism), New Dealism and Reaganism, Cold War conservatism and liberal counter-culture, the American media of the time played a central role in defining the terms on which the often acrimonious debate took place.

Because of our somewhat quaint notion that the past was more civil and polite than the present, aided by the self-perpetuating but false myth of the generation who came to (im)maturity in the 1960s that they revolutionised society, we fail to appreciate that a partisan media is not a modern phenomenon. Our ancestors, as long as visual images have existed, have displayed a sense of impropriety in criticising opponents that would make some today blush. See, for instance, scatological woodcut images (most people of the time couldn’t read) that were used as propaganda to defame the Pope during the early Protestant Reformation of the 1500s in Europe. You may hate Glenn Beck, or Chris Matthews, but these (extremely) sacrilegious cartoons and accompanying doggerel verses will put into perspective the limits that our modern society places on acceptable political discourse. (http://www.uoregon.edu/~dluebke/Reformations441/ReformationSatires.html)

America’s history of partisan conflict, and the role of the media, is more a rollicking and rambunctuous series of colourful disputes and incidents than a threat to American democracy (although Alexander Hamilton may have disagreed, since he was fatally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 after Burr took umbrage at Hamilton’s criticisms of him in the press). The government have attempted to tame the freedom of expression of both the press and the people, most notably in the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918 and the Smith Act of 1940, but have failed to sustain a constitutional case for the argument that "crying fire", in the political theatre at least, is a "clear and present danger" to the nation’s security.

For a short period in its early years, the US did display a remarkable commitment to the idea that "disinterested" politicians could represent the country as a whole. George Washington succeeded in portraying this image, and following presidents laboured to sustain the illusion that the Chief Executive was a neutral approach who umpired the inevitable conflicts in American society (a myth that still held enough emotional sway for Eisenhower to use it in the 1950s).

But American politics changed in 1832 with the election of Andrew Jackson after a populist appeal to the masses, and it became the public-image, spin-dominated spectacle we know today with the election of William Henry Harrison in 1840.

(Of particular interest in the Harrison campaign was the Whigs' profligate distribution of whisky to persuade, or confound, voters to support the original log-cabin candidate. The whisky was handed out in bottles from the E. C. Booz distillery, leading to "booze" becoming a common term for alcohol in America.)

One reason for the overall civility of contemporary political debate, despite what some might regard as the extremist rabble-rousing of Beck and Matthews, is the changing definition of the word tolerance in Britain and in America. When the two countries (at different times) announced the establishment of religious tolerance as a guiding principle of popular democracy, they saw the word as meaning an individual had "to put up with" different religious opinions, even though they may regard them as evil or degenerate. It meant no individual could harm another, or aggress against them, because of their religion.

It did not mean, however, that the individual had to understand, empathize, or respect the tenets of a different faith. Behind the original conception of the tolerance of religion, and freedom of political expression, lay the understanding that both were a battleground where conflicting ideas should be, befitting their essential importance to mankind, fought out with vigour and conviction. Politics and religion, it was assumed, were so crucial to an individual’s definition of their identity that they would be debated with passion, not discussed lifelessly in a soulless debating chamber.

Beck and Matthews display some of that vitality, and as a result they and their like energise the American political debate. They force Americans to question the views they believe in by presenting a no-holds-barred alternative. And with their reliance on examining current events in the light of the nation’s history they allows each person to decide what it means to be an "American".

Beck and Matthews are not a threat to American democracy. They are, in fact, part of the reason why the United States retains a more than passing and rhetorical interest in the role of the individual in a just society.

Scott Lucas |

9 Comments |

tagged

Alexander Hamilton,

Andrew Jackson,

William Henry Harrison in

US Politics

Reader Comments (9)

When mentioning Jackson, I was also reminded of 'The United States Telegraph' and the Jackson White House's 'Globe'.

Of course, this is nothing new, and goes back to the Federalist Papers themselves. For every person that thinks things are out-of-hand now, imagine calling the First Lady a prostitute, as was done against Jackson, as just one example. (also interesting, while speaking of the Jackson era, is that since the beginning of America's Union, South Carolina has always seemed to have been threatening to nullify and secede)

If I were to but offer one quibble. On the left I believe a more apt comparison to Glenn Beck's demagoguery and histrionics would be Keith Olbermann. Chris Matthews is more like the centrist Democratic counterpart to Bill O'Reilly, IMHO. A definite point of view, but not over-the-top in delivery - though passionate at times.

Now, I'm all for a dynamic, passionate partisan media (it's not a popular position, but I agree with you about this). I do wonder what value such voices straight from "A Face in the Crowd" add to our national dialog, though. And furthermore, in the absence of an 'actual' Edward R. Murrow anymore, I am worried that we're subsisting mostly on candy now - constantly reaffirming our respective polar positions - with no fortifying, basic news diet in the middle anymore. Network News and CNN has become little more than regurgitating talking points and infotainment dispensaries. But again, it's not as if this is completely new, either...

I know we have a tendency to mythologize, but I do fervently believe that actual journalism, which once existed - even if briefly - is all but dead. Or, at least it is in the Mainstream Media.

Now, if you really want to be controversial, bring up the Fairness Doctrine!

August 10, 2010 |

Kurt

"Behind the original conception of the tolerance of religion, and freedom of political expression, lay the understanding that both were a battleground where conflicting ideas should be, befitting their essential importance to mankind, fought out with vigour and conviction."

******

Unfortunately, secularists are trying to squash religion into the private sphere. The Founding Fathers wanted religion to play a role in debates as a part of public discourse. Religious freedom is already under attack in Europe, where EU bureaucrats are seeking to ban crucifixes in Italian schools.

August 11, 2010 |

Dave

Never Let a Good Crisis Go To Waste......