We have spin doctors whose whole job is to distort the truth, hide facts and present illusions. Why they're called 'doctors' I don't know, but an English graduate could probably tell you something profound about ignorance, bliss and the link of these two to good health.
Politicians co-operate and support the popular media in their focus on sensation, rather than fighting it. One politician alone cannot fight this plague, as Gordon Brown has discovered; he tried to present himself as a solid, reliable man of facts and numbers, and the press jumped on him with a ferocity and glee reminiscent of a pack of hyenas giggling and snarling over an antelope. Perhaps Tony Blair had trained them too well, and they had grown too accustomed to being hand-fed pretty stories, human interest (one of the banes of modern life) and smiling photo opportunities.
Like a pack of brattish children, they rebelled when they found that they had to make their own human interest (it never occurring to the well-trained lap-dogs of Bush's lap-dog that this might not be necessary for every news item ever) and made it spitefully.
'Increasingly, sensationalism, gossip, manufactured controversy have become our agenda instead of the best obtainable version of the truth. We've become frivolous.'--Carl Bernstein, talking about the news media
'Some credit for our illiteracy must be given to the rhetorical skills of those who make it their business to manipulate the press and public opinion. One of those rhetorical skills is the ability to create the stereotype of ... an arrogant, repressive, protective, authoritarian character. The manipulators also know that appealing to emotions is more effective than appealing to relevant evidence. They know that feeding prejudices and biases is more effective than trying to convince people that they must overcome their natural biases if they are to find the truth. They know that by creating doubt they create uncertainty, and uncertainty is their best ally.' - The Skeptic's Dictionary
We have, then, politicians and media organisations who value controversy over truth, getting alternative views over true balance, appearance over reality and false belief over honesty. Career politicians, in order to beat those who have learned to play on emotions, must adopt the same tactics. Sensible points are rebuffed with ad hominem arguments every day, only reinforcing the presidential, character-based system of election which we do not actually have. At a more subtle level, people spend more time pointing out that the others have been wrong than ever addressing issues such as improvements on what others have done, why they were wrong or why the speaker is right. It is, apparently, all the public can understand: this person is wrong because so many people were disadvantaged.
We are apparently not allowed to hear discussions of underlying principles, mature comparisons of practical benefits, disadvantages and possible abuses; we must simply trust Dave and Gordon that such a thing is true.
And we do. We trust everyone when they throw mud at everyone else, and no-one when they try to wipe the mud off. You get burned when you play with fire. So we know that they're all untrustworthy liars because that's what they all tell us!
So politicians have no incentive to tell the truth: telling the truth requires a sort of compromise between two extreme positions: each side presents a sober analysis of the facts, and people have to engage with these and judge them carefully. If one side decides to have a screaming abjab about it, and the other tries to be reasonable, then the compromise people reach is that there's no smoke without fire, a lesson we've learned from the politicians and their sly aspersions about each other, and we believe that something is wrong with it on the basis of emotional appeals. The other side, then, can't have the compromise actually be pulled so far to the other side's position, so they must use emotional rhetoric too, pandering to people's base instincts and short-circuiting rationality, rather than fighting off these inevitable temptations. Do it just once, with the best of intentions about winning an important issue, and it's a the step on a road to hell; winning becomes the priority, not truth or the national good.
Once we have the public trained to accept the easy soundbite over the sensible approach we no longer have any sort of contest of politics, but a childish fight over who can make the best quips and who has the best phrases. This is the level of politics: the sort of argumental style that most people would recognise as suitable for 6-year olds, were they not already invested in the emotional triggers of party-political bitching. We have films that make fun of children having name-calling competitions:
"You're manipulative"
"You're a class warrior”
"You're shallow" (great is truth and it shall prevail a bit) and so on.
And yet when it's our politicians it is considered the height of intellectual engagement.
Another acquaintance of mine wrote this rather succinct summary of journalism:
We have implicitly accepted the principle that balance and fairness involve giving two sides of an argument equal time. This is the principle that suggests that when someone claims that the sky is lime green, we should listen carefully and waste our time. The BBC, I'm sure, would give him as much airtime as someone they'd found to present the alternative argument. Other news reporters would probably create a 'docu-drama' about 'the man who thinks that the sky is green', repeating themselves every five minutes to make one interview last an hour.
To take a slightly more political example, it's the principle that tells us to give creationists, homeopaths, quacks and lunatics equal consideration with experts. In one way I agree that it is possible for an expert to be wrong and that someone unqualified could be closer to the truth, and I abhor the unquestioning acceptance of experts' opinions. On the other hand, experts do tend to be right, and to regard the pronouncements of years of study and hard work as equal to the pronouncements of self-interested con-men speaks of a scepticism bordering on the solipsistic or else of raving stupidity. And yet the belief that all opinions must be heard and respected is a fundamental principle of modern political and cultural dialogue.
There's a whole new essay to be written on the difference between respecting a person and respecting all his opinions, and how much account ought to be taken of how much a person associates himself with the validity of his opinions, and another essay again, which people have indeed written, to be written about the other side of wacky groups' promotion of their beliefs: the nation's outrageous libel laws.
But to return to our political system, we have a set of cultural values, against which the politicians and media do not fight, and which they actively promote, that are at odds with rational, fair and balanced debate. The prevalence of rhetoric to persuade, rather than reason, has become so great that reason is sometimes not even given a nod. When a politician is reasonable, he can even be accused of wheedling! At the same time as we have a prevalence of rhetoric, which can be used anyone with a chance to speak to an audience to persuade them of his views, we have a system which automatically gives every fool (and his dog) the audience he needs, by giving every side of a debate an airing, no matter how ridiculous. Every opinion is worthwhile... every opinion valid! With that sort of belief, it's no wonder that radical preachers declaim against the cultural state of the country. We not only deliberately hide any sort of cultural common sense by giving everyone a right to spout nonsense but the very same principle gives these people the right to preach against the country's basic principles (if any exist).
Finally, we have a national obsession with human interest and drama. People are fed dross with no content except the ability to laugh at the other fools on the other side of the camera; they gorge themselves viewing others' thrills and failures and politicians, rather than protecting politics from this insidious way of relating to others solely as stories to be enjoyed, have embraced it whole-heartedly. I would like to think that with some nudging the population could quite easily learn to respect politicians for their work and opinions (as with Dr. Evan Harris, my own MP), without feeling the need to like them because of their caring, sharing news conferences.
So instead of lambasting an opponent at every opportunity, because he hasn't expressed sympathy for the latest murder victims or spoken out about a particular sob story, it would be nice to see politicians stand up for principles rather than put party-political bickering and point-scoring above every concern.
No wonder people have no faith in politics when no politician is above petty backstabbing and power-games. It might make for good news, with power-games, cabinet rebellions and snide comments about others holding plenty of human interest, and it might even benefit the individual politician, whose name gets around, hopefully associated with wit and wisdom (although name-recognition is as important as what it's known for), but it does a disservice to all politics, by making it a game of personal relationships, broken trust or negative comment and insult at any cost.
It's another facet of the over-arching focus on character and a presidential, 'elected dictator' style of politics that has conquered our freedom, democracy and culture more surely than the Nazis or Soviets ever could have done. With politics a game of strutting peacocks displaying their lack of distinctive character and their speech-writers' wits, it's no surprise that people regard The Palace of Westminster a place far removed from ordinary life, populated by a modern version of an out-of-touch oligarchy. Everything about the personal relationships in which 'the people' have no part, the personal attacks and partisan party politics distances MPs at least as surely as being 'mere' avatars of opinion, representing people.
As I've hinted again, this also ties back in with my previous comments about the problems of party politics, which sap the possibility of displaying true character: different principles and interests. Aspiring career politicians must adhere to the party line, emphasising what has been determined to be the topic of the week and promoting what is flavour of the moment. News stories are leaked and prepared on a party basis, making it easy for the media, who, as described previously, act as political tools rather than taking the hard road of doing real journalism. Clearly I have problems with the media's attitude to politics too, but without politicians and their parties behaving in such an irresponsible manner they wouldn't have a chance to lap up whatever they're spoon-fed.
This might explain why politicians seem to be insipid, vapid, shallow drones, but is precisely the wrong sort of characterlessness. Personal attacks, possible anger tantrums and marital fashion are how to distinguish a politician; he can't show his probity or intellectual achievements because everything good is food to power the party and his great leader, but he can suffer from barbs and mud-slinging. Characterless politicians live in the shadow of the party, their personal beliefs hidden for the sake of the appearance of party unity.
And yet Ken Clarke, whose opinions were at odds with many of the Conservatives, is one of the best-respected members of the party. How odd. When people actually discover someone with enough character to hold a differing opinion whilst still being allied to those who think differently they respect him!
It's an example for us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment