Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Our media is turning on us. Television, although holding much promise only a few short decades ago, has become our worst enemy in the United States. We have been dumbed-down, rather than enlightened-up, by our reliance on the medium for our window into the world.

The window is now warped, dirty, and broken.

::

In his pivotal MLK Day speech, former Vice President Al Gore made some stunning remarks about the role television (and our addiction to it) is currently playing in damaging our democratic system. After speaking to the problems in our Congress, Mr. Gore went on to ask that we examine ourselves and the choices we're making.

Are we informed? Are we good custodians of our democracy? Are we willing to give up without a fight?

But there is yet another player. There is yet another constitutional player whose pulse must also be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has accompanied these efforts by the executive branch to dominate our constitutional system.

We the people, collectively, are still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We must examine ourselves. We, as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here," must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and hollowing out and degradation of American democracy.

It's time to stand up for the American system that we know and love.

(APPLAUSE)

It is time to breathe new life back into America's democracy.

(APPLAUSE)

Thomas Jefferson said, "An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will."

(APPLAUSE)

America is based on the belief that we can govern ourselves and exercise the power of self-government.

(APPLAUSE)

The American idea proceeded from the bedrock principle that all just power is derived from the consent of the governed. The intricate and carefully balanced system, now in such danger, was created with the full and widespread participation of the population as a whole.

The Federalist Papers were, back in the day, widely read newspaper essays. And they represented only one of 24 series of essays that crowded the vibrant marketplace of ideas in which farmers and shopkeepers recapitulated the debates that played out so fruitfully in Philadelphia.

And when the convention had done its best, it was the people in their various states that refused to confirm the result until, at their insistence, the Bill of Rights was made integral to the documents sent forward for ratification.

(APPLAUSE)

And it is we the people who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution.

And here there is cause for both concern and for great hope. The age of printed pamphlets and political essays has long since been replaced by television, a distracting and absorbing medium which seems determined to entertain itself more than it informs and educates.

Lincoln's memorable call during the Civil War is now applicable in a new way to our present dilemma: "We must disenthrall ourselves," he said, "and then we shall save our country."

Forty years have passed since the majority of Americans adopted television as their principal source of information. And its dominance has now become so extensive that virtually all significant political communication now takes place within the confines of flickering 30-second advertisements, and they're not The Federalist Papers.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

The political economy, supported by these short but expensive television ads, is as different from the vibrant politics of America's first century as those politics were different from the feudalism which thrived on the ignorance of the masses of people in the Dark Ages.

The constricted role of ideas in the American political system today has encouraged efforts by the executive branch to believe it can and should control the flow of information as a means of controlling the outcome of important decisions that still lie in the hands of the people.

Gore returns to the state of our media sources at the close of his call to arms:

Fifth, any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this apparently illegal invasion of the privacy of American citizens.

(APPLAUSE)

Freedom of communication is an essential prerequisite for the restoration of the health of our democracy.

It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.

(APPLAUSE)

It's as if he's cast aside television completely as a way to stay informed and sustain democracy.

::

This calling out of America's favorite media source resonated with me immensely as I watched from the floor of Constitution Hall. Only hours earlier, Father Richard Rohr delivered his closing remarks at the Politics and Spirituality: Seeking a Public Integrity Conference I'd attended in DC over the weekend.

Rohr shared with us the Forward to author Neil Postman's book, Amusing Ourselves to Death:

We were keeping our eye on 1984.

When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.

Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

• What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
  
• What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.

• Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
  
• Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.

• Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.
  
• Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

• Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
  
• Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.

::

For more television viewing stats, see TV Turnoff Network's pdf fact sheet listing how television:

• Undermines family life
  
• Promotes violence
  
• Promotes overconsumption
  
• Squelches political awareness

::

Channels like Free Speech TV and LinkTV are a couple of examples of what could be accomplished if we could take out the commercial aspect that dominates our television media. Independent media results in a much more colorful, democratic, people-friendly form of communication.

The big, bad megamonopolycorporations of course don't like to be reminded (and shown) that their offerings are pure pulp and no juice. They're working hard to get rid of anything that doesn't look like them:

Big cable and telephone companies want to pull the plug on public access. Pending federal legislation threatens to take away the resources communities need to create their own media. Defend local media control.

Advocates for social change use public access to get their messages out. Local residents use public access as a forum to demand accountability from their representatives. Small towns and cities use public access to highlight local news stories overlooked by the big networks.

Take action for public access today:

1. Send your comment in support of public access to the FCC before February 13th (mnn.org/saveaccess/whatisnprm.html)

2. Tell your representatives that you value public access (savemyfreespeech.org)

3. Educate your friends and family about the importance community controlled media.

Learn more:

Alliance for Community Media
Manhattan Neighborhood Network
Free Press: Defend Local Access
New Standard Article, "Telecom Laws Overhaul Threatens Public-Access TV, Services"

And it's probably only a matter of time before they come after the Internet, too. As Al Gore said: we need to protect it to safeguard our Democracy!