Poe’s Law is frequently invoked when religious fundamentalism is mistaken for satire, as in the case of Raymond Comfort using bananas to prove the existence of god, or the Insane Clown Posse flaunting their ignorance of basic science to prove the reality of miracles (how do magnets work?)
I believe our generation is witnessing the frightening extension of Poe’s Law into the realm of political discourse, and its implications are frightening. The vast majority of political discussion has become so saturated with nonsense, hyperbole and deliberate fabrications that our national conversation has become a parody of itself. Necessary analysis and important academic precision have been reduced to bumper sticker slogans.
Attempts to enlighten political discourse with evidence and reasoned debate are dismissed as arrogant intellectualism. Discussions of principles and morality have been cheapened by simplistic equations that relate government intervention to socialist conspiracies, and the sheer amount of activity from PolitiFact.com or FactCheck.org strongly suggests that our politicians and pundits find reality to be an inconvenient obstacle to their political agendas.
Poe’s Law is so applicable to the national conversation today, satirical productions like The Onion or The Colbert Report are frequently interpreted as legitimate news sources. In fact, a study from Ohio State University found a statistically significant proportion of conservatives viewed The Colbert Report as a genuinely non-satirical. What does it say about society when our collective standard for sanity has been so adulterated by political fundamentalism that we are unable to distinguish our comedians from our journalists? When accusations of Obama being a communist, socialist, Islamic, Antichrist who managed to win the Presidency without anybody checking his birth certificate are considered legitimate talking points by pundits and voters, it’s understandable that the average person is unaffected by satire.
There is little doubt the quality of our discourse is deteriorating; as of writing, the top story on Glenn Beck’s site compares Obama to the Antichrist; Bill O Reilly’s front page features a story lauding Reagan as the best President of all time, and Fox Nation’s main page highlights a video clip of Rush Limbaugh “ripping into Michelle Obama” for eating ribs at a restaurant despite her “leftist” nutritional advocacy.
To be fair, this is happening on both sides of the political spectrum: the Daily Kos’ front page avoids discussion about Egyptian politics, the deficit or anything else relevant in the news, and instead chooses to deride Mike Huckabee for using the term ‘infidel.’ For those in need of empirical evidence, consider a study done by Emory University, which demonstrated that, since the 1980s, ideological polarization has increased to such a degree voters of opposite parties today are more polarized than any other time in history. This ideological intransigence has metastasized into a national conversation in which both sides are covering their ears and screaming at whomever will listen.
The obsolescence of reasoned political discourse isn’t something to be dismissed—democracy cannot function if its citizens are woefully ignorant about the policies affecting them, and I fear uninformed discourse is having an enormous impact in our society’s capacity to gauge, and thus produce, progress.
Winston Churchill famously opined that the greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. I’m afraid if he were alive today to converse not with the average voter but with our country’s leaders, he would be positively terrified about the trajectory of our future.
Today, our politicians regurgitate the same vacuous talking points discussed in blogs and news stations, and they have been trained to label opposing arguments as existential evils (see: death panels, one world government accusations, socialism, etc.). So we end up with a scenario in which our politicians, the individuals who are supposed to represent our best interest, argue with feverish devotion that which they know the least about.
I suspect there are lots of reasons why we are witnessing a decline in the quality of our political discourse. I place a substantial blame on the emergence of non-traditional news sources such as blogs and online communities. These mediums have catalyzed the rise in political fundamentalism in that they offer unsubstantiated opinion that would otherwise be inaccessible in traditional newspapers. In addition to providing a lower quality product, online interfaces have made it easy to form communities of the likeminded for which groupthink is the norm.
The constant confirmation of one’s biases not only facilitates polarization, but it also instills individuals with an undeserved sense of confidence. A Harvard Study discovered, on average, individuals who subscribe to blogs are more politically engaged and are more likely to disseminate their views to a wider audience in comparison to individuals who read the paper. In a sense, the issues and perspectives that are being most discussed by pundits and voters are precisely those that would fall apart upon examination in any other context.
Politics are increasingly infiltrated by interest groups and lobbying organizations that have made it impossible for Republicans and Democrats to agree on key issues. Moderates receive less campaign contributions than partisans, so our political system incentivizes ideology over compromise. In addition, the degree to which these organizations have penetrated our political system has also increased. Studies done by the Center for Responsive Politics have found that the percentage of campaign contributions from corporations rose to egregious extremes over the years. After the Citizens United Supreme Court Case, we can only expect the solidification of corporate control over politics.
Consider the impact that corporate influence has already had over television broadcasting and thus the wider political conversation. A study done by the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy found that, as a result of the influx in corporate campaign contributions, TV broadcast companies have increased the cost of air time during election seasons to extortion levels. Because of this, if a politician wishes to be competitive in a national race, they have to sell themselves to corporations in order to finance broadcast expenditures and thus get their message out.
The trend towards increased broadcasting prices has resulted in the detriment of reasoned conversation for two reasons: 1) the most televised messages are the most influenced by corporations and are thus highly partisan; 2) the majority of campaigns have turned to negative ads to maximize the effect of their campaign.
Instead of intellectual discussion about important issues, our national conversation is reduced to flashy images, sound bites and mudslinging. Over time, the trend towards simplification in our national discourse has only increased.
In 1968, the average sound bite was 43 seconds. In 1988, the duration was reduced to the amount of time it took George H. W. Bush to say, “Read my lips, no new taxes.” His son took it a step further by simplifying tomes of military strategy and political history to “stay the course.” Obama explained our entire long-term national strategy as “win the future” (albeit much better than the “fail the future” strategy offered by BP). Perhaps more sobering is, over time, Presidential speeches have diminished in quality in terms of sentence complexity, word size, and vocabulary diversity.
Are our attention spans really so short that we can only understand politics as it can be described by three-word witticisms? Are big words so daunting that we are willing to elect a relatable politician over an effective one? Is the prospect of changing your opinion so frightening that you’d rather sacrifice progress than admit fallibility? Are we okay living in a society in which our satire is more informative than our news programs?
I don’t claim to know the answers, but I know that our nation cannot continue to nurture a political discussion devoid of both politics and discussion. The problems we will confront in the next decade cannot be expressed through slogans and billboards, they cannot be resolved by castigating our colleagues and they cannot be avoided by shutting our eyes and praying our leaders do the right thing.
It is our obligation as students to ensure we are informed about the world around us. It is our obligation to consider perspectives on their merit, rather than their political affiliation. And it is our obligation to ensure we are sophisticated enough to form opinions on our own, rather than being force-fed by pundits. If we cannot accomplish this, then maybe Churchill was right.
— Evan DeFilippis, political science and economics junior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
kdbp1213 1 year, 3 months ago
the talking heads (regardless of their left, right, or centrist leanings) have to sell a product to earn their living. that's what beck, olberman, etc. are doing.
we lack intelligent discussion, debate, etc., because we lack national intelligence. the masses would rather pay attention to american idol, glee, dancing with the stars, blackberrys, i-pads, or charlie sheen's bad habits. that's why the onion, colbert, and snl's 'weekend update' are seen as legit news sources. everybody is 'dumbed down.'
scholar 1 year, 3 months ago
damn, I'm glad we have you at OU. Brilliant column as always, though I would have appreciated more discussion about what you felt could be done to resolve the problem. Granted, not much can be done short of abridging free speech.
boomer3 1 year, 2 months ago
"Winston Churchill famously opined that the greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"
My gov teacher in high school told us that when we walk out of the room look each person you pass in the eye, then you will realize the scariest thing about democracy.
sniferriple 1 year, 2 months ago
Why the hell are articles like these the ones that get cut down to make room for more crap about the abortion debate or concealed-carry arguments? This is what people need to hear.
Thanks for a well-written and informative article.