I do not think that the situation on TV is inherently hopeless. Although I did not really follow Western evolution for long, I suspect a sharp devolution of TV intelectual standards in the last decade, catalyzed by the US de-reguliarizing 1996 Tele-Communications Act. It can be said what you see on TV today almost anywhere is what one person (Rupert Murdoch) wants you to see.
In electoral politics, the US coverage became tragicomical (and sadly spreading anywhere else). Just look at the electoral debates - the circus not worth the civilization. The media anti-Gore revolution of 2000 is very revealing - and evolving fast.
The progressives need to get some control of public discourses, for the beginning. They need to re-inforce more rational rules somehow. Giving up and just following stupid scripts of modern millionaire TV hosts is certainly wrong way to go. They need to use rational argumentation to keep it alive on TV - along with necessary sexed-up tactics. Not only rational but emotional brain channels have to be activated as well. The opponents have to be forced to demonstrate decent logic sometimes - and here some provoking methodology slips can play a role. The opposition has already demonstrated how to defend illogical positions momentarily - we would need only a few tricks to take over.
Most importantly, following only strict logic makes us very predictable, while the opposition has well developed tools to dismiss rational argumentation. In this conflict, the progressives need to be more creative in presentation, so to overwhelm opponents a little and take initiative. It is like in Sun Tsu's "The Art of War".
The progressives need to get some control of public discourses, for the beginning. They need to re-inforce more rational rules somehow. Giving up and just following stupid scripts of modern millionaire TV hosts is certainly wrong way to go. They need to use rational argumentation to keep it alive on TV - along with necessary sexed-up tactics. Not only rational but emotional brain channels have to be activated as well. The opponents have to be forced to demonstrate decent logic sometimes - and here some provoking methodology slips can play a role.
Agreed. As for how to do it, though, I'm an academic, not a politician, so I am afraid that I will have to defer that part to someone who, unlike me, is actually competent in that area.
However, to deal with what you rightly call 'well developed tools to dismiss rational argumentation' I think that basic numeracy is of paramount importance (alongside, of course, the rhetorical tactics developed to deal with such denialism - but as I said, that falls outside my area of competence).
The unfortunate fact - and a point I usually harp on at considerable length to anyone who cares to listen - is that lack of numeracy in the citizenry means that numerical arguments become essentially arguments from authority. Not only is that unlikely to change minds, it also reduces what should be civilized discourse to the level of tribal shamans pointing to their favoured totem poles and shouting, what is for all the viewer knows, magic incantations at each other.
Thus, highly technical subjects of vital importance to the continued well-being of the citizens are reduced to a question of who has the more convincing witch doctor. And quacks, by virtue of not being bound by such things as facts or ethics, will tend to have an advantage in such a shouting match.
I think that we are largely in agreement here (though I may be wrong about that, of course), but approaching the problem from different angles. Which is well and good - we need a diverse strategy, after all.
---
I need to read Sun Tzu myself. I have a copy, but I never got around to reading it... For that matter, I suspect that Clausewitz would also have some insights applicable to politics - such as the focus on destroying the enemy's capacity to prosecute war against you over and above the simple occupation of territory. That, at least, seems to be the strategy employed by the right in general and the neocons in particular...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
That is a very interesting idea. We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo
