Chaos Theory – It COULD Happen Here!

The hallmark of American democracy is compromise.

In America (as it is in the stable democracies of the first world) political opponents accept defeat, respect their opponent – at least formally – and leave the stage when they lose.  A good example is Al Gore, who was defeated in his 2002 presidential bid by an extra-electoral proceeding, the infamous Bush v Gore  Supreme Court ruling.  He could have used his power as president of the Senate to hold on to power, but he elected not to, instead, the matter ended.  Al Gore’s behavior was a shining example of how republics behave at their best, even if in the bulk of his political behavior, Al Gore was as petty and selfish as any powerful politician.

As useful as compromise has been to our stability, the result is not always for something to be proud of.  An example of the dark side of compromise would be at our nation’s founding, when slavery was normalized into our system. There are many examples of compromises for both the good and the ill.  One example for the good happened during Eisenhower’s second term.  He himself was a small town conservative who was sympathetic to the concerns of segregationists, nonetheless, faced with Little Rock, he elected to call in the troops – his compromise with his own basic beliefs moved us just a little bit forward on race relations.  On the other hand, President Truman compromised with his basic principals when he instituted a loyalty oath.  He was faced with Republican pressure over communists in the government and chose this solution to appease critics.  Although I don’t know that he could have done anything else at the time (if he wanted to stay in office) still, the loyalty oath made it easier for institutions like the HUAC to carry forward their nonsense.  (Yes, there were communists and spies in the government, but HUAC was much more interested in embarrassing public figure with their youthful indiscretions, than in doing anything practical to protect America from spies – or expose Soviet apologists.)

Compromise is also a feature of our public square.  It was not always like this, but between the Civil War and the Depression, news media became centrist.  Some of this was the consequence of our large size.  Newspapers depended on wire service reports to obtain their national news, and wire service reporting had to be neutral – and saleable.  Radio was similarly homogenized.  For CBS and NBC (or the old Mutual Network) shows and news had to represent the homogenized America of  picket fences, protestant churches and amiable grocers.  This was America of pre-Jackie Robinson baseball.  Blacks and Jews (and Catholics) existed as spices, but spices that were but accents in our cultural stew.

Like with our politics, compromise is neither good nor bad, but it is the way we have operated.  We at this blog have complained about the MSM and the watered down presentation of news – but however bad that is, at least the MSM present a limited diversity of ideas.  Those outside the MSM make no such effort.   The “fringe” media range from renowned reporter, Amy Goodman, to right wing talk radio, to much of the blogosphere.  By “fringe” I am not implying a lack of value.  Amy Goodman’s reporting is powerful and an important source for news that has no other place to go.  As I have written before, I find her annoying, but essential.  But, still she represents the outlier.  Bloggers too are often outliers – Brian and I are, both as individuals and even more so in combination.  Right wing media are also fringe media- at least in spirit.  Fox may have a national audience, and a large one – but it hews to a fringe ethos in presenting a skewed point of view.  Right wing talk radio is also a fringe player.  With its biggest players on air in the weekday, its major audience is limited to the sorts of people who can tune in during the day, the plumbers, carpenters, electricians who drive from job to job.  Also retirees, people out of work, and women who are home with kids etc.  Courtroom lawyers, doctors, actuaries, engineers and in fact most of us with full time employment are cut out of right wing radio’s peculiar conversation.  (Is it any wonder that “Joe the Plumber” was a creature of right wing media?)

So what? (Our few readers may ask).  As the public square dissolves, what is left is the recognition that we the people don’t speak with one voice, or really agree on much.  (Sometime it is also clear that many of us don’t know what the hell we are talking about – hence the strength of the birthers movement).  Making one out of many was easy when we deferred to a few large mediators like CBS or the NY Times.  But since this no longer the case, the alternative is either a re-invigorated and assertive center or chaos.  Sadly, chaos is more likely.

Loud voices can easily drown out reasonable ones.  In the last century, saw this happen in Germany and in Eastern Europe.  In Germany, centrist voices were pushed aside by various left wing groups (communists) and right wing groups (Nazis).  In Eastern Europe, Soviet led communist bullies took over the public square.  The situation in Germany is a more relevant fit with the US because Germany was operating with what can be considered a “free market” political environment.  The situation in Eastern Europe is less applicable, since the demonstrations were orchestrated by an occupying power, the Soviet Union.

In Germany, increasing economic disorder mixed with political chaos.  The fear by anti-communists of a Communist takeover drove moderates into the Nazi camp.

We don’t yet have the full fledged economic disorder – we don’t have rampant inflation, for example, nor have our streets broken out into rioting.  Still, Right Wing voices, funded by moneyed interests, and fueled by propaganda, have embarked on a de-stabling process.  It’s at its earliest stage now – so far, just shouting at media events.  And we don’t see (yet) a demagogue who seems capable rallying the masses, but… if a leader showed up, the ground has been prepared.

Could it happen here?

We are a fairly young polity, much younger than Britain or France (or Germany and Italy).  We tell ourselves that it could never happen because it never has.  But like they say in the ads for investments, “past performance is no guaranty of future results.”

How do we prevent it?  Again, maybe nothing will happen.  Maybe the sides will re-sort themselves and a more vigorous central consensus will emerge.  But for that to happen, all the players (media and politicians) need to put the interests of the American polity above their own ratings or poll numbers.   And for the moment, that’s unlikely.