TEXT JOIN TO 77022

Why Are Today’s Politics So Awful?

(Editor’s note: This is a first in a four-part series).

People often ask, “Why are today’s politics so awful?” There are several reasons, many of which will be explored in this four-part series. In a nutshell (pun intended), the Communications Revolution has enormously contributed to the belief that politics is more awful than ever due to its impact upon the public, the media, the politicians, and the country.

Yet, before considering these reasons, one must avoid the temptation to romanticize the political past as a time of eminently genteel debate in a country where that civility led to a destructive civil war. Even during the period of our nation’s founding, American politics has been contentious as evinced by the political battles between the Royalists and the Revolutionaries. Later, one need only look at how Federalist political pamphleteers attacked President Thomas Jefferson (with the truth, by the way); or how President Andrew Jackson was decried as a “tyrant” and “would-be king” by his political opponents, obloquies later echoed in attacks upon Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and, most recently, Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, while the intensity and invective of political battle has not waned, its visibility has exponentially increased. Due to the Communications Revolution, on a subway or runway, at home or abroad, 24 hours every single day, people possess the ability to casually survey and/or directly engage in politics. No longer does one have to hope the local newspaper publishes their letter to the editor or hope someone in Washington reads their constituent letter. The expression of one’s political opinion and/or agenda can be voiced to the political class and one’s fellow citizens instantaneously and – especially, when in concert with like-minded individuals – effectively.

The consequence of the Communication Revolution’s empowerment of the public it to make politics appear more prevalent and contentious than in the past. While true that more people are publicly expressing their political views, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are new to their opinions or that the intensity of these opinions has increased. What has undoubtedly happened, though, is that technology has facilitated the public’s ability to express their views.

This results in the sense that Americans are more political and, generally, politics more prevalent and awful than ever. True, it can be a bit unsettling to see a friend or neighbor’s political post, more so when one never thought that friend or neighbor shared your views or party affiliation. (They feel the same when they see your post).

Still, that doesn’t mean the intensity of political activity has increased, only its frequency in being publicly expressed. While there have been mild historical variations, today there remains about the same percentage of the populace who are hardcore political activists. In earlier times, these hardcore activists would have trekked to local party meetings to lick stamps or attend town halls to challenge local officials; today, they chain themselves to trees to end oil or epoxy a red hat to their head and take in a Trump rally.

Again, it is the visibility that has increased: the ability of the casual political actor to be heard and, perhaps more accurately, be seen. It is this visibility that results in more people engaging and arguing with their friends and family and even anonymous strangers on line. In an instance of squeal sharpening squeal, such political tussles harden one’s views and, in many cases, coarsens the contours of acceptable political debate, ultimately eroding them even as one’s obstinance solidifies.

We Americans have been here before. Citizens would argue with family, friends, and strangers on the street during times of both national turmoil and relative tranquility. Political opponents have always sought ways to persuade others to their cause, often going to the extremes of trying to silence opposing views (the First Amendment notwithstanding). The rise of new communications technologies, newspapers, radio, and television have all impacted the populace and increased the visibility of its political life. (In the late 1960s, the revolution was televised).

In this historical context, what is today’s cancel culture but a cyber-tarring and feathering? Once more, the difference is we can more readily witness American politics play out in real time. This is, in large part, due to the machinations of another political actor impacted by the Communications Revolution –

The Media.

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) represented Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003-2012, and served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars; and a Monday co-host of the “John Batchelor Radio Show,” among sundry media appearances.

Get the news corporate media won't tell you.

Get caught up on today's must read stores!

By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

About Thaddeus G. McCotter

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) represented Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003 to 2012 and served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee. Not a lobbyist, he is a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars, and a Monday co-host of the "John Batchelor Show" among sundry media appearances.

Photo: WASHINGTON DC, UNITED STATES - NOVEMBER 29: United States Representative Rashida Tlaib (2nd L) holds a press conference with a group of activists, State legislators and actors on the third day of the five-day hunger strike they launched in front of the White House in Washington DC, United States on November 29, 2023. (Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Notable Replies

  1. I read a book called “The Dead Shall Rise” by Steve Oney. A true story about a young girl murdered while working in a pencil factory in Atlanta, 1913. This book is excellent in detailing the true facts of the police reports, the trial (what’s left of it), the media narrative at the time. A black man that finds the victim yet ends up testifying against the Jewish supervisor who was ultimately convicted of the crime. A democrat senator taints the media, the media tries the case, and it makes national headlines for its antisemitism.

    Finally, William Randolph Hearst and NYT Adolph Ochs worked to have Leo Frank’s death sentence overturned, only to have a group of men abduct Leo Frank from prison and bring him back to Marietta for a public lynching.

    This book is a great example of how politicians, the media and lawyers can cultivate a narrative. I believe it’s a great example of how somethings have not changed, but the megaphone is now 24/7 news and social media vs. the newspapers that were once dominant. However, the lynch mobs are still out there and therein lies the problem.

  2. Avatar for task task says:

    Technology changes. People do not. AI may change that.

  3. I didn’t watch the Newsom/DeSantis debate. I figured I could get the same information by reading the box scores and skipping the cringe. Five point four million Americans disagreed choosing to see the spectacle live. On Drudge, 63% scored it a DeSantis win----but has it moved the needle for Ron? I haven’t seen much of a move as of yet.

    My point being, can life be a bit better by weaning one’s self away from a media addiction? I think so. And while I agree with Mr. McCotter that vitriol in politics is the same as it ever was, 24/7 news cycles have added intensity to the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it hysteria surrounding politics today.

    Part of the reason is that, with social media, everyone seems to have an equal shot at the fifteen minutes of fame trophy so many appear to seek. And it doesn’t seem to matter if the trophy is awarded for being instantly famous or instantly infamous. The poor kid wearing black/red face at a KC Chief’s game is now famous, while his antagonist Carron Phillips (a black male Karen or possibly a blackmail Karen) continues by tripling down on stupid to become enduringly infamous.

    Back in 1976, Niven and Pournelle published what I have always felt to be a sci-fi masterpiece titled Inferno, based on Dante’s geography of Hell. One chapter deals with two factions furiously pushing an enormous diamond back and forth across a field towards a never reached goal. They had been at it so long the facets of the diamond had become completely worn off. Neither side had ever scored a goal, but the game, in and of itself, was viewed by the participants as a struggle more important than life or death itself.

    Are we there yet?

  4. In so many ways we can’t even imagine.

  5. While I suppose we’re all entitled to our opinions (although today’s leftist orcs would strenuously disagree), we’re not entitled to our own facts, which includes DC, the Enemedia and Big Tech.

    So, as Mr. McCotter alludes, even though it may seem that the universe of political opinion has grown, in fact it is the combination of rank ignorance (willful in many cases) combined with greatly enhanced means of voicing one’s opinion that has changed.

    I am reminded of Twain’s quote about the media: “If you don’t read the newspaper you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.”

    Seems nothing much has changed except scale.

Continue the discussion at community.amgreatness.com

5 more replies

Participants

Avatar for War_for_the_West Avatar for Maximus-Cassius Avatar for Patriot Avatar for Yamazaki_Mei Avatar for system Avatar for task Avatar for Everett_Brunson