We have a problem with freedom of speech that is much less talked about than the epidemic of censorship on college campuses but is just as consequential. It pertains to what happens after all opinions on a subject have been voiced.
Freedom of speech is supposed to foster societal progress. It allows all ideas to be put forward, debated, and evaluated, so the good ones can beat out the bad ones. It's an effective system in theory, but it has a fundamental problem in practice. It presupposes that people rationally debate and evaluate ideas. In fact, we do not, especially when it comes to politics today.
Par of the problem is that we have failed to create a culture conducive to civil, level-headed, and substantive discourse. Instead of trying to look at an issue from all sides, we each pick a stance, align ourselves with a “team", and then turn our “opponents" into caricatures. Republicans are racists. Democrats are communists. Conservatives want religion to control government. Liberals want government to control your life.
In a recent article in Tablet Magazine, Jesse Bernstein argues that the satirical left's contribution to caricaturization culture is partially responsible for the rise of Donald Trump. Over the last couple decades, Jon Stewart's The Daily Show (a show I personally enjoyed) fed its viewers a steady stream of clever, self-assuring, liberal mockery. It would take statements made by conservative figures, comically rip them apart, and then ridicule the messenger. Online liberal publications would then, in Bernstein's words, hail Stewart's critique as “the greatest rhetorical victory since Darrow argued for Scopes." Each time this happened "liberals' Facebook feeds full of liberal friends filled up with clips of the takedown" and "[n]o one learned anything, no one engaged with an idea, and nothing outside of a very specific set of ideas was given any real credence." This intellectual elitism, Bernstein argues, alienated less-educated, working-class Americans, facilitated an us-vs.-them mentality, and helped pave the way for Trump.
Though, the truth of the matter is that Stewart's voice is just one of many bouncing off the walls of one of the nation's partisan echo chambers. The different political camps each have their own. Last month, Christine Emba of the Washington Post reported on a study conducted by social scientists Walter Quattrociocchi, Antonio Scala and Cass Sunstein titled “Echo Chambers on Facebook". The study showed that people gravitate to communities of like-minded individuals that share a belief in a common narrative. In these communities, information that confirmed the rightness of that narrative was promulgated, and information that did not, was ignored or rejected. Whether the information was rooted in fact was irrelevant. These results should not be surprising — confirmation bias is a well-documented phenomenon (and one that I have written about previously) — but they should still be alarming.
Traditional news sources, like newspapers and TV, compound this problem too. As Emba points out, Instead of trying to educate the general population, most news outlets pander to specific sub-groups. I have lost track of how many hyperbolic “Is there a war on christmas?" segments Fox News has put on over the years. But can you blame Fox and friends? It is way more profitable to picks sides than to be neutral. In today's hyper-partisan climate, “us-vs.-them" narratives sell better than “we are all in this together". Though it does not have to be that way.
As long as people are only discussing ideas they already agree with, society will stagnate. We need to break down the echo chamber walls. It will not be easy, but if we make reasoned debate a societal value again, we can start making a change for the better.
