The actual role of the Bill of Rights relative to American political activity is often a misconceived concept in contemporary thought.
One might find an observer commenting, “The government gives me the right of free speech.” That individual, however, might want to direct his or her attention to the text of the right itself:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”
The Bill of Rights is not a guarantee of these rights, it merely forbids government institutions from infringing an individual’s right to these liberties.
It seems, sometimes, that the public needs a reminder of the fact that it is the government’s responsibility to neither create nor administer a personal liberty. This concept, however, should not suggest that a government can shirk from preventing that right’s contravention—quite the contrary. Just as “Congress shall make no law” limiting an individual’s right to speak or believe, it is also the responsibility of a well-run government to, as Theodore Roosevelt stated, function as “instruments to promote the general welfare.”[1]
What form this takes is, of course, a political debate that has dominated much ofAmerican political history. But a concept that most Americans in today’s information age might benefit from hearing was best expressed by James Madison in the following way: “If men were angels, they could govern themselves.”
With the advent of the Internet, and in turn the infinite access to information, those freedoms and liberties becomes both instantaneous and perpetually exercisable. For instance, an individual now has the right to post anywhere in cyberspace their deepest feelings, most profound observations,and brightest ideas. Yet, the access to information and the ability to publish it has somewhat lessened the significance of words and speech. Nowhere is this lack of creativity more present than in the political world. Politicians and pundits alike understand that soundbites and easily digestible talking points are far more media-friendly, and thus far more finanically rewarding, than actually engaging with a set of issues. Thus arguments are far more likely to be based on ad hominem attacks (a term for when in a debate someone attacks a person rather than their arguments) than they are to be based on a discussion of the actual meaning and content of the debate.
One need only compare the transcript of an average politician’s address or public statement with the everyday announcements and speeches of politicians only a few generations ago.Robert Kennedy often cited individuals like Archimedes, Aeschylus, and others, using rhetorical prowess, and a command of not just the spoken word but of the issues themselves. This expertise, in our age, is neither necessary nor desirable. Instead, Americans like their politicians like they like their news: simple, concise, and altogether lacking substance. Freedom of speech has come to correspond with a freedom from consequence. In other words, people are no longer held accountable for the way they speak, what they speak, and how they speak it. Instead, their words are glossed over as the onlookers stare at video screens trying to decide why a Republican decided to wear a blue tie that day instead of a red one.
It seems that in the United States, the obsession over quick, entertaining information dominates nearly every news story. The average American is certain about their feelings toward an individual like Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning, but has no idea of the content of the documents leaked by either individual. Most Americans do little research at all. When consulting the news,seventy-nine percent of Internet browsers simply scan half of a page of information and move on. However, these same individuals who barely absorb any real content from the world around them have extraordinary and unprecedented abilities to publish their thoughts on a blog, website, or profile. Just as technology has provided us with a medium through which the entire health of human knowledge can be ascertained, it has also provided a faucet from which limitless political drivel may pour.
The Internet has not only provided us the means to access information, it has afforded us the opportunity to create information. Rather than having political commentary and speech tactfully composed and edited by experienced and trained professionals, we now see that any adolescent mind with access to a wifi hookup can claim that the American president is a socialist Muslim, that the Texas governor is a virulent racist, or that it definitely makes sense to allow greater access to automatic weapons among violence-prone teens. This access to information has thus lessened the level of qualification Americans seek in their political world. Satirist Jon Stewart remarked during the 2008 election, when Barack Obama was accused of being an elitist for his views on gun control
Doesn’t elite mean good? Is that not something we’re looking for in a President anymore? You know what candidates, come with me. I know that elite is a “bad word” in politics, but the job you’re applying for, if you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain.
Stewart is on to something: our political idols no longer represent the best and the brightest, they embody the average and the relatable.
Susan Jacoby writes in The Age of American Unreason that popular American cognition is based on things like “middlebrow culture” or “junk thought.” In the case of middlebrow culture, Jacoby suggests that in an age of instant media and information, people have lowered the expectation for linguistic, historic, or scientific value in cultural contributions. Jacoby states that since the 50s and 60s American society “would move toward a debased culture as generally accepted standards were defined downward.” In the case of junk thought, Jacoby discusses how gradually, so-called experts have begun to utilize “the language of science and rationality to promote irrationality.” In addition, Jacoby points out how in contemporary America, “expert-bashing” has become a commonplace element in the country’s social, political, and economic discord. The end-goal of discourse is no longer to work with information, people, and ideas to produce a collaborative solution. Instead, people use social and political problems as a means of attacking those with whom they fundamentally (or so they say) disagree.[2]
The Internet, then, not only provides a forum for politicians to launch personal attacks at each other, it also establishes a forum for the uniformed citizenry to spout opinions without any knowledge of the subject about which they are writing. It seems, then, that the Internet is simply another instance of technology serving as both a positive and a negative influence on our lives. As our development of the Internet continues, it seems that the cost of infinite information is the mirror of its benefit.
The major problem becomes, in today’s society, whether or not it is proper and fair to have speech that is both free from censorship but also free from relevance, editing, and qualification. Should any individual be permitted to simply offer critique or praise when they have no previous experience or education that could remotely justify their commentary on an issue? The editorial process is all but moot. Information and speech in America today is concerned with rapidity, not validity. Today, more than ever,Ralph Waldo Emerson’s 1837 words ring true on the current state of the American thinker: “The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, feeds upon itself.”
The push for higher thinking and critical awareness has been all but relegated to a portion of the population now considered far too “elite” or “out of touch” to strike a meaningful chord with mainstream America.
Just How Stupid Are Americans?
Of course, there are no tangible ways to prevent the free access to the Internet as a microphone of policy and social recommendations from every American citizen; such a thought would go directly against the language in the Constitution. Perhaps the problem with media commentators (whether professional or amateur) is a more personal one. It could take some review and education to convince people of the millennial generation that not everyone needs to hear why you support or oppose the death penalty. Perhaps above all, Internet users and citizens of our globalized world might want to consider their qualification before speaking out on an issue.
As Plato once wisely remarked, “A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something.”
[1] Roosevelt, Theodore “The Progressive Covenant with the People,” August 1912
[2] Jacoby, Susan. The Age of American Unreason. New York: Vintage Books, 2008. p. 130, 215, 225.
This article was originally published on Urban Times by Zachary Deibel.
About the Author
