The Dangers of Delusional Dichotomy

For the past few years I have often been perplexed and astonished after reading the words of two writers in particular, Sydney Blumenthal and Gene Lyons. The question returned over and over again, ' how could two people write so accurately about the malignancy of the Bush Administration after having been so wrong in their defense of the Clinton Administration'?

The answer it seems, lies, (pardon the pun) within the realm of the characteristics of the commercial opinion publishing business. Newspapers, Websites, and Television productions geared to the dissemination of opinion are not particularly interested in balanced presentations, as they do not provide enough 'action' (in the form of 'conflict') for their prospective audiences. Publishers are almost single-mindedly (pardon the pun) locked into a mindset of setting up a dichotomy. Often with the rationale of providing a 'balance' which is simultaneously misleading and limiting.

On any particular issue's specific question, one will argue 'for' it, and another 'against', with very little time/space alloted to any view that dissects the question into smaller parts that can be then argued, for and against, in context with past history and/or future ramifications.

I consider this practice a disservice to the public, and certainly enabling those who wish to keep the people uninformed or underinformed, so that they may have less influence upon their elected officials who cast the votes and sign the bills in a representative democracy.

This malady is perhaps a natural consequence of the commercial process, especially in regard to the writer in need of a check, but if so it is one that has been overdone by both writers and publishers. I cannot accept that there is not a market for writers who are capable, within the same time/space limitations, of dissecting and arguing the pro's and con's of any question, and that by doing so, the public is greater served.

In the specific cases of Sydney and Gene, it is as if both are incapable of understanding that the very nature of the American political process is inherently corrupt and corrupting and that any good resulting from a policy change, by any Administration, is but a consequence of the law of averages and almost entirely accidental?

Judging from their careers and their writings, it is impossible to conclude that they are so stupid as to believe that 'their' side is all 'good' and the 'other' side is all 'bad'. Yet, that is what the great bulk of their arguments consist of. And only those with a knowledge of the past can adequately balance their assertions against, and in continuity with, what has gone before and thus, what is likely to come. For neither will be caught addressing the failings of their own past in their contemporary works.

A false and 'delusional dichotomy' may fill the pages and airwaves with the semblance of content, like cotton candy, but it does not provide the fiber, minerals, and vitamins needed for a healthy society or government.

I would say that the present condition of both more than proves my argument.

stephenhsmith
20July2007