During my time away from this blog, which I covered briefly in the last post, I unfortunately fell into a pretty bad slump as far as intellectual inspiration goes. A couple months ago, two things helped pull me out of that.  First, a professor of mine encouraged me to finally read The Road by Cormac McCarthy, which is, by all counts, a remarkable book.  Second, the same professor pointed me to a National Public Radio show called “Speaking of Faith.” I had never heard of it, because it isn’t aired in my neck of the woods, or, nation, as it were.  But of course, the show can be heard on its web site or in podcast form.  

The weekly program is dubbed, “public radio’s conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas.” My professor recommended the show after talking with me about Reinhold Niebuhr, and linked me to an episode that explored Niebuhr’s public theology. I was quickly drawn in by the artful nature of the show, and the thoughtful discussion therein of the rather challenging and nuanced political thought of this figure throughout his life. I’ve listened to a few other episodes since then that are also highly enriching and thought-provoking: of particular interest so far have been episodes “The Ethics of Eating,” on eating/living locally, and “An Architecture of Decency,” about Alabama’s own Rural Studio project aimed at economical, smart, and sustainable building in rural areas. The show also features a regular series called “Repossessing Virtue,” in which the current economic downturn is explored as a moral and spiritual crisis and, thus, a time to cultivate different thinking and grounding.  It’s a wonderful idea, and altogether, it is a refreshing, humbling, and challenging show that is right up my abstract, open-ended thought process alley.

The funny thing is, when I listen to this kind of show, or other NPR shows like this, I can’t help but think about how right wing talk radio hosts love to include NPR on their “liberal media” hit lists, as if it is a counterpart to their kind of programming. Like many things that such hosts say, this begs many questions. Exactly what programming here is supposed to be considered “liberal” and why? Is it all programming or just the news? Certainly it’s not the classical music? Maybe it’s all that worldly, new-age music on Sunday nights? If it is the news or talk-based programs, is it because, for right wingers, there must be either a “conservative” or “liberal” bias in media, no middle ground, and NPR just doesn’t fit their blatantly partisan, ultra-nationalistic and jingoist framework, opting for a more nuanced, multicultural, and international flavor instead? Well I guess, given the choices, that makes them liberal. And, of course, I think to myself, if all of that makes a station liberal, then we need a lot more so-called liberal media.

But seriously, I’ve been dwelling quite a bit on the strong contrast between programs like “Speaking of Faith” and AM talk radio programs hosted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al.  Particularly, I’ve been considering the potential implications the two different kinds of programs have for society, democracy, and even faith.

In his book, Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber writes about regaining a proper idea of “the public.” He describes the “public voice” as being the voice of democratic citizens and “the voice of civil society, of citizens in deliberative conversation.” Thus, on the topic of talk radio and television media, he writes, 

…a public voice is not any old voice addressing the public.  The divisive rant of talk radio or the staccato crossfire of pundit-TV are in fact perfect models of everything that public talk is not.

 

Why is this and what exactly makes a “citizen” and a “public?” Barber describes what he believes to be the proper idea (that has been largely lost) of the public and a citizen thusly, 

…what has been lost…[is] the idea of the public as something more than a random collection of consumers or an aggregation of special political interests or a product of identity politics. The public voice turns out to be the voice of civil society. … [of a] civic forum… A citizen is an individual who has acquired a public voice and understands himself to belong to a wider community, who sees herself as sharing goods with others. 

 

He argues, then, that,

The media have abandoned civil society for the greater profits of the private sector, where their public responsibilities no longer hobble their taste for commercial success.

Barber’s book tackles a rather big subject, and I intend on returning to it in the future. But for now, suffice it to say, the thrust of his book is this: in the face of all-consuming, western capitalistic-style globalization and the sometimes violent, almost tribal-like backlash to it, what is needed is greater and stronger democracy. He doesn’t call for this to come through the barrel of a gun, however, but through the rebuilding of a healthy civil society, or “civic space,” which is to reside in “the middle ground between government and the private sector;” which democratic government and markets can both therefore be grounded by; and which “offers conditions for the creation of democratic citizens,” who, in turn, should be the foundation of democratic government.

With all of that in mind, Barber’s point that talk radio and the rapid-fire media it responds to and reflects upon are antithetical to “public talk” seems spot on. Though some of the aforementioned talk radio hosts give lip service to serving the public and American democracy (e.g., Rush Limbaugh likes to call himself “the Doctor of Democracy”), they really don’t seem to care much for the actual processes and application of democracy, nor do they encourage the kind of engagement and “deliberative conversation” among citizens necessary for a healthy public sphere.

Now perhaps some might say, “Wait a minute. Doesn’t talk radio encourage discussion, keeping people informed about, thinking about, and involved in political affairs, and isn’t that a good thing for democracy?”  

Well, here’s the thing – actually, here are the few things:

First, as for talk radio’s talk, there is quite a distinctive difference between what Barber calls the “deliberative conversation” of citizens and “the divisive rant of talk radio.” In other words, one does not expect to turn on talk radio and hear actual conversations of a genuine and thoughtful nature in which the host might actually be reasonably interested in an exchange of ideas or encouraging true debate, cooperation, or problem solving, etc. Instead, you generally hear hosts insisting on their rightness on nearly all points on a program that amounts to an us vs. them sporting match or pep rally, in which people tune in not to have their thinking tested and challenged, but largely to hear a daily, religious dogma-like affirmation of already held assumptions and views. 

Second, Barber contrasts his vision for a mediating civil society with the overshadowing and depoliticizing dichotomies that have come to shape our political perceptions instead; i.e., “the state versus the individual;” “government versus the private sector;” “the command economy versus the free market.” In my view, almost more than anything else, right wing talk radio voices daily end up distracting listeners from the mediating, empowering, and cooperative potentials of civic life by keeping these dividing dichotomies fresh in their minds as the central front in the war against “liberal Democrats.” 

Third, to whatever extent such talk radio encourages political awareness and involvement, it, by and large, encourages a negative, limited, and stubbornly partisan kind of political action that mostly amounts to working to vote Republicans in/Democrats out every couple of years or embrace a massive resistance-style opposition to Democrats that are in power. At the same time, much talk radio is ironically also depoliticizing as it misleadingly portrays government as an outside force that must simply be separated, as much as possible, from the market and from individual aspirations. No positive public realm to see here.

Now I don’t know how many people actually give a damn about talk radio or take it seriously. But my guess is, the numbers are fairly high. And the extent to which it is successful is probably due in part to the sense of meaning and shared identity it can provide. But that meaning and identity is extremely exclusive and can often be unthinkingly partisan. This not only makes political talk more and more divisive and decent ideas for public solutions harder to come by; it largely precludes social respect, public thinking, and cooperation. Further, in lieu of the kind of “public talk” Barber wishes for, such talk radio and related media tend to co-opt public discourse, exchanging it for talking points, and diverting thought, time, and resources away to distracting and angry rhetorical battle lines.

What if we compare all this about talk radio to “Speaking of Faith” and similar public radio programming? I should note first that “Speaking of Faith” is actually a bit different categorically, in that it’s mostly interview-based and not primarily political.  But what the show does (very much unlike talk radio), in a rare, patient manner, is attempt to synthesize many aspects of our society and individuality – be they political, economic, material, or spiritual, etc. – while considering how these things are informed by culture and different approaches to/understandings of faith/beliefs, and how we, in turn, can shape/inform these areas of life and society by the way we think about and approach them together. So not only does the show provide a model for “deliberative conversation,” or genuine and thoughtful public discourse; I think it also actually serves as an expression of true faith in action by a willingness to grapple with doubt and acknowledge our limited understanding, while also genuinely trying to reach a better and broader understanding. Talk radio, in contrast, is more of an expression of fundamentalism with desires to remove all ambiguity, complexity, nuance, and, indeed, any doubt at all from the picture.

It is no surprise then, that talk radio serves to divide, making people more prone to anger, fear, and defensiveness than to embrace a civic role, engage in genuine discourse, and offer meaningful ideas and proposals. And I am spending so much time writing on this, because it seems those effects of this kind of endless, noisy, and partisan barrage of distraction have become notably pervasive throughout substantial portions of our society in relation to politics.

Take, for example, the recent “Tea Party” protests. Though media figures consistently insisted that this was a genuinely “grassroots” and “nonpartisan” “movement,” it is unmistakably clear that this so-called “movement” was co-opted, if not engineered at times, by the right wing media machine, à la talk radio and Fox News, for clearly partisan purposes. So, in the first place, the “tea parties” lost whatever chances they might have had of intellectual integrity and being taken seriously. Instead, they came more to look like what other bloggers have aptly described as “tantrums” over the Republicans losing power; since, after all, where was such “outrage” at big government spending levels, big deficits, and the like when they were in power? 

Beyond that, though, there is of course nothing wrong with such protests per se, except that they seemed to, on some level, reveal a frustration and disconnect that may be a result of the much deeper underlying problem in this nation of depoliticization and a lack of functioning democratic institutions through which citizens can have a public voice. Noam Chomsky has recently referred to this lacking as a “democratic deficit.” For example, speaking about the strong public opposition that at first prevented the first proposed bailout, Chomsky said,

On the surface, that looks like an exercise of democracy, but it isn’t. … In a functioning Democracy, what would happen is different. Not just shouting “No!,” which it was happened, but active, popular organizations like unions, or political clubs, or whatever, would be coming forth with specific proposals and demanding that their representatives implement them…

And this brings me to what really bothered me about the “tea parties.” They seemed to lack any interest in either initiating a realistic discourse in the nation about its woes nor articulating any coherent, detailed opposition or anything of alternative proposals regarding taxes, government spending, bailouts, and whatever else was being complained about. This of course made it quite difficult to know exactly what it was the protesters were against or what exactly they were for. And, I must say, we mustn’t confuse the simple calls for “less government” with actual proposals – half-heartedly hoped for guiding principle or long term goal maybe, but that is absolutely not an actual specific proposal for the current situation at all, nor, understandably, is it now going to be widely perceived as even reasonable.

Maybe I am expecting too much of impassioned protesters. Still, my impression was always that the protests would not amount to much in the end, because they lacked a firm foundation and clear goals. But my larger point here is simply Chomsky’s point and Barber’s point. We have to do better. We have to have more than the occasional angry protest when we don’t think things are going our way. We need to somehow cultivate the public realm and reawaken our dusty public vocal cords through civil society and democratic institutions wherein we might actually invest ourselves and play a more active and thoughtful role. Instead, the “tea parties,” from what I could see, were eerily like mirror images of the ranting of talk radio. The end result looks to me like large groups of people who, looking through the lens of “the state versus the individual” dichotomy, seem to think they know what it is they do not want: more taxes; larger government; etc., but don’t seem to articulate well or fully understand what they do want instead. Perhaps more importantly, they do not seem to really consider what many people actually want overall as a society - and thus the reason for a public sphere - or how else to truly achieve that in our current system if it’s not going to be through “bigger government.”

What if these folks, instead of only selectively opposing and complaining about government when they think, for whatever reason, that government is overburdening them and their pocketbooks, or their children’s future pocketbooks, they – and all of us – were actually interested in sustained public discourse and action in the pursuit of truly public goods and public goals? As Chomsky points out in the video link above, with such public involvement, even things like government bailouts could possibly be made to directly serve public interests rather than private ones.  But, oh, our talk radio demagogues would say, to do that would be even worse than a regular bailout, because, oh god, why, that would be “nationalization” and “socialism!” Thus, there is no other alternate proposal, only armchair opposition, as if it all might just go away. And then what happens? Unfortunately, yet predictably, it is done anyway, and wealthy private interests are the primary beneficiaries.

And therein lies my point. If we truly wish to figure out ways of locating and securing public goods and goals through civil society and a more responsive form of democracy through greater productive participation, then talk radio is not part of the solution but very much part of the problem. And to bring this full circle, back to “Speaking of Faith,” I guess I am also saying that I am very glad to know there are other radio programs out there that might actually provide us with both a better understanding of ourselves as social, political, and spiritual interconnected beings and a much better model for healthy and genuine public discourse that could help us set foot on a better path of mutual respect and cooperation.