Amanda Adams of OMB Watch was kind enough to draw my attention to a post by Paul Sherman over at the blog of the Center for Competitive Politics. It appears that Mr. Sherman liked neither the tone nor the substance of my last post on astroturf disclosure legislation. He was appalled by some of the things I said about the fine folks at American Target Advertising, citing my post as an example of how "proponents of disclosure...can be downright nasty to those who disagree with them." The tone of my response to Fitzgibbons and the ATA folks, and the tone of the remainder of this response to Mr. Sherman, has little to do with how I feel about their position, and everything to do with how their tactics.
Fitzgibbons has been actively trying to convince bloggers that the proposed grassroots legislation would require them to register as lobbyists. He has been supporting this effort with an interpretation of the written legislation that is blatantly dishonest. (I noticed, by the way, that Sherman didn't bother addressing any of my substantive comments about Fitzgibbons' dishonesty.) I dislike being lied to, and I particularly dislike having my intelligence insulted - and Fitzgibbons' lies were so clumsy that they were definitely an insult to the intelligence of even a moderately informed reader. Any nastiness in my tone was a response to his casual dishonesty, not to my disagreement with him.
That brings us to Mr. Sherman's position. In his posting, he argues that political discourse in the United States has frequently taken place using anonymous communications - beginning with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the late eighteenth century. Sherman argues:
Proponents of grassroots lobbying disclosure often argue that without knowing the identity of the speakers, it will be impossible to reach fully informed opinions on their arguments. So what happened with the Constitution? Were we simply lucky, or is it possible that voters actually can evaluate an argument on its merits despite the anonymity of its proponents?
The question, obviously, is rhetorical. History shows that voters can accurately weigh arguments, even when they are advanced by anonymous speakers. So why are proponents of disclosure so insistent on the necessity of disclosure?
We were not simply lucky when it came to the Constitution. In that case, unlike the current PR-campaign driven environment, the people who were debating were honest men of (for the most part) good character, engaged in a genuine and open debate of the merits of the competing proposals. They argued in depth and in detail. They attempted to persuade, but did not attempt to deceive. They were aware that their arguments would shape the course of a new nation, and fortunately for us they believed that the future impact of their discussions imposed a responsibility on them to take things very seriously. The debate was conducted on the merits, not on the money. Unfortunately, the astroturf campaigns that we see today share exactly none of those characteristics with the federalists and anti-federalists.
Sherman argues:
The inherent ability of the American people to consider arguments rationally cannot have degraded. Indeed, we are a better educated and better informed people than we have ever been.
That sounds noble and hopeful, and anyone who disagrees runs the risk of being seen as a cynical, pessimistic schmuck, who is down on themselves and on their country, and holds little hope for the future. I'm going to have to run that risk, I suppose, because I simply do not think either is the case, at least on the whole.
Some Americans today are much better educated and better informed than Americans of the past. If you are still reading this, you probably fall into that category, and I hope I do, too. We use the internet. Many of us read quite a bit. We are well informed, and we are both willing and able to further inform ourselves on those issues that we think are important. Unfortunately, not all Americans fall into this group.
There are Americans who, for various reasons, get most of their information from television shows. In some cases, this might be the result of laziness - TV is a quick and easy way to catch the news, and they even have analysts to discuss the news so you don't need to think about what it means. In other cases, it is due to a lack of alternatives - if you don't own a computer, you probably don't use the internet very often. In still other cases, it is due to a lack of time - keeping up on issues of public policy can easily eat up, as my advisor frequently reminds me, more time than one really has to spare. In a few (possibly more than a few) instances, the reliance on mass media is the product of a culture that no longer values the type of old-school debate that characterized things like the development of the Constitution or Abe Lincoln's unsuccessful campaign against Douglas.
Should someone from either the Center for Competitive Politics or from American Target Advertising respond to this post, I suspect that the sentiments in those last two paragraphs will be seized upon as evidence of the overwhelming arrogance and elitism of their opponents, but that, too, is a risk that needs to be taken. That is, at least as I see it, the situation. I don't see things in such a depressing light because I think that I am so fantastic - unfortunately, that is where the evidence leads. For just one example of this, take a look at recent poll results showing how misinformed the majority of the public is about the number of Iraqis who have died since the US invasion, then think about the way that the TV news shows typically cover those deaths. They keep a running tally of American deaths, but just report the latest Iraqi fatalities. (Those polled were much more able to accurately report the number of American deaths.)
The divide between the informed public and the rest of the public is not a situation that we should be content to live with. It is a problem that we should work to solve. We are going to need to do more to bring those who currently rely primarily on the TV news into the type of in-depth discussion that the internet is so good at facilitating. Unfortunately, that is not going to be a quick process, and in the mean time there are still a lot of people who are working hard to misinform the public about various issues.
Astroturf advertising, after all, is not aimed at people who pay a lot of attention to the substance of a debate. It's aimed at people who are worried about the outcome of the debate, but who are not necessarily conversant with all of the nuances being discussed. The ads are aimed primarily at those who will pick up a phone and call a legislator based on the concerns raised by an ad seen on TV. Sadly, this type of advertising works - if it didn't, they wouldn't be spending so much money on it, or fighting so hard to make sure that it remains possible.
- Log in to post comments
I'm new to the whole "astroturf" legislation. I'm trying to read up on what exactly is before congress at this point. I will say that this type of PR campaign exists all across the spectrum, liberal and conservative groups do it, and in general I don't like it because it's dishonest. A prime example of this kind of astroturfing is the group "appeal for redress" that was just profiled on 60 minutes. They make it look like this is something that was started by a few active duty soldiers, when some cursory (and peremptory) research quite easily shows that those soldiers were paid for the use of their names, and the group was started by a liberal lobbying organisation out of Indiana.
This kind of thing just poisons the whole discussion, because when you get down to it, how can you have a real honest and open debate with someone that is not honest? Brings to mind an old Hebrew saying: Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth closed and have everyone think you're stupid, than it is to open your mouth and remove all the doubt.