The Four Corners of Internet Exchange

I also wanted to riff off of a comment that Irene made earlier regarding the internet, and the comments that people make thereon (See what I did there? Who worries about transitions in blogging except the children of English Professors?). Prepare yourself.

One great personal internet disappointment has been the way in which political dialogue has evolved (or devolved, according to your p.o.v.) on this new platform. The potential always seemed fantastic. If the republic requires a marketplace of ideas and a free exchange of thought, it is difficult to imagine a better medium: Communication is immediate and it spreads to the very ends of the earth itself.

Unfortunately, it takes very little examination to determine that what is most striking about internet political dialogue is anonymity, and what's most prized isn't profundity--it's vitriol.

That said, the internet does do several things exceptionally well. For example, I'm sure Dan Rather will tell you that it provides an instant army of fact checkers who can focus national media attention on an incorrect or misleading story. It's also proved to be a powerful means of raising funds and disseminating information.

But it is my hunch than in the more important arena of political debate, it acts as little more than an echo chamber. It is easy enough to find people who share your views and the arguments that support whatever those views may be. A constant system of support creates small cause for self-reflection, and so smaller cause for questioning. Ironically, instead of broadening an individual's exposure to widely disparate beliefs it has allows for a re-entrenchment of beliefs previously held, and instead of novel attempts to engage with opposing views we have legions of internet users parroting both the arguments and attempted humor of the same political internet sites. Worst of all, all of these factors come together to create a seemingly endless reservoir of indignation and repulsion. To be emotionally engaged in any meaningful sense requires committing oneself to exhaustion.


And I would leave it there, if it weren't for an experience recounted to me by one Ms. A.I. Jenkins. In a confidential communique, she informed me that having encountered the standard dross regarding Hillary Clinton, instead of posting openly in the forum chastising the offending party (somewhat offending, anyway. Didn't you hear? A.I.'s all for Obama.) she emailed him confidentially and a relatively productive discussion ensued. It's the first ever online, I'm told.

So, what to make of it? Perhaps earnestness is all that's ever been required, and online or offline it's just that it's always been in short supply. Perhaps our group mentality is so strong that it doesn't actually require groups in any physically recognizable sense. Maybe group mentality only requires people thousands of miles away who think, like we do, that Hillary is two-faced, Obama is naive, and Edwards is a closet radical. Perhaps I just expected too much.

Anyway, these are the things I think about. Thanks for indulging me.