There are few people these days that are not on Facebook. It’s a great way to share photos, interests, and everyday events with friends and family. Ever since the 2008 presidential election, I have also used Facebook as my main tool for sharing my political motivations by changing my status to reflect where I stand on an issue and by sharing links to blogs and articles that I think are particularly eye-opening. Lately, however, I am doubting this is an effective means of persuasion. Sometimes my postings illicit general agreement, other times bitter resentment towards my obvious stupidity on a subject, but most often nothing. I’m more likely to get a rousing response if I share my failed attempts at making no-bake cookies. . . On a site where sharing trivial and mundane information is the norm, it is fruitless to try to influence others on topics that have more serious implications. I realized that my convictions were being misunderstood and perhaps even mocked when I was talking to a friend who, not interested in hearing my observation on a political matter, interrupted to tell me to “just go write about it on Facebook.”
While cyberspace has made it easier to share information with everyone near and far, the culture that has erupted from this continues to take its toll on the quality of the information being shared. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have become the battlefield for who can win the most attention, and the winners almost always have little educational or uplifting values to their merit.
When political or philosophical content does get shared online, the conversation that follows also reflects the same trends. Those who like it root for their beloved politician with a “Go So-and-so!” while those who disagree call you a hatemonger. The conversations on political forums are full of heated emotion but lacking in open-minded and persuasive dialogue.
It is clear to me that sharing our beliefs and values through solely the internet will never be able to have the influence that our voices were meant to have in a republic. The Founding Fathers never could have imagined the technology that is available to us today, but it doesn’t mean that their ideas are outdated or old-fashioned. If anything, their concept of representation through a republic is exactly the medicine that can counteract this virus that has diseased our culture.
I’m old enough now to see how our technological culture is affecting our youth today. When I graduated from high school almost ten years ago, cell phones were only affordable to wealthy businessmen. Today, few teenagers are without a cell phone or an ipod, and many have access to the web from both of those devices. But these devices mean we’re spending less time reading, less time thinking, less time talking to one another, and less time serving and learning about our community. Access to entertaining but anemic information has made much more meaningful endeavors seem boring or old-fashioned. If you, like me, believe that there is a cultural attack on family, moral virtue, and the Constitution, do we want to send our children out into battle without properly preparing them with the armor that will protect those virtues?
My conclusion is that the only way to combat the effects of technology on our culture is three-fold:
1) Spend more time reading and educating ourselves on the principles of the Constitution. The 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen is an excellent place to begin.
2) Make conversations about politics more personal. The best place to start is in our own families. Find ways to make the conversation interesting to our children. For example, seniors in high school may find politics more interesting if they understand how laws passed by Congress are affecting the price of their future tuition. You can use similar ways to share your ideas with your friends. A goal of Liberty Discussions is to do just that: make the conversation more personal as we teach and learn from one another.
3) Find more persuasive methods to use the internet to share your educated opinions. My husband and I designed Liberty Discussions to not only promote person-to-person conversation and problem solving but also to be a place to report and gather the lessons we are learning and the actions we are taking. I know that you have unique and creative ways to address the concerns that many Americans share. That’s why you were invited to the site by either us or your friends! By reporting back through your group blogs, we here in Cincinnati can learn what topics people in Idaho learned about, the solutions they devised, and how they took action through their representative republic. By so doing, we can be models of the kind of persuasive and thorough communication that is possible and can inspire others by our efforts, even online!


Well written. I wonder how long it will take for this community to slide into small minded epithets.
I gave been involved in a few groups before and they seemed slide to filth then dissolution.
I hope this one hangs.
Don
March 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Thoughtful observations and helpful conclusions. Recently finished reading the 5000-year leap and found it very invigorating; now considering what to read next and what to do first; timely suggestions.
March 30, 2010 at 8:33 am
It is interesting to me that in our society of appeasement, we cease to have discussion. We ignore that the forces of nature rely on friction and resistance to create polish and refinement. It is telling that so frequently discussions devolve into name calling and dismissiveness based on snippets. I find that the Corner on National Review gives me constant and deep analysis from folks who seem to be intellectually honest.
But to the point of your post- I think that we can learn from the teaching and discussion method of Jesus Christ in using allegory and parable so as to introduce the principles necessary to allow for deeper understanding. In such a vein, I find the books known as Ender’s series (starting with Ender’s Game) and the parallel books starting at Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card to be useful. While the principle story is compelling, the back story in the first book gradually becomes the dominant story over the series (5 books) and addresses the politics (especially in the other books) of societal confrontation of deliberate sacrifice and commitment to a whole.
I’ll say this in the future as well, but my name is hidden, not because I am unwilling to be known for what I say, but because my current employment requires this anonymity in that I represent a cause independent of (and to a certain extent, greater than) myself.
That said, I think one of the flaws of anonymity is that too often speakers/writers do not strive for integrity. Though the Federalist papers are an example of anonymity for good. Perhaps the anonymity allows for clearer analysis of the ideas independent of the speaker?
March 30, 2010 at 8:55 am
@wasabear I’m also interested in using allegories to teach principles. I haven’t read the Orson Scott Card series yet but you’ve got me curious. I would really like to eventually write a book in the style of Ayn Rand (but with a different message).
Regarding the Federalist Papers – they were anonymous, but I love how they lay out the arguments clearly and logically. I wish politicians today would use this kind of reasoning with the public. It bothers me when everything has to be dumbed down.
March 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm
If any of you have seen the Bret Baier interview with President Obama, I think it speaks volumes about the culture of the “sound bite” that has evolved.
It all starts with us.
In one of David’s pieces he talks about the evolution of the media,. (Or should I say the devolution of the media?) Now many would say that this evolution is good, the old way was “outdated”, “didnt serve the needs of the people any more”, or “was never meant to function in today’s world”.
After reading that piece and then re-watching the interview I realized what the president was feeling during those exchanges was the frustration of trying to get in his sound bites that this “evolved” media has conditioned us to expect, while the interviewer was trying to go deeper wih it to discover if there was any substance to the statements… just what David was yearning for in his above post.
One of the key flaws to Progressivism is the premise that progress is always good. Look at where progress in the media has gotten us. Does it serve the needs of the people? Of course it does. The people need to be entertained and have their decisions made for them! When we as a people demand that the media serve our desire to be educated and to disseminate knowledge, it will. (Why else would Glenn Becks show be so wildly popular?)
This is why I said it starts with us.
If we are to look at this honestly then I cannot use phrases like “the media has conditioned us” and “look where this progress has gotten us”. The truth is that WE have conditioned the media to provide sound bites, WE have asked our politicians not to go into too much detail.. (it would hurt our heads, and besides thats what we hired them for right) … so we dont have to spend all that time THINKING about things?
Just like the media we have lost, our liberties are ours to lose. Any that we miss have not been “taken” as many people say in frustration, rather they have been given away by our lack of vigilance. Now, they are ours to regain.
I just want to share some excerpts from “John Adams” which I think is a must read.
“The true source of our suffering has been our timidity. We have been afraid to think… Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write… Let it be known that British liberties are not the grants of princes or parliaments… that many of our rights are inherent and essential, agreed on as maxims and established as preliminaries, even before Parliament existed…Let us read and recollect and impress upon our souls the views and ends of our more immediate forefathers, in exchanging their native country for a dreary, inhospitable wilderness… Recollect their amazing fortitude, their bitter sufferings – the hunger, the nakedness, the cold, which they patiently endured – the severe labors of clearing their grounds, building their houses, raising their provisions, amidst dangers from wild beasts and savage men, before they had time or money or materials for commerce. Recollect the civil and religious principles and hopes and expectations which constantly supported and carried them through all hardships with patience and resignation. Let us recollect it was liberty, the hope of liberty, for themselves and us and ours, which conquered all discouragements, dangers, and trials.”
Reed, if you’re looking for a great read I think this will do it for you. I was moved to tears as I read journal entries that saw our day and wreslted with the challenge of building on principles that could weather such storms as we face. It is not a quick entertaining book, but the gravity of the lives John Adams and his contemporaries lived makes it one that cannot be ignored.
April 1, 2010 at 1:08 am
P.S. Sorry that was so long! Got carried away!
April 1, 2010 at 1:09 am
@jerretj Excellent thoughts. True – we can’t really lay all the blame on media or politicians, because they only give us what we want.
Here’s a link to the Bret Baier interview for those who haven’t seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUppezgLkY8
April 1, 2010 at 10:44 am
@jerretj Thanks for your insights! You’re thinking along the same lines that David and I have been. While the cultural trend has been heading down a road of ADHD, so to speak, and wanting the slogans and sound-bytes rather than detailed reasoning, we are responsible for our own education on these matters. I believe in capitalism, and if we as a society set a higher standard for ourselves, the media as it exists today would not be in business. I’m hoping that we can take advantage of the growing awareness that is taking place to encourage the kind of education that needs to take place at an individual level, not relying on the media.
April 1, 2010 at 6:21 pm