The Town Square

· Logos/Ethos
Author

   July, 2010

 

         We call it the marketplace of ideas. It’s a metaphorical public square where  democratic citizens stroll about exchanging and exploring competing ideas which affect the common good. Socrates of Athens and Publius of the Federalist Papers once drew thoughtful crowds here.

            I like to think the marketplace actually exists. Even if not in the form of a leafy common space, it’s real. It’s more than just another example of our need to mythologize our social history. But I’m losing my ability to imagine it as an ideal.

            The town square of my imagination has been cordoned off so that liberal-minded folks can only speak among themselves and do so in as benign and tolerant manner as possible, choosing their words ever so carefully so as not to offend each other. The same is true on the other side of the common. Conservatives wander about angrily reinforcing each others’ rage and virtue by carrying flags and automatic weapons, and calling themselves “the best and the brightest”.  Both sides are targeted by the constantly circling buses – one “(fill-in-the-blank) Express” after another, each with its own rock-concert sound system blaring, screeching inflammatory phrases of no more than four words: “the party of no!”, “trampling on our constitution!”, Obamacare, socialism, fascism, blah, blah, blah. It is a nightmare scenario.

            The Founders knew this was a possibility. Democracy is not easy. As Benjamin Barber points out, “democracy is not a natural form of association; it’s a contrivance.” The Founders knew that to be successful, citizens had to bring certain democratic skills and dispositions into the marketplace. They may be somewhat lacking today. They can be divided into two complementary areas, the intellectual and the moral. In short, for a democracy to work, citizens must be both smart and good.

            We can begin to be good citizens by realizing that much of big media has no real interest in preserving democracy. Their mission is to make money and they do it best by exploiting the American obsession for amusement and entertainment. In that self-serving respect, they are enemies of democracy in that they thrive when we stop thinking. Keith Olberman and Rush Limbaugh are entertainers and little more. Sarah Palin is not a statesman in any sense of the word. What she possesses is the same physical attractiveness, underdog spunk, and wide-eyed sense of wonder at the possibilities before her that Hollywood has been exporting since Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney first realized that “Hey, we can put on our own show!”. The purveyors of commodities like Sara Palin and John Edwards are cynics. They have no respect for our ability to discriminate and we need to be smart enough to know this and reject them for what they are.

            Free citizens need to know how to think well critically. We need to distinguish the differences among truth, opinion, facts, and belief. We need to be deliberate and fair-minded and less emotional. We need to know history and understand it with enough nuance to recognize it if self-proclaimed pundits revise it to enhance their cause. We need to be able to sustain thoughts, speak and write with clarity, and be able to persuade each other with evidence and rational arguments, not simply through slogans and stereotypes.

            Democratic citizenship also requires moral character. For democracy to thrive, citizens must possess certain traits such as ethical conduct, accountability, self-control, self-reliance, compassion and tolerance, justice, courage, and courtesy. None of these come naturally to human beings. They must be learned by habitual practice in responsible families and great schools and by emulating good people. There are plenty of virtuous people among us and we ought to spend more time and effort emulating them than we do following the lives of people who scandalize themselves or do nothing more than amuse us. The town square should be more than a freak show.

            CapeLyceum is a monthly lecture series whose mission is to encourage civil discourse on ideas that matter to democratic citizens. We are reserving our June 14th meeting (7:00) to explore a claim that gets constant, sometimes screeching attention today, but practically no reasoned, civil, knowledgeable inquiry – the Constitution. By my count, actions on TARP, GM, healthcare, and Wall St. reform have all been called unconstitutional. In fact, to require that a Supreme Court nominee possess empathy has been called unconstitutional. If it is your position that particular public policies or proposed legislation or even personal dispositions are unconstitutional, then we invite you to bring your argument to the Cultural Center of Cape Cod. Further, we also want to form a panel of commentators – qualified, experienced people whose knowledge of the Constitution is substantial (real rather than imaginary). Not necessarily professional, but clearly literate. Let’s speak with each other. Let’s see if we can understand the Constitution better than we do now. For those interested in participating, contact tom@newenlightenmentinstitute.com. I will report the response to our invitation via a  letter to the editor. If there is little or no interest, we can all go back to our homes, turn on cable, and grumble.