sanson makes an interesting point. When the inanity of political discourse gets you down imagine the alternative he illuminates:
Perhaps party politics has been infused with hate because it is one of the few discourses left in which hate-speech is still protected. No one should be surprised if, in the face of a future onslaught of third, fourth and fifth party activism, the Republicans and Democrats unite in a bi-partisan effort to pass legislation that protects their representatives and members from “hate speech.” Criticism of government will no longer be unpatriotic, it will be a hate crime. Think it can’t happen? In a recent First Amendment Center poll, “just 30 percent of those surveyed agreed” that “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.” Two years ago, 49% agreed. In line with the central ideological operation of the national security state, rights are not taken away, they’re trampled upon and given up.
The LA Times is running a piece about the internet and how politicians are using it to “deliver harsh attacks. It’s cheap, effective and bypasses the scrutiny of TV ads..”
“You do an ad, you put it on your website and you don’t have to pay for TV time,” said Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University. “If it’s outrageous enough, it gets picked up [by news media], and you get to have your cake and eat it too.”
I think as more people turn to the internet for their news the medium can potentially bring the party machines down. They may be enjoying the creative license it affords them now but how will they feel when a majority realise the depth of their corruption? Until now, they’ve been sheltered by airwaves protected by their corporate sponsors, presenting only the images they approve.
How long will they tolerate the whole truth before they reign it in?