Is hyperbole good for Democracy?
Rachel Maddow recently appeared on The Daily Show with John Stewart (April 13, 2010). Near the end of their discussion (~19:00), she promoted the increasingly tense and hyperbolic political rhetoric in America as good for the democratic process (as well as TV). Her words carried a hint of facetiousness, but there was an even more underlying seriousness to her point. Now, I firmly believe that the democratic process can only be legitimately resolved through honest and tempered discussion. I go even further: that democracy itself can only be legitimate in the face of tempered, honest and educated discussion. So, is Rachel Maddow correct? Is passionate rhetoric democratically constructive, does it have a place in democracies and what kind of role does it or should it play? If you don't think it has a place, why is this the case, and what kind of national narrative ought to replace it?
|
I believe it is neccesary to adress today's issues apartisanly, void of semantics and hyperbole. Without this approach, it takes a leader whom must use authority to get something done. Naturally, this will be largely disputed by polar politics, which fuel radicalism and dissent. If we approach issues together, and actually check the validity of concern of our oppositions points, we can comprise solutions that are truly built to the majority rules/minority rights fashion. Side: Hyperbole is unnecessary
|
