Being an ass for the republic
Snark and political conduct
There are several justifications for the republican form of government, in which citizens elect representatives who then legislate for the nation. One perennial argument, for example, is the expertise and time ruling demands. Another is the net efficiency of a more limited voting process. An enduring basis for republicanism, however, has been the quality of deliberation it supports.
This position actually originated as an anti-democratic argument.
The people, it was said, could not be trusted to rule. Only the artistocratic class had the knowledge, the wisdom, and the patience for true deliberation on the affairs of the state and the public good. Left to its own devices, the democratic mob would destroy itself.
Over the last two centuries, contempt for democracy has given way to broader rights and powers accorded to citizens. Yet many of the basic arguments used to justify republicanism against democracy are still deployed to support the republican structure of representative democracies. Chief among these is the idea that a limited number of elected officials will engage in a better deliberative process.
Yet as Politico reports, snark has become a way of life in Washington. Does its rise as a mode of political argument portend a decline in politics? Daniel Libit explains the trend:
Snark sells – and Washington is trading in it heavily these days.
While witty (or not so witty) banter has always had its place inside the Beltway, the media’s lust for the pithy and the pissy has made snarkiness a well-rewarded communication strategy.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) says that snappy comebacks are “effective at breaking through the clutter.”
So now, it’s the snarkiest wheel that gets the grease. “Most politicians are not known for edgy comments, and society has become much more vanilla with the 24-hour news cycle,” says McHenry. “You have to be punchy, tight and different. And that is why this strategy can be effective.”
There’s never been any doubt that the structure of government is intimately tied to its underlying philosophical rationale. Tyranny, for example, is incompatible with a belief that the power to govern derives from citizens. Or, similarly, any government with free and fair voting upholds some basic belief that citizens have limited rights.
Less attention is focused on the internal structure and conduct of government–how those who govern communicate or speak. Yet speech acts are most of what happens in governing. They are both unofficial (statements, floor statements in Congress, etc.) and official (laws, executive orders, and court decisions).
Official speech acts are generally regulated by rules and procedures. Unofficial speech acts are sometimes limited by procedure. There are, for example, rules governing debate in Congress.
Snark manages to sneak inside the rules, but raises real questions about the quality of deliberation possible. If, as McHenry suggests, the only way to have a political impact through one’s unofficial speech acts is to humiliate opponents via crass mockery, then our political system is replacing debate with a war of words. The two often come close. But there is a distinction, however small.
–Sam
Related posts:
- Adding to the noise
- The republic is a cake
- Senator Archibald Winchester is a fool! (message brought to you by Nike, Goldman Sachs, and the Teamsters)
- Guest post: Majority rules?
- Are guns covered in the public option?
ShareComments
One Response to “Being an ass for the republic”
Leave a Reply
[...] writing about political conduct earlier this week, I can’t help but think about the implications of the Mark Sanford Saga. [...]