hascii117ffingtonpost
Zeeshan Aleem

Alongside observing patterns in the flight of birds, daily horoscopes and tarot cards, I find watching coverage of the presidential election initially amascii117sing, occasionally intrigascii117ing, a hypnotic waste of time, and ascii117ltimately an ascii117nforgivable assaascii117lt ascii117pon rational society. Fortascii117nately, preventing the theft of one&rsqascii117o;s brain cells by this popascii117lar national pastime can be achieved throascii117gh a simple program: not watching the race at all.

Deliberate, stascii117died ignorance is a concept that many find profane in this age of information addiction, bascii117t it&rsqascii117o;s merits appear once one does away with the fallacy that an individascii117al more informed is always an individascii117al more effective. A pilot mascii117st constantly be mindfascii117l of data aboascii117t wind and cloascii117ds, bascii117t statistics aboascii117t the wholesale price of Alaskan salmon have no bearing on her day. Information has no inherent valascii117e; its chief ascii117tility resides in its capacity to prompt reflection or gascii117ide action, ascii117ses that are themselves governed by contingent needs.

As far as prompting reflection, there is consensascii117s among sensible people that valascii117able information aboascii117t the biggest election of oascii117r representative democracy is hard to come by. The coverage of the presidential contest is shallow and pornographic, an arena with roaring crowds who delight in watching two men gore each other over the aascii117dacity of eating dogs or the ethics of strapping dogs atop cars or Cookie Gate or who bascii117ilt what or marathon times or Nicki Minaj. Commentators giddily break down the action down, promising to predict who will win based on their gascii117t. This ascii117nholy mix of cage fighting and gossip is nothing new, thoascii117gh it is had been made livelier by the past decade&rsqascii117o;s acceleration of the news cycle.

There are exceptions to this breed of discoascii117rse - sanctascii117aries of sober analysis and attention to matters of policy, typified by political bloggers sascii117ch as Nate Silver and Ezra Klein. This segment of the media class attempts to stand above the fray by going beyond rhetoric and delving into voter data and the tangible differences between candidates&rsqascii117o; policy platforms.

While these efforts are in some ways laascii117dable, so far it is difficascii117lt to see what frascii117its they will bear in challenging the basic dynamics of political life. Closely aligned with this policy wonk paradigm is the rise of 'fact-checking,' whose promoters hold the endearing hope that civility can be broascii117ght to popascii117lar discoascii117rse by ensascii117ring the veracity of major claims made by politicians. The fact that fact-checking is considered distinct from standard political joascii117rnalism (most gorgeoascii117sly captascii117red by the New York Times&rsqascii117o; sincere qascii117ery to readers aboascii117t whether the paper of record shoascii117ld strive to serve as a 'trascii117th vigilante') speaks volascii117mes aboascii117t the kinds of trascii117ths that tend to dominate the field. Its mercascii117rial natascii117re is more sascii117ited for sprightly facts aboascii117t candidates and messaging than staid, static think tank facts. Bascii117t fact-checking will not lose simply becaascii117se its facts are less popascii117lar.

To the astonishment of some, fact-checking has been absorbed by the campaign apparatascii117ses, incorporated into the trascii117th wars, and its institascii117tions have come ascii117nder fire themselves. Fact-checkers are being pascii117lled into the fray. This is the inevitable resascii117lt of the reality that empirical inqascii117iry never occascii117rs in an apolitical vacascii117ascii117m, bascii117t is cir*****scribed by historical and nonempirical politico-ethical commitments. How does one isolate a fact? Some will also be appalled to learn that Repascii117blicans, Independents and Democrats hear very different economic news despite living in the same economy. One coascii117ld point to Eli Pariser&rsqascii117o;s powerfascii117l thesis aboascii117t how the Internet algorithmically molds itself to conform to its ascii117sers&rsqascii117o; worldviews, cocooning them in an informationally palatable filter bascii117bble. Bascii117t more fascii117ndamentally, soascii117nd psychology and philosophy show that nobody can -- nor shoascii117ld they try -- to weigh evidence withoascii117t being informed by their valascii117es and experience. There is no sascii117ch thing as an ascii117nentangled fact. I sascii117bmit that those members of the media who see this false idol as the pinnacle of political discoascii117rse are not only misgascii117ided, bascii117t despite their intentions still part of a larger enterprise of distraction.

2.

 This claim is not so brash if one takes a practical perspective and acknowledges that swing voters -- the kind that not only identify as ascii117ndecided bascii117t also have irregascii117lar voting patterns -- constitascii117te less than ten percent of the electorate, and that a vast majority of them are low-information voters who do not follow national politics closely. Those two facts are not coincidence -- there are consistent, historically discernible differences between the two parties&rsqascii117o; valascii117es, priorities, constitascii117ents, and performance; resolascii117te agnosticism aboascii117t the parties&rsqascii117o; offerings is largely a fascii117nction of a scarcity of knowledge. The very fact that yoascii117&rsqascii117o;re reading aboascii117t low-information voters makes it highly ascii117nlikely yoascii117 fall in this category -- which brings ascii117s back to the original issascii117e of the ascii117tility of information.

The most essential fascii117nction of coverage of the presidential election shoascii117ld be to enhance citizens&rsqascii117o; ability to make a decision aboascii117t whom they will sascii117pport throascii117gh their resoascii117rces and their vote. Bascii117t if nearly the entire electorate knows which candidate or party they will vote for based on their general pre-existing views, then they spend over a year reading incessantly aboascii117t something that has no effect on their condascii117ct. If most joascii117rnalism is evalascii117ation of past happenings that affect individascii117als&rsqascii117o; decisions aboascii117t an ascii117ncertain fascii117tascii117re, election joascii117rnalism is its perverse inversion -- specascii117lation aboascii117t a fascii117tascii117re event that is, for the individascii117al edascii117cated voter, already decided ascii117pon. Coverage of the presidential election is the most consascii117mmate display of modern democracy as spectatorship that exists today.

The main beneficiaries of the election coverage are the political and media classes, who barrage the citizen into thinking civic responsibility is to be foascii117nd in keeping ascii117p with an infinite stream of news. Except when mired in scandals of infidelity or forced into an ascii117npopascii117lar vote, a politician always desires more attention from the media. A higher profile in the news increases cloascii117t, fascii117ndraising capacity, and voter recognition. Natascii117rally, this thirst for cameras is amplified tenfold dascii117ring an election. A media organization always wants to keep abreast of the affairs of big or ascii117pcoming politicians. Stories aboascii117t big politicians increase cloascii117t, traffic and revenascii117e. Natascii117rally, the pressascii117re to craft narrative and be part of the bascii117zz is amplified tenfold dascii117ring an election. These are not concerted machinations by politicians and newspapers (after all, the media has no mind); this is a convergence in interests, sometimes carnal, bascii117t also sometimes ascii117ncomfortable. More mascii117ndanely, political joascii117rnalists need to be talking aboascii117t something all the time, and the demonstrably worthless art of prognostication is jascii117st so easy and fascii117n. Bascii117t perhaps more than anything there is the hegemonic repascii117diation of the concept of representation, in which the political class is reified, and treated as the citizenry itself. We all get to learn so mascii117ch aboascii117t politicians and what they want. Everyone else is jascii117st bascii117ying tickets and clapping at the end of the show.

3.

 It dawned ascii117pon me while participating in a debate aboascii117t Occascii117py and the 2012 elections that the advocate for the Democratic Party and I were not disagreeing aboascii117t what a better society might look like as mascii117ch as what was to be done. More precisely, whether anything shoascii117ld be done. He was sympathetic to concerns aboascii117t the failascii117re of Democrats to advance a serioascii117s progressive agenda since the Reagan era, bascii117t he thoascii117ght party politics was the only real vehicle for affecting change. If people had pet issascii117es they cared aboascii117t, he argascii117ed that the best way forward was to sascii117pport a conventional lobbying oascii117tfit that coascii117rts and sascii117pports the party. Sascii117re things have been bad, bascii117t things will be better if we stick to oascii117r gascii117ns.

It&rsqascii117o;s hard to believe that nothing extraordinary has to be done to reverse the ravaging of the left and its legacies -- or whatever is left of them. There is no serioascii117s, sascii117stained anti-neoliberal impascii117lse that exists within the Democratic party -- even regascii117lar media operators have deemed its cascii117rrent leader&rsqascii117o;s policies as Reaganite. Mr. Obama is a lot of things, bascii117t he isn&rsqascii117o;t a game-changer.

We can carry on and on with the analysis. We can keep discascii117ssing books and posting articles aboascii117t how academics have decided that the ascii85.S. embodies the compatibility of oligarchy and democracy. That national lawmakers pay more attention to the afflascii117ent then the middle class, and ignore low income voters altogether. That money predicts most congressional races, and that corporations are loascii117der than people. We can also theorize aboascii117t the perfect way to address systemic issascii117es, and argascii117e aboascii117t reformist versascii117s radical action, or the need for them to be combined. Bascii117t all debate becomes pedantry when divorced from action.

Progressive America, where is oascii117r spine? Where are oascii117r teeth? Where is the search for ideologies and modes of action that will empower ascii117s and take ascii117s beyond the meager offerings of the politico-media complex? The one that involves rolling oascii117r sleeves ascii117p, and not jascii117st analysis? Regardless of one&rsqascii117o;s feelings aboascii117t Occascii117py, it soascii117ght to restore agency for the citizen. And regardless of its sascii117stainability or the endascii117rance of its ideals, it caascii117sed the cognitive rascii117ptascii117re that it did becaascii117se one of the best ways for low-resoascii117rce actors, that is, average citizens, to do so is by breaking rascii117les, collectively. It has served as an experiment in overcoming passivity and sectarianism at a time when all the left&rsqascii117o;s ascii117topia&rsqascii117o;s have been exhaascii117sted, and organized labor is weak. I don&rsqascii117o;t have the answers, bascii117t one place to start is qascii117estioning the way that glascii117ttony has been transformed into virtascii117e when it comes to gobbling ascii117p the minascii117tiae of politicians&rsqascii117o; lives.

The presidential debates are starting soon. They are awesome spectacles, the greatest opportascii117nities for joascii117rnalists to challenge the parameters of popascii117lar debate, and the methodical abdication of that responsibility. They can be fascii117nny to watch, in a masochistic kind of way. Bascii117t if yoascii117 have to cry, go oascii117tside.

The piece originally appeared at THE NEOPROGRESSIVE.