By Nick Gojcevic ‘26
The quality of political discourse in the United States has been in sharp decline in the last several decades, with the entire political sphere being plagued with mistrust, disrespect, and polarization. The question of how this shift occurred and why society has seemingly welcomed it with open arms is the result of prioritizing spectacle over meaningful discourse. Looking at the state of modern U.S. politics and the level of adversity and misinformation that many have come to expect even from relatively reputable sources, it is hard to imagine a time when political discourse was truly civil, even for those who lived through it. There was, however, a time when politics was a subject to be approached gently and respectfully, and hurling insults at other candidates would’ve been career suicide for a presidential candidate. It isn’t just happenstance or changing cultural attitudes that caused this. To break this shift down we must understand the underlying incentives for the media, politicians, and the American people that allowed politics to devolve into what it is today.
The mainstream media’s shift of focus toward profit and spectacle was caused by a variety of factors, not the least of which was profit margins. The rise of “clickfarms”, quickly and poorly written articles meant to entice users who see them in advertising, was already viewed as troubling when they were being created by pop-culture news outlets, however, many supposedly trustworthy news sources who are meant to be informing the public about political happenings have begun to create articles that resemble the low-effort content of Buzzfeed more than pieces that display proper journalistic integrity. This isn’t helped by the rise of artificial intelligence and AI-generated articles or social media’s tendency to promote articles that crop up first rather than articles that are well-researched and fact-checked. When you see how outlets scramble to get their piece into the public eye as quickly as possible, it is no wonder that Americans from both sides of the spectrum have become less trusting of mainstream news. Fearmongering is equally common since outrage is an emotion that is very easy to spread, making it very tempting to stir up the fears of your readers if you want to put as little effort in as possible. Keep in mind that these are just a handful of the more blatant examples of a problem that ails all facets of political news.
Politicians have the most clear incentive to move the realm of politics in the direction it’s currently going. Politicians live and die by their publicity, and, with American politics being as polarized as they are, it is extremely easy to gain publicity by making deliberately inflammatory statements about the opposite party. A prime example is the extremely petty state of presidential debates, having gone from an important and open discussion of policy to one of the most shamefully indulgent displays of American politics, serving as personality contests where the winner, in the public eye, is whoever most effectively attacked their opponent’s character. More recent presidential debates have been seen as an embarrassment to the nation, but chaotic debates are nothing new. There are many steps that the news outlets and organizations who manage these debates could take to ensure an organized, respectful debate, but these steps come at the cost of retaining viewers’ interest. Moderators and time limits mean almost nothing, as, despite having the ability to cut a candidate’s microphone and move on, rules are rarely meaningfully enforced. In previous debates where admirable qualities such as maturity, civility, and being able to acknowledge your opponent’s merits were a minimum requirement for voters, these rules enforced themselves. These traits have become less and less important for voters, however, with the 2016 election being the tipping point into total mudslinging, and with a monetary incentive to allow this behavior, stirring up outrage and garnering viewers, there is no reason for the rules to serve as anything more than suggestions.
Of course, none of this would be possible if it didn’t all serve to entertain the masses. Whether we like it or not, most of us contribute to this system in some way. Our brains are addicted to content that enrages us, which is where concepts like “hate-watching/hate-reading” arise from. We would rather see an infuriating spectacle than have good and meaningful political discourse, and the political sphere takes advantage of this. For those in this sphere, the best way to get what you want from the populace is to create a spectacle and to reaffirm peoples’ preconceptions. We see this in modern politics, where politicians on one side of the aisle create a spectacle that gains them publicity, causing the news to pick up on it and reaffirm the beliefs of consumers by showing them how awful people on the other side of the political spectrum are, making them money from articles. This is the vicious cycle that modern politics has become, where the public is too addicted to anger and pointless arguing to prioritize the well-being of our government and politics as a whole.
The Salesian Spectator 