I was thinking about…

The Impact of Outrage in Modern Society

by Andy Lee

I recently came across this poignant excerpt from Bill Clinton’s novel The President Is Missing that really struck a chord:

“Participation in our democracy seems to be driven by the instant-gratification worlds of Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and the twenty-four-hour news cycle. We’re using modern technology to revert to primitive kinds of human relations. The media knows what sells—conflict and division…”

Man, doesn’t that cut right to the core of so much societal angst and division permeating our current climate? The 42nd president argues we’ve regressed into favoring snark over substance, relishing emotional finger-pointing more than reasonable discourse searching for answers.

As Clinton observes, “It’s also quick and easy. All too often anger works better than answers; resentment better than reason; emotion trumps evidence.” You can’t argue with that frank assessment of our public square’s degeneration into bad-faith score-settling contests.

We’ve all witnessed the phenomenon he articulates so vividly – “A sanctimonious, sneering one-liner, no matter how bogus, is seen as straight talk, while a calm, well-argued response is seen as canned and phony.” Those blustering driveby insults and belligerent takes always whip up more engagement flames than nuanced rebuttals putt-putting toward truth.

It reminds me of just how prophetic H.L. Mencken’s cynical observation became: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” We see this tragic tendency playing out constantly across our socio-political discourse – any harebrained simplification or edgy one-liner trounces thoughtful but complicated resolutions every single time.

Because as Clinton astutely quips, summarizing our era’s depressing modus operandi with a classic old saw: “It reminds me of the old political joke: Why do you take such an instant dislike to people? It saves a lot of time.” Yup, we default to gut-level rejections and snap judgments because giving others or new information the benefit of the doubt requires slowing down. Something our frantic pace penalizes at every turn.

After reading those words, I had to sit back and reflect on the profundity radiating from an elder statesman’s sober assessment. Because while Clinton assuredly takes partial responsibility for stoking divisive flames historically, he can’t be accused of mincing words about our species’ primal backsliding into knee-jerk incivility and bad-faith flareups.

The questions linger: Why do we embrace social technologies theoretically designed to expand knowledge and cross-pollinate ideas only to filter out whatever clashes with our preconceptions? When did our democratic institutions become ringside battle royales for those who can craft the sickest one-liner putdowns? At what point did the ability to disagree respectfully get overwritten with an assumption that taking offense should be our default reflex?

I don’t claim any grand solutions exist for recalibrating those disturbing trajectories. But maybe just pausing to absorb perspectives like Clinton’s through judicious self-reflection provides the first baby steppingstone for reclaiming depths of thought over insta-reactionary hostilities.

Because regardless where you net out ideologically or whether you consider the messenger credible, basic pattern recognition suggests we’re devolving publicly at an unsustainable rate when reasoned responses get dismissed as “phony” by default. And while our social technology rapidly evolves, Clinton argues we’re “revert[ing] to primitive kinds of human relations” – a worrying backslide.

So as you scroll and post in digital spaces, maybe contemplate those critiques more deeply. Because regardless of political stripes, reasoned arguments and nuanced dialogue can’t miraculously resuscitate if we’ve decided those very qualities themselves deserve contempt before absorbing them judiciously. PUT THE CIVIL BACK INTO CIVIL DISCOURSE!

Stay reflective, keep questioning norms! 🕵️