Political discourse for this election seems over-the-top extreme. How we can account for this? It may be due to the intensity and consequences of the issues themselves and the dismay and anger of the population as a whole. Also, the rise of the radical right helps make hyperbole and exaggeration the norm: with 17 initial candidates, the Republicans have had to find ways to shout over all their own noise.

            But another phenomena may account for most of the acrimony of the whole campaign itself-- that is, much of it is being conducted through the Internet and on twitter. Discourse on such media has become dependent on hyperbole, with essays, comments, and twitter remarks often taking the form of inflammatory headlines and droll sound bites, as if anything one says in this new media environment must sound like the front page of a tabloid newspaper, with slanderous exposes or snide mockery grabbing our attention.

            Individual candidates get defined by taglines such as those that Donald Trump himself assigns to people: Lyin’ Ted, Low-energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary. Such epithets somehow stick even though they exemplify schoolboy bullying tactics. It's as if once a name or phrase gets enunciated, it becomes a persistent short hand for referring to the candidate, whether it fits or not.

            The source of this extremism perhaps lies in the “either / or” framing of questions and issues that predominate the Internet. Such black-and-white options take us off the hook of critical thinking and result in us feeling that we've made some cogent opinion about whatever issue we’re being asked to comment about. And the extensive polling, official and casual, makes us feel even more privileged to offer opinions that may do nothing more than ratify comments and positions we see endlessly on the Internet.

            The exaggerated extremes have become the norm. For the Democrats, Hillary is an establishment tool or an experienced and tested policy expert. Sanders is a naïve dreamer or a radical visionary. She is seen as untrustworthy and vile in comparison to his ideological purity and virtuousness, or he is an impractical incompetent compared to her skill at getting things done. All of of this mindless short hand now qualifies as thinking.

There are thoughtful and extensive analyses of the political situation on the Internet. I forwarded one last week in which Tom Hayden, former member of SDS and a once hated radical, wound through his reasonings about the benefits of Bernie versus Hillary, finally winding up supporting her. I thought it was important to follow his reasoning as well as acknowledge that a former radical could finally settle on someone like Hillary.

Strangely enough that forward provoked quite nasty responses. One of my dear friends attributed Hayden's shift to moderate liberalism to getting old and having a heart attack. But the worst response was from a distant female friend who was vicious not about Hayden, but about Hillary and about me for even sending it:

Bob, Thanks for your due diligence, of sorts--perhaps more 'keep things the way they are with modest changes'--but I'm a Bernie supporter and will remain so.  Hillary lies.   Hillary takes money from Wall Street and Big Pharma.  And MONSANTO!   And lies and lies and lies.   I have personal experience with her lies when she ran against Obama, who I am quite unhappy with though he's finally getting his cojones (pardon my vulagarity) when it's likely too late, as well as now. 

I'm ashamed H's a female.   If she were to be the Democratic candidate I might not be able to vote, or I might just vote for an Independent.   She is slick, lies, and takes money and wants to keep Wall Street and Big Bidness as is, with a tweak here and there.   The only Progressive changes she's made (rather, says she's made) have come as a result of Bernie gaining favor with so many of us.

I'm rather amazed that you are at least seemingly supporting her.

Again, no response to the detailed claims and arguments of Tom Hayden, just rehearsal of nasty claims and that final parting shot at me.

What I am hoping by setting up the blog is that we could discuss the pros and cons of Clinton and Sanders with some insight and care and keep our eyes on the Republicans too.  I am willing to try it.

HOWEVER, some of us oldsters can’t seem to work the blog, which requires you sign in with a Google account or a facebook account in order to make a comment. I won’t post things for you after the first go round. The addresses of my “Liberal” list serve now appear in the address box so you can ‘Reply to All,” but the blog is better since clearer about who is commenting on what to whom.

  

The ADDRESS is      http://debating2016election.blogspot.com/

Bob