I don't know how one would measure "loss of substance" except subjectively. From my personal subjective standpoint, I think "substance" has actually increased in the last few years as the various sources of internet-driven information and opinion have increased to provide us with many more different viewpoints than those we had available before.
Granted, much of what you see is trash. An acute reader, however, learns to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Perhaps some undefined amount of the political divisions in the country can be attributed to the vigorous discussions we see now that we had not seen before, but I doubt it.
I think the divisions are simply a measure of the times and the circumstances, namely, the very eventful Bush Administration having to deal with [and promote] 9/11, Afghanistan, budgetary difficulties, energy, Iraq, Iran, etc. In retrospect, I think history will judge that W had more on his political plate than any President since the end of WW II. This reality will definitely drive and has driven political divisions as they are so varied and, yes, divisive.
So, in my view, it's events driving the divisiveness, not the fact that pundits have adopted a shriller tone than before or that they attack each other more vigorously. Moreover, the divisions seem a lot more important in the present than they do in the past--that's their nature. |
