Is this the stupidest moment in US history? Probably not, but it might be most dangerous
Let the record show that Cornell Clayton paused.
In fairness, he was being set up.
Clayton is a professor and the director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service at Washington State University. He studies subjects like politics, polarization, civility and our discourse.
In other words, Clayton is a smart man, who knows smart things about a number of important subjects.
By comparison, my question was elementary, perhaps even unfair.
Undeterred, I pressed on.
“Are we living through the stupidest possible moment in American history?” I genuinely wanted to know.
Before we get to Clayton’s response, a brief defense of the inquiry.
I mean, it sure doesn’t feel like a dumb question, given our current state of affairs.
Morally and politically, we’re fighting about wearing a mask while public health officials plead with us and the coronavirus cases spike. As countries around the world manage to make progress in the fight against COVID-19, we seem content to approach the pandemic like MTV Spring Break.
Our thought leaders have taken the form of YouTube stars and Instagram influencers, while our incoherent reality TV president fires off late-night tweets from the wreckage.
Every day our political institutions crumble, and as long as we can cling to the idea that we’re beating the other side, we don’t much seem to care. Any day now I suspect a pancake shaped like Paula Deen is going to win a gerrymandered congressional race.
We distrust scientists, academics, journalists, experts and “elites,” while our hardened views are shaped by things our anti-vaxxer uncles posted on Facebook.
As a society, we’re like a Hot Pocket — consistently disappointing and full of questionable ingredients.
So, professor, have we reached the absolute nadir of American intellectualism?
Because if we haven’t, well …
What are we supposed to do with that?
Stupidity isn’t new
Admittedly, all of this was a lot to lay on Clayton’s plate.
After an understandable moment to consider his response, the expert from WSU attempted to diplomatically oblige.
Mostly, as learned people tend to do, Clayton sought to inject some perspective.
No, we’re probably not dumber than ever, he assured.
People have been stupid for a very long time.
Re-framing my question, Clayton began by massaging my general frustration into something more workable.
Perhaps, he suggested, it might not be “whether we are living through an unusually ‘stupid’ period in history, as much as whether a politics based on the Enlightenment values of science, reason and humanism — upon which this country and other modern democracies are founded — has become more vulnerable in the face of broad social, cultural and economic changes.”
Socially, things like globalization, the technology revolution, and the various cultural revolutions,” Clayton proposed, have given “rise to a ‘tribal’ or identity style of politics on both the left and the right.”
The inability of our two-party system to meet that moment is where much of the problem starts, he said. Currently, our political system “is not functioning very well to address the needs of society,” and that has consequences.
Clayton said the toll ranges from an increased distrust of government to the political empowerment of fringe voices that are out of step with mainstream views.
It also helps to explain the fracturing of both political parties, he said, and dangerously, the Trump presidency.
While Clayton described Trump as uniquely unfit for his position of leadership, he said some of the surrounding circumstances that have contributed to his rise to power are hardly unprecedented.
Today, issues like wealth inequality, job loss, automation, racism and rapid technological advancements have upended society.
In the 1820s, 1860s, 1890s, 1930s and 1960s, Clayton said, economic and cultural shocks also led to periods of “similar anti-rational political movements.”
“In this sense, I see Trump’s movement in similar terms to the silliness or anti-rationalism of the anti-Masonic Party, the Know-Nothings, the original Populists like William Jennings Bryan, the Father Coughlins, John Birchers and other groups and movements during these periods,” Clayton said.
Again striving for context and perspective, Clayton said that — in the past, at least — our political institutions have managed to evolve and redeem themselves in the face of cultural and societal upheaval. Importantly, not every issue has been addressed during these periods of recalibration — see: racism — but rationale and a politics that more closely represent mainstream sensibilities have typically emerged.
Today, a new generation of political leaders, Clayton argued, offers hope that we might reestablish something closer to an equilibrium.
One day, our leaders might again rise to the challenge.
So at least we have that going for us.
New dangers
Mark Smith, a political science professor at the University of Washington, is far more skeptical.
Yes, he notes, rampant stupidity — or as it’s known in academic circles, “anti-intellectualism” — is not a new phenomenon. Historian Richard Hofstadter won a Pulitzer Prize more than 50 years ago writing about the subject, Smith notes, while numerous other academics have returned to the well over the years.
The trouble, Smith said, is that we currently face some new and unique complicating factors.
Extreme political polarization has exacerbated U.S. voters’ historic tendency to cling to party and identity over ideology. At the same time, the rise of the internet and the breakdown of the media as a gatekeeper to information has added fuel to the fire, he said.
Today, Smith notes, anyone can portray themselves as an expert, while people can choose where their information comes from and whom they believe. There are more ridiculous voices than ever, and the platforms are seemingly endless.
Sure, people have always been “fallible” and susceptible to tin-foil conspiracies, Smith said, but media fragmentation and the internet’s ability to amplify misguided beliefs and help people sort into larger groups creates a conundrum.
“If you’re taking your cues from your group, and your group happens to believe something that goes against the scientific consensus, who are you going to trust, your group or these abstract scientists out there?” Smith said.
“There have always been people out there who say the moon landing is fake, or that this particular earthquake is God’s punishment, or, ‘Hey, this snake oil really will cure your cancer,’” he continued. “What the internet has done is made it easier for people to find each other who have those beliefs.”
In Smith’s view, we might not be living through the stupidest possible moment in American history, but it’s certainly one of the most dangerous.
“I’m tempted to say we’re just screwed,” Smith said, providing a bleak assessment of where things go from here.
“When you have these big structural changes all coming together, it’s kind of hard to reorient an entire society. How are you going to put that cat back in the bag?” Smith continued.
“I just don’t see that happening.”
This story was originally published June 27, 2020 at 12:00 AM.
