Form Your Own Opinions

The state of opinionated writing today is one in which the power of the written word - a power that has been revered and sought after throughout the history of mankind - has been effectively sterilized. What use has America for political commentary as it has come to be understood today? I believe it has none.

In a recent attempt to see past my own predilections, I found myself incapable of identifying any opinion of my own conception. Intrigued, horrified and admittedly bemused, I set about wondering whether I was truly a free-thinking political individualist as I had so often assured myself, or whether we are all the mediums and transcribers of nationally-syndicated columnists and pundits.

The op-ed piece must be understood as a form of persuasive writing. The tried and true American commentary will offer solutions and coerce actions. It is neither didactic nor moralizing, yet seldom without some underlying ethical presumption. It is argumentative, yet declarative. It will rationalize, but not analyze. It will seek to persuade but appear to inform.

Somehow, at some point I am unable (though unmotivated) to identify, politics came to be understood by Generation Y as something necessitating guided self-help seminars and how-to advice columns. When I flipped through some teen magazine I picked up off the rack next to the checkout counter at a supermarket, past the celebrity gossip and the pictures of Jessica Alba sunbathing on some tropical beach, I found the advice columns - the how-tos. They were mostly sex or relationship-oriented. They contained information for women on how to please their man and for men on how to make their woman climax. I read the latest sexual techniques. On the next page there was a guide on how to make it through a break up. The page after that explained how to break it off with someone else.

Then I read how to approach members of the opposite sex and how to make a lasting impression on the first date. This one magazine seemed to include the totality of knowledge pertaining to human sexual relationships. The intellectuals of our generation would scoff at this, I thought. Generation incapable, they would say. Certainly there is much to be said concerning the fact that the vast majority of our generation is so insecure, incompetent and inept that it needs to be spoon-fed dating advice simply to ensure the existence of the next generation - yet turn to the opinion pages of a newspaper and you will find what is in essence the very same phenomenon. Political commentary pieces today are rigid, formulaic opinions that readers incapable of free thought take for their own.

The persuasive element of opinionated writing flourishes only with the writer's ignorance of the futility of that writing. Among a magazine or newspaper's audience there are only the politically concerned and the politically apathetic. The apathetic have nothing to gain by reading commentary. The politically concerned presumably are such because they hold some political belief and thus they would comprise the bulk of commentary readership. The readers of an op-ed piece would then be inclined either to agree enthusiastically or be provoked to indignation. Because political opinion pieces tend to be read by those with some specific political predisposition, they will serve either as a drumbeat to assimilation or as incensement. The result is a polarizing effect - those in concurrence with opinion will support their side more vigorously, while those opposing will, in outrage, compose pieces of their own to rally their side. Those few moderates caught in the temporary disconnect linger there until, threatened to be washed away by the invective of pundits, they scurry to whichever side is closest. Liberals and conservatives then argue back and forth while simultaneously lamenting over how politically polarized this nation has become.

Yet suppose this not to be the case - suppose that I am wrong and vastly overestimate the passion with which readers cling to their political ideology (which I would be hesitant to admit bearing in mind the general conduct displayed Wednesday night). Suppose opinion pieces could and actually do sway readers from one side of the political spectrum to the other - is this desirable? What would it mean for our democracy if those motivated enough to cast their ballot on Election Day do so on behalf of political opinions derived from a handful pundits and commentators rather than of their own through independent thinking?

There is also this tendency on the part of commentary readers to identify certain writers, because of their experience and/or credentials, as being authoritative. In regards to this it must be remembered that commentary by its very nature is subjective and the presumption that academic qualifications validate a certain point-of-view is an illusion upheld by the teetering politically self-conscious. If an op-ed writer has qualifications in a certain academic discipline, he or she can be relied upon to make accurate, objective assertions (or at least educated guesses) pertaining to their respective field. However, for this writer to draw a political conclusion he or she must leave their academic sanctuary and re-enter the wider, more general context of the debate. At this point their conclusion may be subject to scrutiny. While the accuracy of the information or analysis may not be called into question, the way in which this information is applied and used to draw a more generalized conclusion is no more valid in an objective sense than anyone else's opinion pertaining to the same general topic. Yet we worship these writers for their ethos all the while displaying an inability to understand anything of the progression of these writers' arguments - only the end product. The intent of commentary should be informative, not inflammatory. Commentary should be provocative, but vaguely analytical to encourage individuals to draw their own conclusions. Op-ed pieces should identify and seek to understand political trends. This isn't to say that commentary needs to be objective, but opinionated in a cooperative manner such that individuals with contrary political beliefs who read it do so in the spirit of understanding. The Daily Campus Editorial Board opposed funding both Cindy Sheehan and Ann Coulter on the grounds that both function primarily with argumentation that appeals to the emotions instead of reason and as such should not be considered academic. Yet Sheehan and Coulter both represent the standard in American commentary today. However, the blame hardly lies with the pundits. America in its incessant idolatry of democracy has taken for granted, and subsequently lost, the crucial element of independent thought - the vital source upon which a democracy depends. Americans need to take it upon themselves to perceive and understand what is taking place in the world today in order that they might begin to formulate opinions of their own instead of relying on the commentary they read in the newspaper to speak for them.