Fireside Chats? Try Facebook Chats on #Occupy

Some people don't like to use Facebook to stir the sticky pot of politics. They feel political discourse tends to be too nuanced to be held over the web and the anonymity can create antagonistic yelling matches instead of rational discussions. One of my friends posted this:

I normally don't think that it is appropriate to post political things on Facebook, but this message is for Occupy Wall Street-- If you had been actually engaged and involved in the political process before two months ago, maybe the government would have voted the way you wanted and you wouldn't have sit in intersections to get your point across. The American public's complacency, not Wall Street or Congress, is the problem.

And why isn't Facebook the place for politics when we're talking about a lack of civic engagement? I hope it doesn't have anything to do with straw men arguments against hippies and hypocrites ;)

Here were some of the responses she received:

i have no idea what this whole thing means.

I dont get how their answer to closing the gap between the wealthy and poor is to be unemployed and sleep on the street. And what I really don't understand is how they've managed to attract anyone else in the country with any form of an agenda. If they had actually asked their grandparents how to properly hold form a protest, they'd realize that their methods are relatively useless. Damn hippies.

In Dallas they are just smoking pot, raping underage teens, drinking and littering!

‎

"occupy ucla" is a disgrace. there are literally signs up saying that the "super rich" and banks should pay for their rent and tuition.

And that's when my own personal rant began.

The Feds need more oversight, congress needs to be more than just a place to make a pay check, white collar crimes needs to be prosecuted seriously, and crony capitalism is a revolving door which corrupts our system of checks and balances. What does #Occupy mean? It means civic engagement and democracy at a horizontal and not a vertical hierarchy. It meeans empowering the people to have a voice and to stand up for their rights. It means asking the tough questions, it means building relationships, and it is a serious attempt to end the complacency of the people.

Is it an efficient, well-oiled political machine that has a comprehensive platform and mission? No, it seems like #occupy is more of a forum for debate than a platform for  immediate social change. While I don't deny that this sort of thing can create an echo chamber, its giving people the opportunity to try and start a truly grass roots movement that gets into the weeds of policy and cultural issues which plague our country.

And while I haven't been to Dallas, I know a lot of people would be disheartened by allegations that a civic movement was nothing more than a stir-fry of rape and other vices, kind of like how tea party sympathizers were tired of being called racists bigots who wanted "government hands off medicare."

Sure the differences between the two movements are important (and I wouldn't want to make any false equivalencies, but they are certainly comparable), but so often we let the margins be an excuse to polarize us instead of acknowledging the common ground that unites us. Americans are tired of a crappy economy, and would love to get back to work, but there are things outside of their control which have forced a lot of people to be unemployed or underemployed. Whether they blame an incompetent government or corporate greed (or the links between the two), the members of the Tea Party and those who call themselves the 99% believe that the American Dream is in jeopardy, and want to make sure that if they are willing to work hard, that they will be able to support a family and have an opportunity at earning a good wage.

I realized that on Facebook, most people probably stopped reading out of laziness, disinterest, or any number of reasons, but I wanted to thank those who stuck it out. While I doubt this will change many minds, I hope it will open up some minds to the problems our country faces.

While I was at a recent rally against the Keystone XL Pipeline, I was amazing that the median age of the 5000+ attendees was probably 35 (no way to know for sure with so many people, but it was definitely not just a group of kids). One person I linked arms with was a Vietnam Vet who was astounded by the level of organization and engagement at the event. He said in the '60s when they tried to have this sort of rally, that yeah, they were too stoned to handle the logistics, but that there was something different about this, something real, and something that is more than just a passing fad. And while this wasn't technically an #Occupy event, there was certainly overlap with the attendees, and it wasn't a wild, selfish mob, but a group of people looking to make a difference, looking to share ideas, and looking for the means of making this country that they love a safer and better place both now and for the future.

I think Barack's Keynote Speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention really crystalizes the sentiments of what this is all about.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America.
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.
We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
I'm not talking about blind optimism here - the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs. The hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores. The hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta. The hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds. The hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.
Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.
I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.
America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I do, if you feel the same passion I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do - if we do what we must do, then I have no doubts that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up...

If you haven't watched the whole thing, I strongly encourage you to check out the moment that Barack Obama became a serious player in National Politics. This timeless speech rings truer today than ever before, and its moments like this which earned Barack the support he needed to win in 2008. Its no surprise that he couldn't live up to the lofty expectations, and there has been plenty of disappointment surrounding broken campaign promises, corporate pandering, and sacrificed principles to alienate the entire political spectrum. However, I do believe that Obama has faced nearly insurmountable challenges and is desperately trying to play Washington's games in good faith to achieve the most optimal outcomes for the most people. Barack not only stood for hope, but was a symbol of hope, and is now a testament to the immense challenge of overseeing the free world.

Alas, we are the 100% who make up the United States of America, and this implies a duty and a responsibility to stick to both the convictions of our forefathers and principles of the present. We have a right to freedom and the expression of our liberties and values, and we have an obligation to work together as Americans to make this social experiment work. It requires independent accountability, a tolerance of ideas but an intolerance for injustice, and a willingness to work together to create a better nation now and a more sustainable country for tomorrow.

The Democractic Public Intellectual: Overcoming Failures of the Government and Media

In times of turmoil and hardship, people need role models that function as change agents to inspire hope. A history of corrupt decision making has led many Americans to be skeptical and cynical of the once honorable institutions of government service and journalism, so leadership must come elsewhere. Gone are the days when Walter Kronkite and John F. Kennedy gave our nation something to believe. They have been replaced by headlines profiling Tiger Woods’s newest mistress, the drug and/or alcohol abuse of Hollywood socialites, collateral damage and car bombings in the Middle East, natural disasters, or the literal and figurative infidelities of Washington. America needs heroes with clean records that connect on a human level with Americans through empathy, leaders who are willing to make the tough choices and give people what they need even if it’s not what they want, and scholars who relay their education and experience to their fellow citizens. America needs public intellectuals, one’s like Dr. Drew Pinsky, who are ready and able to serve the public’s interest, picking up where the mainstream media and politicians have utterly failed.

The survival of the human race has been dependent on our ability as individuals to come together and work within formal and informal organizations. The success of these social groups and networks rely upon each member’s willingness to trust one another in order to work towards a common good. This interdependence of humanity is ingrained into the psyche of the human mind from the time we are born as our mothers nurture and raise up their young. These social qualities remain and actually blossom throughout our lifetimes as our social networks expand to different spheres made up of extended family, friends, members of informal groups, co-workers, fellow citizens, and even a greater global network as the current information and communication revolution helps us form intercontinental connections. However, today’s western societies focus so much on promoting the interest of one’s self and immediate friends and family that the benefits of working towards the public interest have forgotten. Furthermore the greater good is often considered an impediment stifling personal development. The resulting nation of individuals only trusts that others will act according to their own, short-term interest. Without unity, though, are we really the United States?

Along with the political polarization of our nation, this has created a complicated conundrum for our society at large. A democracy founded under the principle of popular sovereignty mandates the participation of active and informed citizens in running the government. While much can be said about the divided nature of our government and media, there’s no doubt that the tabloid-esque story lines of Washington have raised the public’s interest in politics. While the public’s political activity is peaking on the national level with the highest voter turnout in forty years resulting in Barack Obama’s presidency, this still does not address the issue of an adequate way of providing reliable information to the public. As Americans’ trust in the government on the federal and state levels reaches new lows despite Obama’s uplifting message of hope, and a similar lack of trust toward is shown toward the media, the responsibility of enlightening the American people falls upon a third group: the public intellectuals.

As a service to the public good, these outstanding individuals are classically defined as trained academics and professionals who provide objective and critical analysis free of bias stemming from personal agendas. It is up to these men and women to restore balance to the country by juxtaposing subjective and sensationalizing pundits with objective critiques aimed at aiding the understanding of the American people. Public intellectuals like Dr. Drew Pinsky, known as the ”national face of addiction medicine,” hold the opportunity to restore order to the nation by providing credible information to advance the public interest.

Dr. Drew Pinsky exemplifies the characteristics necessary of today’s public intellectuals and amplifies his area of influence by consistently going above and beyond the call of duty on a daily basis. His credentials are impressive both in quantity and quality. Professionally, Dr. Pinsky graduated from USC’s Keck School of Medicine where he now teaches psychiatry. He is a board-certified physician, addiction medicine specialist, and also runs the chemical-dependency department at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena.

Dr. Drew was first introduced to the public back in 1983 when he was asked to contribute to a new radio show called Loveline on Los Angeles’s contemporary rock station. Dr. Drew answered all sorts of questions from listeners calling in with an assortment of diverse questions ranging from issues with relationships, sexuality, drugs, and anything else that might be thought of as uncomfortable but necessary. With an easy tone and understanding to even the most taboo and vulgar of questions, Dr. Drew andLoveline became a safe haven for the youth of Los Angeles to get much needed advice from a reliable, nonjudgmental source. By 1995, the show was nationally syndicated and still airs from 10pm-midnight PST five days every week across the entire nation. With an audience primarily made up of adolescents, Dr. Drew has earned the trust of his listeners by providing an outlet for the most relevant questions pertaining to America’s youth with an honest exchange of medically sound answer. His empathy allowed for introverted youth to let down their walls and barriers and pose very person and pertinent questions, and everyone listening benefited.

Along with this civil service via the radio, Dr. Drew has also used television and cinema as mediums for his services. Along with a version of Loveline for MTV, he has also hosted Strictly Dr. Drew, Sex… With Mom and Dad, Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew, Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew, and Sober House. With the exception of Strictly Dr. Drew, which airs Thursdays at 10pm on the Discovery Channel, some of his critics have attempted to discredit Dr. Drew for broadcasting his shows on MTV and VH1, channels whose reality shows reinforce the vary narcissistic tendencies that he warns against in his most recent book The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism is Seducing America.

In a rebuttal to his doubters, Drew showed the leadership necessary to make the hard decisions and replied that “the people that need what we have are watching VH1… Not the people watching educational TV, the NPR crowd. You gotta give ’em what they want so you can give ’em what they need.” His basic strategy encourages everyone to poke their head in the door to find out what all the excitements about, then serve them the chicken noodle soup they need. For years on Loveline, Drew’s sidekick, the colorful every man Adam Carola, juxtaposed the doctor with a raw and often outrageous comedian with a unique perspective, providing a truly unique entertainment experience that proved both captivating and incredibly informative. Drew, like everyone public intellectual should, takes advantage of this exposure to deliver the necessary treatment to the patients that need it the most. Providing analysis on the hypocrisy of conservative politicians for Keith Olbermann’s Countdown is simply redundant and does nothing to facilitate the public discourse, but providing a little conviction for the people who need it most is how we redirect a lost nation and make progress as individuals and as a united country.

In order to do ensure his message reaches as many as possible, he’s made numerous public appearances on many of America’s most well-known talk shows. In 2009 alone, he was on Entertainment Tonight, Larry King Live, Jimmy Kimmel Live, The Tonight Show with Conan O’brien, NBC’s Today Show, Howard Stern,Glenn Beck, and The View. If he does not seem like a busy enough man as is, he is an actor (often playing himself), medical magazine editor, has participated in many college talking tours, and also has authored five books including the aforementioned New York Times’ BestsellerThe Mirror Effect.

Oh, and did I mention he tries to run five miles a day, is a classically trained opera singer and has sixteen year old triplets? And I thought I was busy. This work ethic and his ability to balance these multiple responsibilities, while maintaining his passion for service, makes it even easier for outsiders to relate and connect with Dr. Drew.

While Dr. Drew has been able to establish a genuine rapport with his audiences, the same cannot be said about most politicians in America. In his first State of the Union address, even President Obama addressed the “deepening cynicism Americans feel toward their government and called for mending what he characterized as a ‘deficit of trust.’” People see our government as a distant entity hundreds or thousands of miles away that cannot possibly relate to their day-to-day experiences. These elected public servants are not perceived as representatives of their constituents or their needs, but are merely pawns following the protocol to remain in political culture. President Obama pleads for politicians and journalists (usually Fox News contributors) to abandon a status quo that emphasizes a fiscal bottom line and incorporate the interest of America into one’s goals and objectives.

With many politicians more interested in preserving their own careers, Americans have a hard time believing that they truly strive towards achieving the common good. When one considers the widespread corruption of government through lobbyists, citizens worry that politicians are being bought by corporations whose agendas may not coincide with those of the people. This fear has only been amplified by the recent Supreme Court decision to give corporations the same rights as a person, potentially opening the floodgates of corporate financing through campaign contributions.

Just like in this case where the long-term ramifications of this decision are unclear, much of the government is complex and confusing for the common man, fostering a fear of the unknown. Even with Obama increasing the transparency more than previous administrations, there is still a level of distrust since certain agencies (see “Secret Service”) are, by nature, necessarily cryptic. Additionally, our system of checks and balances, confusing jargon such as filibusters and reconciliation, numerous agencies and levels of the bureaucracy, create a slow and inefficient political process that the average American does not always understand.

Finally, since there is distrust for the government, citizens become more hesitant to participate in a system they do not understand. This undermines Jeffersonian theory which argues that participation is precisely the means by which people should learn about the government. This anti-government sentiment perpetuates the problem as citizens become reluctant to partake in governing their own land, turning our democracy into more of an aristocracy comprised of members who understand how to manipulate the system for their own good.

And speaking of individuals and groups focused more on achieving their personal agendas, our attention is now turned away from the government and towards the American institution of “journalism” whose calling is to connect individuals with the events of the outside world and to act as watchdogs and protect the people from government abuse.

First, it is essential to understand that our 24 hour news organizations are for profit businesses that honor their stock payers and CEOs more than their journalistic code of integrity. This means their ultimate objective is to make money and not to serve Americans the information they need to be productive citizens.

Due to the expansion of the Internet, additional competition of news sources has been created and companies have been forced to turn to cost-saving measures to survive. Because of all these threats that was did not exist when the people got their news from the paper in the mornings and the network news hours at nights, general news groups been forced into specialization to create a unique product to entice an audience. For example, Fox News has chosen to present a conservative perspective, MSNBC covers the liberal basis, and CNN has attempted to take the route of BBC and fulfill the objective void in between the other two networks.

Unfortunately for CNN, they have suffered due to attempts at providing objective, critical analysis while engaging in the other prevalent trend in today’s media, sensationalism. News groups have been providing the public with what they want, resulting in multiple groups covering the same ‘important’ stories. This means that in order to steal the audience from the other competitors, they try and make the stories as entertaining as possible, and obviously, entertainment does not necessarily translate into a productive information exchange. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love his music and everything he’s contributed but personally and threw his many philanthropies, but how many months of Michael Jackson coverage following his death did we really need? I hope this question to be rhetorical requiring no further discussion along this line of thinking.

The third major consequence of competition in journalism is the downsizing staffs, especially during the 24 hour news cycle, sparking the decline of investigative journalism. It is a lot cheaper for corporations to stick in front of a camera entertaining, opinionated talking heads surrounding by pretty flat-screen, high-definition panels and let them rant for an hour than to send a crew of reporters, translators, cameramen, producers, etc. to a foreign country to get a story. From this, we get the Keith Olbermann’s and the Glenn Beck’s of the industry that provide us with a high entertainment value and an equally high degree of bias. This has left the public to do one of the two things, reject the subjective reporting and search for other means of informing themselves or embrace these puppeteering pundits parading around like politicians superimposing their opinions upon their cult-like follower. Ergo, those that choose the former will be hesitant to trust any media source, while the latter will follow every whim of their leaders and distrust all dissenting opinions without a single critical thought. Either way, it is a failure in the establishment of journalism to fulfill its essential purpose.

This is where Dr. Drew and other public intellectuals have the responsibility to overcome these obstacles and provide the public with the sort of analysis they need to become better citizens of this global community. They must present clear, jargon-free reporting based on credible evidence to ensure all laymen can absorb the necessary information needed for civic engagement. Additionally, a willingness to present their body of knowledge on any show, regardless of its place on the political spectrum, will ensure that their useful information reaches those who need to hear it the most. In order to retain credibility while discussing and debating with these pundits, a public intellectual must refrain from muddling quality analysis maintaining a professional position in the face of partisan pandemonium.

After failures by the government and the media to contribute to the personal development of American citizens, it is up to the public intellectuals, whatever their background may be, to stimulate the American people who are equally important as the intellectuals themselves in running a democracy by the people and for the people. According to Dr. Stephen Mack in his essay questioning the supposed decline of the public intellectual, as they create and enrich the public discourse, they fulfill their function of criticism, an obligation shared by every citizen regardless of their training or background. So, while the last great generation of the classically defined public intellectuals may have been those born during the roaring twenties, a new generation spawning from unorthodox sources has the potential to rise up and return America to a true democracy. As Americans discuss these issues, they reforge the social ties and connection with their community that were destroyed by years of lies and isolation. This also reinstates the importance of trust and encourages politicians and journalists to embrace a culture that values integrity. By stimulating this networking, we can unite a polarized nation of red states and blue states into one United States of America.