TheFourthBranch.com

Ezra Klein and David Brooks have both written articles recently attempting to discuss why the public’s trust in government leaders has started jumping all over the place.

David Brooks suggests it is due to a flawed meritocratic system which defines talent too narrowly, relies too heavily on short time horizons, and fails to promote solidarity among those in the “leadership class.” I think Brooks has too much time on his hands to wonder about this. Although given the nonsense of what he just said, perhaps he needs even more time.

Klein agrees Brooks is off the mark (but says it more politely than I did), and argues the primary reason is that the political machines have spent huge sums of money attacking institutions those machines disfavor. He also notes the media now spends a large amount of time attacking the government, and vice-versa.

I think Klein is close, but I also think he is missing a significant factor- the rise of the internet.

Look at the chart above. It is striking that public confidence in all three branches of government was fairly static (other than a drop in confidence in the executive corresponding to the Watergate turmoil) until around 1996- about the time the internet began to explode. From 1995-1998, the number of internet users grew at about 100% per year from 16 million users in 1995 to 147 million by the end of 1998.

Why would the internet have such an impact on public confidence in government institutions? Because for the first time, Americans were given a pulpit and a free publishing mechanism to disseminate their thoughts. They didn’t need to pen a letter to the editor anymore (and hope the letter would pass the editor’s muster and actually get printed) to tell a large group of people how they felt. They simply needed to push “send.” The advent of email and bulk mailing lists, along with the ability to forward any email communication with almost no effort at all turned every single person with internet access into a self-publisher. Blogs took it one step further. Rather than just sending out messages that others could control (by editing further, deleting immediately, or otherwise), the blog gave individuals the ability to own their own piece of cyberspace real estate. People didn’t need someone’s help to forward an email to get mass distribution. They could simply post their thoughts on an internet page accessible (and searchable) anywhere in the world. We were all given a Gutenberg press in our living room.

The internet’s searchable feature was critical. AOL, and later Yahoo, Google and others, became the Yellow Pages of the digital world. People who felt confused about a certain topic could search for an “answer” on that topic and would invariably find the musings of someone invested enough in that topic to memorialize their thoughts on a web page. That “invested” blogger would often be angry about the topic. Anger is, after all, a highly motivating factor. Conversely, they might find someone favorably passionate about a topic. Instead of reading newspapers which, for better or worse, tended to have some articles expressing a positive view on a topic next to articles expressing a negative view on the topic, the internet surfer could quickly connect with and read about individuals whose views would mirror or reinforce his own. Of course, with no editorial review, much of the content published to the internet wasn’t true, even if sounding plausible. The net effect: a higher polarization of the electorate and jumpy public opinion on government (and other) institutions.

Klein’s point that the media attacks on the government, and government attacks on the media, have contributed to the messy movement in public confidence of government institutions is valid, but even here Klein omits a glaring fact. Not only did the internet boom in 1996, it also was the year both MSNBC and Fox News were born. Prior to 1996, CNN had a virtual cable news monopoly. Thereafter, the three cable news giants each competed for their discrete consumer base. Consumers were given yet another opportunity to reinforce their political and cultural views by seeking out information sources that most closely aligned with their preferences. Those news networks over time realized that “commentators” drew much higher ratings than “journalists,” and their lineups adjusted accordingly such that neither Fox nor MSNBC have any true journalists left in their primetime slots. Instead, they have individuals who keep viewers interested (and often angry) by attacking not just their competitors, but the interests of their competitors’ target consumers. Often that means attacking a political party, or a president, or an institution.

Simply put, technology has in many respects outpaced democratic institutions. Those institutions are adjusting. Obama kept his Blackberry. The Obama White House web page went live literally the second Obama was sworn in. The Press Secretary now has a Twitter account, as do most members of Congress. Many government leaders compile Youtube videos or have Facebook accounts.

While government institutions are trying to keep pace, things aren’t ever going to go back to the way they once were, and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In many ways, the electorate has more opportunities to be connected to their representatives now than ever before and to see how their representatives are helping (or failing) them. This opportunity does come with significant challenges. The internet and the “news” media are operating as a Great Political Prism, only this prism doesn’t take in light and disperse it into colors of the rainbow. Instead, it takes in internet and media consumers and sorts them into ideologies and polarized opinions.

We all need to take care not to tread exclusively in our ideological prism path. My sense is that many of us suffer from artificial highs in optimism and lows in pessimism when we click on only those links that fit our ideologies. Venture out. Fight the prism that is often the internet and news media. The further down the prism path any of us go before we decide to read (and hear) what the other side is saying, the further apart we will feel from the other side when (if ever) we finally make that leap- and the more alienated we will feel from our government institutions.