We are finally starting to see some tangible effects of the Internet on mass psychology, not just in isolated cases but all over. I speak of course of the teabaggers, but more generally of the tribalism emerging in the political debate. Tribalism that is even apparent on some of the latest meta diaries on this site.
Whether you get your social psychology from Aronson or Arendt, there are some interesting effects to be observed. First is the death of hyperbole. Second is the demand of purity. Third is the disposability of the leader or spokesperson. I believe ultimately people will become adapted and inured to these effects, but I don't think we are yet.
First, the death of hyperbole.
We even have handles for the casual invocation of the Nazis—Godwin's law. That has become a kind of Internet slang that more and more people understand along the lines of "lol." The Nazis serve as the extremity of human evil. I caution that it is far from impossible that the Nazi era could be repeated. But nothing we are experiencing in this country approaches starting a war where tens of millions die and millions more are murdered through an industrial process. This is far from the only example. Almost every procedural vote in Congress or news release involving politicians is developed into a direct precursor of an impending political disaster.
Everything, it seems, in the Internet world results in the most extreme consequences. Because this is impossible, it renders the statements meaningless. But in doing so it makes hyperbole no longer the literary device it was, but just the neutral common manner of expression. Nazism becomes something that inconveniences someone. A bad news day becomes Pelosi handing the gavel to Boehner. Yet this latter adaptation has not yet occurred in full. And because of that, it is having effects on behavior.
We cannot tolerate a dictatorship, right? Any responsible person would act to their utmost to prevent such hyperbolic results, right? So, second, we demand purity.
Anyone who compromises, gives an inch to the opposition, or tolerates any statement from the other side is discredited no matter how forthright, trustworthy, accurate, or otherwise correct that person is. The strategy has been predetermined in advance. No deviations are tolerated. The right wing's mission is to destroy Obama. Anyone who gets confused and things their mission is to enact right wing policy and starts engaging in pragmatics to do so is not tolerated. Ask David Frum. It's happening in our own intraliberal discourse. Though a cult of antipersonality is developing on the left, purity demands seem to polarize much more around issues and the extreme of action is protest or speech as opposed to armed resistance.
Yet the purity demands put the leader in an untenable position vis-a-vis the mass they represent. So, third, they are disposable. Any speaker who deviates or compromises is trashed. Which is in fact their purpose. One person says something so that it can be said. Then they are disposed of so that the group can maintain its purity. Tom Coburn dares speak negatively about Fox News? All of his batshit insane right wingness is forgotten. Paul Krugman doesn't like Candidate Obama's HCR plan? The fact that he was the lone MSM pundit to criticize Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is forgotten and we do oppo research on the man.
All of these things are being facilitated by the anonymity of the Internet. We can see all of the effects of mob action with none of the empathy that comes from looking someone in the eye. When people finally do show up in public, the social pressures of purity and shame for being seen as a compromiser outweigh the person to person connection.
Ultimately, I believe that people will adapt. I believe that we will see that humans are humans and some make mistakes and that we should exclude their talent on that basis alone. But in the mean time, we are trashing people while they might still be productive.
At the ground level, I believe this is rooted in the economic collapse that has come in fits and starts over the last 30 years. The ground shaking has finally induced so much uncertainty in people that they are freaking out and are moved into these easy vents of anger on the net. All of the supposed bells and whistles of our advanced economy have not helped out 90% of Americans. All that have done is fed a vicious drug-addiction like cycle of consumerism and debt.
I think we can work a lot of these problems out. I think a good start would be to have online news sites disable their comment function, or move them to a secondary page. Does that make sense?