Here is a clip from a recent symposium article I did for the Catholic Social Science Review, discussing Bob Reilly’s book America on Trial:
The internet and social media have connected America’s representatives in a closer way than ever before—which Madison would not necessarily consider a good thing for deliberation on the common good. Deneen argued that the republic has become too extended; with the advent of social media though, a much more convincing case can be made for the opposite: our republic is not extended enough! Collen Sheehan and Gregory Weiner have written fascinating recent essays arguing this point. Madison in Federalist 10 and his later National Gazette essays argued that the extended republic would have positive effects on deliberation thanks to its effects on time and space. Information would take a longer time to spread across the country to the various constituencies. Thus only the “the cool and deliberate sense of the community” (Federalist 63) would be communicated back to its representatives, not the hot, passionate demands of a mob. But the twitter mobs of 2020 of course short-circuit that cooling period, since the internet (like transportation) makes the country much smaller. How different a world we live in, where Americans can now demand people’s heads for perceived injustices on social media. And many elected representatives feel that if they do not obey this “cancel culture,” they will likely not be elected for long.
So which is it that we have in 2020, an overly extended republic or an under extended republic? I would split the difference and say both, but at two different tiers or levels. At the level of specific conclusions and demands, our republic is under extended; in American public opinion, there is too quick and uniform an agreement on moral judgments. But at the level of general principles, our republic is overly extended. When it comes to a view of human nature and a view of the common good, there is no agreement in American public opinion due to the fragmented moral relativism of our culture.Robert Reilly has shown that in the past, there was a consensus view of the general principles in America: the natural law consensus. Going back to Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence, natural law has been the one deeper idea that kept us together. The centripetal force of natural law principles in America was always the necessary counterpart to the centrifugal force of the extended republic. The various factions of America must agree about the general goals of public policy rooted in a common conception of morality, or we will have no union. It is the only thing that will allow us to think more coolly and rationally at the level of specific conclusions and demands, especially given the technological changes. More people should voice their support for these general principles, and be courageous enough to put them on the table when making their judgments on social media. To borrow a line from Matthew McConaughey—it would be a lot cooler if we did.
UPDATE: I’ve included another paragraph to clarify what I’m saying.
I am thankful to the editors of the journal for letting me include the McConaughey quote. Alright, alright, alright...
Basically: one of the reasons America isn't cool anymore -as in "esteemed" or "popular"- is that America isn't cool anymore -as in "dispassionate," "composed," or "collected"