The Death of Mediation
Liberal democracy, at its best, depended on mediation—on distance between emotion and law, between outrage and power. From John Stuart Mill to Jürgen Habermas, the liberal tradition assumed that the public sphere worked because it slowed things down.
Growing up in the 1970s, life—like the media—moved more slowly. The mediating influence of trusted newsmen like Walter Cronkite mattered. Everyone watched the same two or three nightly newscasts, which ended with a clear boundary between information and speculation, between news and noise. There was no 24-hour cycle demanding outrage, only the daily rhythm of shared facts and limited airtime.
Ideas were debated. Institutions processed conflict. Citizens had time to cool their passions before casting a vote or passing a law.
That distance has collapsed. The smartphone is now the central organ of our political nervous system. What once required deliberation now travels from the limbic system to the global stage in seconds. Journalism, law, and governance—institutions built for slowness—are drowning in unfiltered emotion.
Hannah Arendt warned that when the boundary between public and private life dissolves, politics becomes a theater of reaction. That’s precisely where we are: everything is instant, visible, and combustible. We’ve lost not just civility but the time it takes to think.
Read more...