I suppose one could argue that there any number of people out there who just aren't sure what to think, and we need to provide them with good reasons not to side with the Birthers, but I dont' get the impression that this is the goal of most media outlets. For example, when I see Orly Taitz appearing on MSNBC, the interview is clearly more about spectacle than rational debate. It's no great insight that news channels might prioritize entertainment over news, but it seems disingenuous for news channels to take advantage of a situation that easily allows them to take the moral and logical high road. In other words, not only do they put the incomprehensible Orly Taitz on display, but they do so not in order to cover the story in its entirety but rather to put their own incredulity and thus superiority on display as well.
But there's something else going on here that has some interesting implications for those of us in the world of rhetorical pedagogy. I notice it in places like the Salon piece and its hypothetical "Uncle Floyd," that relative who keeps forwarding you emails about the "fact" that Obama was born in Kenya. Salon purportedly offers its guide to debunking the Birthers so that "you can just e-mail this list to Uncle Floyd and get on with your life." But do we have any reason to believe that Uncle Floyd will be persuaded by this list? The Birther movement's appeal obviously lies outside of the logical, so why do we suspect that a healthy dose of evidence will persuade its members? And do we really feel comfortable just getting on with our lives? Are we willing to dismiss those who won't listen to reason and cut them out of the conversation?
To return to part of my original point, it seems safe to say that our current state of public discourse (in terms of what the media most frequently presents to us) is far removed from its Enlightenment ideal. Such discourse has become about more than rational exchange; ethical claims to a speaker's credibility rarely depend (at least entirely, and perhaps even primarily) on actual credentials; pathetic appeals and style often seem to be the most important elements of "persuasive" discourse (since we have largely jettisoned the notion of the logical, "identification" might be a better term here). In the academic world, the most common response focuses on the importance of education, the need to teach people the fundamentals of argumentation as a means of helping our students successfully navigate the world of civic discourse. But if we teach our students how to analyze the arguments made by Birthers, to see their fallacies, and to offer counter-arguments, have we taught them anything about actually communicating with the Birthers? In other words, are we only teaching students how to participate in the Salons of the world, or are we helping them in their email exchanges with Uncle Floyd? While I'm not sure what all the Uncle Floyd pedagogy would include, I feel fairly confident suggesting that a failure to address these shifts in civic discourse will further contribute to the "us vs. them" mentality informing so much of that discourse, particularly w/r/t fringe voices. I also feel fairly sure that our response cannot simply be one of highlighting the importance of rational discourse - we have to figure out how to have productive irrational discourse. Otherwise, we are contenting ourselves to the easy high road and giving up on those emails to Uncle Floyd.
