Are biased books the newest best form of discourse?

I just came across the Green Party 2000 Speach by Joel Kovel which I thought was worth watching. This guy seems to have his finger on a bunch of nerves that people don't like touched. From being branded an anti-Semite (he's Jewish , mind you) for his book Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine to redirecting the blame for global warming to the Clinton-Gore administration and capitalism in general in A Really Inconvenient Truth, he really likes to take an alternative stance on things. Is he a rationalist contrarian? Maybe. Why does anyone feel the need to be a contrarian? Because most people don't look beyond the immediate self-serving truth, and someone needs to provide an alternative perspective.

I think the reviews of his book on Amazon are telling. Half the folks are Zionists and argue the poor quality of his writing. The other half are anti-Zionist or non-Zionist and thought it was well worth reading. The degradation of public debate, the purpose of which is to be a rational and progressive dialectic exchange, into televised screaming matches and the deterioration of common communication skills necessary for anyone to communicate, and ultimately, think about any issue openly with reason have created the field upon which rational discourse about any issue is replaced by biased discourse. In this new discourse speakers conform to Column A or Column B and the "truth" outcome is whichever position, A or B, with the most supporters--not the "truth" as discovered through reason. The owning of our democracy by the highest bidder rather than collectively by all of the interested parties as a whole is perhaps an economic analogue of the same phenomenon. The claim of a "mandate" by the administration after winning a slight majority in 2004 similarly illustrates how neglect of the search for truth and the alternative, the embrace of the "loudest" point of view, can materialize in a way that truly undermines democracy.

How far have we come that the President of all people will embrace tyranny of the majority as a principle of democracy rather than as an obstacle to democracy? Since we can no longer debate much less converse about opposing ideas, it seems the only forum for “debate” is in opposing books where ideas can be expounded completely and presented. Maybe this is better than nothing, but maybe its a way of feeding the monster. Maybe we could have less polarized discourse on policy, if we all made the personal effort to converse about ideas and discover “truth.” Reason served civilization pretty well for the last 500 years. But, if individuals can’t simply speak rationally amongst themselves about anything that matters, what can we expect for the country or for civilization?