Not entirely different than the era of newspapers and the town crier. The volume might be more now, but the end result is roughly the same. A couple loud sources blanketing the majority of public opinion.
Also, for his view not to stand up, wouldnt one group or the other need to be more represented on emotionally manipulative platforms?
>In a competition between a powerful emotional argument and logical counters to it
Our current situation seems like two powerful emotional arguments pitted against each other, with no logical counters or nuanced precision. They are both yelling the same things too, just in different forms. Most posturing right now boils down to different forms of economic safety and physical safety. Are you safe from the police? Are you safe from crime? Are you safe from unemployment? Are you safe from health care costs? Are you safe from government inefficiency and overspending? Are you safe from having to fund your neighbor? Do you have the freedom to be who you want to be (whether that means not being Christian, or not serving non-Christians?) They are all selling themselves, utilizing the same base fears. The main difference between the parties appears to be one being good at bending the rules to win, and one priding itself in losing with integrity. Utilitarian vs Principled. Neither seems super concerned with facts. If they were, they would more loudly make arguments against their own cases, to demonstrate strength.