Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Rebuilding Democracy in the Age of Brain Rot

Opinion

Rebuilding Democracy in the Age of Brain Rot
person using laptop computer
Photo by Christin Hume on Unsplash

We live in a time when anyone with a cellphone carries a computer more powerful than those that sent humans to the moon and back. Yet few of us can sustain a thought beyond a few seconds. One study suggested that the average human attention span dropped from about 12 seconds in 2000 to roughly 8 seconds by 2015—although the accuracy of this figure has been disputed (Microsoft Canada, 2015 Attention Spans Report). Whatever the number, the trend is clear: our ability to focus is not what it used to be.

This contradiction—constant access to unlimited information paired with a decline in critical thinking—perfectly illustrates what Oxford named its 2024 Word of the Year: “brain rot.” More than a funny meme, it represents a genuine threat to democracy. The ability to deeply engage with issues, weigh rival arguments, and participate in collective decision-making is key to a healthy democratic society. When our capacity for focus erodes due to overstimulation, distraction, or manufactured outrage, it weakens our ability to exercise our role as citizens.


The Collapse of Civic Thought

Those old cartoons about how the internet ruins our attention spans were once funny, but technology has quietly and profoundly altered how we think and interact with the world. Social media rewards speed and emotion, valuing reaction over reflection. In this environment, sustained attention and thoughtful analysis have become rare skills. The overwhelming volume of content fractures our focus, making it harder to process complex ideas or engage in meaningful dialogue. As nuance gives way to outrage, the space for deliberation shrinks, and public discourse suffers.

We’re drowning in an ocean of information and struggling to make sense of it all. People don’t know which sources to trust, civic knowledge is slipping, and news feeds become background noise. The problem isn’t data—it’s how to think. When emotion replaces understanding in public debate, public life spirals into outrage and distraction.

The Politics of Cognitive Decline

Bad actors have learned to weaponize this situation. The erosion of critical thinking makes manipulation easy. Politics becomes performance—presidential decrees, culture-war theatrics, and partisan spectacles dominate while genuine policymaking disappears.

Take, for example, the extended recess called by House Speaker Mike Johnson during the longest government shutdown in history. Instead of negotiating to end the crisis, the House abstained entirely from governing, leaving even Republicans anxious (Politico, October 9, 2025). Johnson’s decision prioritized optics and posturing over the hard work of legislating. The Founders envisioned a republic of educated citizens making informed political choices. Instead, we have a politics consumed as entertainment, and demagogues thrive in the confusion.

“Brain rot” isn’t just a symptom—it’s a strategy for a political system drifting toward authoritarianism. It dulls public resistance and normalizes authoritarian behavior.

It starts with the president himself. His rise is rooted in the social media pathologies previously noted. Outrage-driven engagement and short attention cycles comprise his political brand. Each Truth Social or X post, feud, or headline reinforces a feedback loop in which spectacle drives support and policy fades further into the background.

Rebuilding the Cognitive Commons
There’s no going back with technology, and with AI’s rise, misinformation will only spread faster. But the war isn’t lost. Rebuilding democracy requires reviving the capacity to think freely and collectively—and that begins with education.

Technology and AI amplify misinformation, but democracy can be rebuilt through education. Fortunately, there are role models for reclaiming our attention. Illinois pioneered media literacy requirements in public high schools (Illinois Law), while California integrated digital literacy across core subjects (California Law). Beyond the U.S., Finland sets a global standard by teaching students, from the earliest grades, how to recognize propaganda and resist manipulation—skills embedded throughout its national curriculum (Media Literacy Index; Finnish Curriculum).

If Congress were functioning normally, it could reinforce state efforts by tying Title I and Title II funding to evidence‑based media‑literacy and civic‑reasoning standards, requiring school districts to report progress similar to math and reading scores, and expanding Department of Education grants for civics innovation labs—local partnerships that teach students how to verify claims, evaluate evidence, and understand how misinformation spreads. These reforms would help rebuild the cognitive tools on which democracy depends.

These reforms prioritize debate, logic, and media literacy over rote learning and ideological conformity. They provide models for teaching people to evaluate competing claims, spot manipulation, and engage in reasoned disagreement—skills essential for democratic citizenship that are fast disappearing from classrooms. Too often, high schools and universities emphasize technical mastery at the expense of civic understanding. We must give equal value to both in the education process.

Renewal Through Reflection

Democracy today resembles the brain of someone in recovery: overstimulated, fatigued, and searching for clarity. Renewal will not come from AI or political saviors but from our decision to reclaim our collective attention from those who profit by dividing it. In a world built for distraction, the most radical act is to listen, reflect, and think for ourselves.

Bottom line: The cure for our societal brain rot requires us to practice vigilance together, to question constantly, and to summon the courage to think clearly even when confusion is easier. Governments can help with this project, but ultimately it is a decision each one of us must make for ourselves.

Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.

Oscar Wong/Getty Images

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.

The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital illustration of robot's hand holding and supporting man who is working on his desk using computer, represent themes of artificial intelligence (AI), the future of work, and the intersection of humanity and technology.

Universal basic income would cost trillions. Wage insurance, a bigger child tax credit, and a tax break for work could help workers left behind by AI at a fraction of the price.

Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images

AI’s Costs: The Human Element & the Response

The age of AI will be a revolutionary age. In medicine, engineering, and more, there is the possibility of great benefit to humanity. Consider some Wall Street Journal headlines: “The Quest to Use AI to Help Find New Drugs,” and “Fusion Startup Gets an AI Boost.” Already, AI is a substantial portion of GDP growth.

Yet a rising tide will not lift the boats with holes in their hulls, as Jack Kemp once said. Artificial intelligence is challenging our leaders to think about those possibly left behind. Within the AI community itself, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei expresses concern that we could see 5-10% GDP growth with 10% unemployment.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

Efficient AI may not mean less energy. The Jevons paradox shows why demand can grow, and why no one can say yet where AI’s real limits will be.

Getty Images, J Studios

The People Selling You the Future Don’t Know It Either

Artificial Intelligence is everywhere and can no longer be avoided. Will there ever be a ceiling for the expansion of this technology? AI companies are not just selling software. The story about the inevitability that AI will have in transforming work, education, medicine, art, government, and daily life is much more profitable. People must accept the transformation or be left behind. They are selling behind a mask of certainty.

The court of public opinion on AI has concluded that this technology is too energy-consuming for the benefits it allegedly brings and the ways many people use it. Therefore, companies have shifted their agendas to presenting efficiency as a solution to the technology’s enormous need for power. Smaller, better models and chips, and more efficient data centers may reduce the energy required for a single text-based request or generated image. If those improvements make AI cheaper to use, it will be invited into more daily life right?

Keep ReadingShow less
AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less