It was persuasive rhetoric, an art most Americans are not too familiar with. Rather we read what the advertisers tell us is gong to be the next hot item so we can stay with the crowd and remain -hip or informed.

It is always difficult to compare statistics across time periods, but Gatto makes some very compelling arguments that literacy rates were high and that Paine was widely read by common Americans - white, black, and women. Many other authors also have aruged that colonial America was filled with a sophisticated citizenry - Tocqueville, Veblen, Whitman, Emerson, etc.

First of all, I think you are one of the smartest commenters on TL, and I think our differences on this subject are subtle and a matter of degree. I think we both would agree that the market can sometimes undermine democratic virtues and also that the power of elites has to be checked for democracy to function effectively. I have often railed against the power of elites in our modern society and the negative influence elites have on our democracy. However, I am not under any illusions that democracy can be saved through the elimination of elites by socialist measures striving to make us all equal in terms of wealth. I believe elites and wealthy individuals are a benefit to society, provided they take responsibility towards the preservation of society through democratic initiatives. I believe for a democracy to function effectively, there must be meeting places where elites and wealthy individuals can converse with other citizens on equal levels. For this to take place, standards of conduct have to be equally enforced among all segments of society regardless of wealth or class. I think, or at least I hope, we are in general agreement with the above.

Secondly, although our differences on this subject are subtle, I think we both think they are important enough to make arguments and attempt to settle our disagreement. Where I believe our differences reside is in the evolution of the elites in our democracy. I believe that the power of the elites has increased since colonial times and our democracy has subsided since the colonial times, despite the gains in important areas such as civil rights and slavery. I think one symptom of this is that individuals and the average citizen were more literate and original and engaged in conversation and discussions with their fellow citizens more in colonial times than today.

Thirdly, I am fully aware I am approaching, or even fully immersed in, the area of romantic myth in these beliefs. Since I cannot know what citizens discussed in colonial times at the local taverns and cafes and because I am not willing, nor do I have the time, to comb through civil war letters and compare them to letters written by today's soldiers from the Iraqi field of battle, I have to make assumptions, that cannot be verified and must rely on my common sense instead. Finally, I am not really concerned with accuracy in promoting this myth, because I think this myth is a beneficial one to hold for the continual and ongoing struggle to achieve democratic objectives.

From my experience it is obvious the role that electronic media has had on the  print media as evidenced by being a lifelong reader of newspapers. Newspapers are written at a much lower reading level than they were in my youth and have even changed significantly in the last 5 or 10 years in response to the rise of internet news sources and bogs. The writing has become more bland and contains less and less literary allusions and poetic metaphors. The workplace discussions today over Harry Potter, American Idol and the Super Bowl attest to the character of our culture. I have little doubt that individuals engaged in discussions at drugstores, taverns, cafes, sidewalks and during work in colonial times. It only makes sense to me that the topic of discussion in those times, in addition to local gossip, contained conversations on what people read.

Part of the responsibilities of the elites in colonial times was to also take part in these discussions. Because wealthy land owners lived near and amongst the general population they visited the same meeting places as other citizens. Since they had some capital I am sure they also supported ventures that included the printing of newspapers, books and pamphlets. Although some of the initiative for these ventures surely had to do with markets and profits, I believe they also took their responsibility as leading citizens in this new democratic experiment seriously and they made demands upon their fellow citizens which included printing prose and literature that was fluent and challenging to read and discuss. They were not strictly motivated by profits and what they could sell to the masses and the made readily available to the masses literature that they and other elites were reading, so they could have discussions with their fellow citizens over issues important to everyone where wealth had less to do with who would win an argument and make a decision than the command of the English language and ability to make rhetorical arguments.