The Last Days Of Politics 393
(Note: First in a series.)Maybe those manifesto-spouting Wired gurus were right after all. The modern political campaign as an entity is increasingly surreal and remote, especially from the perspective of this corner of the world, where nobody seems to be paying any attention and virtual reality is taking on a whole new meaning. Are these the last days of politics? I think so, and I'll be posting (with permission) your e-mail and threads responses and thoughts in subsequent columns.
As the presidential election gets closer, what comes to my mind is some of the more fevered rhetoric of the early days of Wired, before Conde Nast slicked it up and the magazine starting smelling like a kid on the way to his first prom.
Enthralled by the early days of the Net and Web, the cyber-theorists (especially the most passionate (l/L)ibertarians) opined that politics were over, that the digital revolution would sweep away the very notion of two political parties running the country, the idea of bureaucracy, political fiefdoms, Washington itself.
The sci-fi writer and futurist Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that he hoped he would live to see the day -- and he believed he would -- when politics in its present form would cease to matter. "The time will come," he wrote in an essay, "when most of our present controversies on these matters will seem as trivial, or as meaningless, as the theological debates in which the keenest minds of the Middle Ages dissipated their energies."
Browsing on the CNN and Washington Post political Web sites and watching cable news, it seems to me that Clarke may live to see that day, at least for a part of the world -- the tech nation, many high school and college students, people under 40. Journalists, boomers, CEOs and the elderly may still be paying attention to the strange ritual being conducted by the Republicans and Democrats, but from this perspective smack in the middle of an ascending and vibrant alternative culture, nobody else appears to be.
Can anybody cite a single interesting or important idea or argument that's emerged from the months of campaigning in the current U.S. presidential race? Despite the millions spent on primaries, advertising, debates, press conferences, press-the-flesh tours, photo-ops? In the midst of a technological revolution, has anyone involved in this musty political ritual used technology in any imaginative or innovative way or invoked it, except as a (false) menace to children?
I'd be curious to know if anybody reading this believes there's much difference between these two exhausted ideologies, or that the country will be substantially altered if one rather than the other prevails. For me, and for most of the people I come in contact with online, electoral politics is like a ghost ship, fading out to sea; surreal and mystical and most of all, remote.
A few years ago, it would have seemed ludicrous to talk about the last days of politics. Now it seems almost belated. It's been years since a majority of Americans even bothered to vote in a national election. Poll after poll shows mistrust, boredom, alienation and disgust with the brawling, negativity, stalemating and irrationality of the process. Both conservatism and liberalism seem spent, far too small and narrow to survive the Digital Age, the explosion in research and information and thinking and community and economics pushed along by the digital revolution. Washington journalists look absurd as they gather to transmit the spin, breathless, blow-dried and self-absorbed. There's something relentlessly 19th Century about the way they talk and think. Big, even enormous stories are popping up all around them, but they only have eyes for one another and the increasingly arcane system they cover.
To me, politics is conducted so sordidly and unimaginatively its real potential for good is obscured, almost beside the point. It doesn't inspire ideals but disdain. It's covered more accurately by jeering late- night talk show hosts than by the journalists who feed on the process. The biggest suspense in the campaign seems to come from waiting to see which candidate will attack the other the most bitterly. When the campaign finally turns ugly, as it inevitably will, this kind of politics will perhaps be revealed for what it is: a nasty, top-down, anti-democratic, non-interactive and irrelevant exercise in marketing. Clarke's vision almost has to come true: politics has to be reborn if it is to survive at all.
Online, the world is still different, if far from perfect. It seems, to me at least, that the cyberculture has had an enormous, if indirect impact on institutions like politics. Cyberspace isn't going to replace everything in the the material world, or create a utopian alternative, but it sure has drained a lot of energy, enthusiasm, money and creativity from institutions like politics and media, which look especially dready and exhausted in comparison. Online, ideas fly through the ether, as do arguments and opinions. New communities pop up constantly; movements like open source become more political by the day, challenging one industry and institution after another. There's still the sense of innovation, revolution and opportunity.
In this environment, freedom isn't a platitude but a genuine value, embraced and practiced by millions of people. Online, innovation and originality remain prized and ubiquitous, whereas the political system hasn't advanced an innovative idea in years. Occasionally the system intrudes, as with the Sonny Bono Copyright Act or Digital Millennium Copyright Act or a failed Communications Decency Act. Mostly, what they do seems to matter less, whether or not it should. Napster is in trouble, then Gnutella appears. Some political historians -- Peter Gay, Langdon Winner -- compare the last days of conventional politics with the eclipse of the Holy Mother Church centuries ago.
Mostly, politics seems to generate moral outrage among the younger populace that's enthralled much more by technological change than politican convention. Officials who urge "young people" to get more involved with these system of politics sound increasingly desperate, because anybody who spends two hours in a high school or college knows it isn't going to happen, not while politics takes this form.
According to historians, this isn't all that new. Whenever technological change becomes intense -- as it is now -- old conventions, ideals and institutions become severed from the new. Moral standards shift, and people begin to treat institutions with increasing indifference and contempt. That seems a perfect description for the widening divide between Netizens and the political institutions beyond, girding for yet another barren, outdated exercise.
It's a borderline time, a transition between one culture and another. Technology is the most exciting political and social force in the world at the moment, and its innovations and impact seem likely only to accelerate. The figures on TV uttering soundbites at those campaign stops seem completely out of date; they're moving their lips but have almost nothing to say, and more and more people seem to have stopped even pretending to listen. We're constantly told that what they're doing is important, and that we should pay close attention, but it becomes tougher all the time to remember why.
So I think that maybe the Wired gurus were right: These are the last days of politics. On this site, the opportunity to disagree is implicit, and doesn't need to be stated, but I'd be especially interested to see if anybody else sees it this way.
Go back to Comedy Central...... (Score:1)
First in a series? (Score:1)
There's no need for politics (Score:1)
When even the most out there third party candidate (Nader) is a multi-millionaire with a Washington Mansion, can you admit with a straight face that the establishment doesn't control everything?
I think most geeks are smart enough to recognize this, and recognize the growing power of the corporate state, which is why we're all so eager to worm ourselves into those technocratic corporations, we may not be able to give much input as to the steering of these plutocratic ships, but at least we're aboard, as scullery help if not as first class passengers.
Re:There's no need for politics (Score:2)
France Ahead of US (Score:1)
But if you vote, you're just giving assent and acceptance to the cage of control which you're in... just giving the government the key to your door.
Government sucks. Devotion to governance only begets more government. We'd be a lot better off if Congress would take a long, long vacation and stop passing laws.
blessings,
the day politics die (Score:1)
Politics are alive and kicking (Score:5)
For once I wish Katz was right. I'd very much like to see US politics get overhauled. It wouldn't even require a change to many of our laws or documents. The two party system has a stronghold on our choices for candidates in almost every election, and it is very rare that a third party candidate wins at any level of public office. Unfortunately, I think we'll be seeing the same old thing for many years to come.
Not the end, the end as we know it (Score:1)
In addition the web has given more power to smaller political parites and underdogs. IT may not be far away that someone from the reform party or the green party, or some smaller political party has a seat in the white house. The internet will help to empower more people to run for President and get their ideas out and get noticed. The internet is an empowering device for the delivery of knowledge and ideas.
Finally I believe that we will still be going to the polls to vote for many more years. The US government is not ready to move the entire voting process over to the internet. Neither is the American Public. So the idea that Politics is dead is wrong. No, Politics, like the world around us, is just changing everyday.
It's not Katz! (Score:1)
With an article like this, the real Katz would not be able to resist...
Agreement (Score:1)
Really, does no one else notice that this year there are more 3rd parties actaully recieving press time and being put on the ballot? They aren't there because they paid their way in ala Forbes and Perot; they are there because they actually have unique, controversial ideas and therefore appeal to the growing number of intellectual and cynical people in America.
This change has got to be because of the increase in technology and resulting overall prosperity of the nation. 3rd parties dont need to spend the millions on TV ads to get their message across, and besides, for most intelligent people the internet has become the informational tool of choice. Check out some parties' websites and you will see that for example the Libertarians have a much cleaner site with more non-propaganda content than either of the major parties. This is true of several 3rd parties.
When all have equal access to information about the parties, it really will become more a matter of who has the better platform and ideas, and not who has the better press or most relatives in Washington.
No great political issues at the moment (Score:3)
If you examine the politics of the 1920 ie: Warren Harding term then it too has a pretty low content of meaningful political debate. No big diferences in positions of the Republican's and Democrats, a lot of corruption and zero ideology.
I think with the fall of communism and the undermining of socialism as a creed, there is no one really challenging the USA consensus domestically or internationally.
Perhaps if oil remains at its current high level and/or China starts kicking off then we will return to old style "life and death" politics. Hopefully we don't.
um, it it doesn't need to be stated... (Score:2)
"So I think that maybe the Wired gurus were right: These are the last days of politics. On this site, the opportunity to disagree is implicit, and doesn't need to be stated, but I'd be especially interested to see if anybody else sees it this way."
Jon, we know how this site works. You know we'll disagree. You don't need to give us permission.
Last Days of Politics my ass. Politics are not going anywhere. Government politics might change, but that's about it. Whether the politics refer to the interaction between government representatives, or in the corporatist future that you lecture about, between high-ranking individuals within the company, politics and the science of politicing will always be around. It's human nature to strive for advantage and to gain favor from others. Humans are a socio-political entity. That's what we do.
"Online, innovation and originality remain prized and ubiquitous, whereas the political system hasn't advanced an innovative idea in years."
I'd disagree. Yes, innovation seems to be seen strongly online, but just because it's the most active sector, that doesn't mean that's the only place where new things are created.
And why is the political system supposed to change at the same pace that the online world is? Reminds me of the old "joke" about how Bill Gates says that if the automobile advanced the way technology has, cars would run 1000 miles on a gallon of water, weight 20 lbs, and you'd be able to throw one out and get a new one for $5 or some shit like that. The head dude from GM replies, yes, but if cars progressed the way technology has, your car would crash every 30 min and need to be restarted, be outdated the minute you purchase it, you'd have to wait on the phone for a technical repair line for hours on end, and rather than getting it fixed or upgrading, you'd end up using it for a door stop.
Yea, i probably butchered the joke, but imagine if our political system was completely changing the way technology has? Half the time tech and online ventures release things without thinking about the consequences, but only the short-term gains. And what about all of the instabilities?
Culture, religion, and politics should progress slowly... just ask the Amish.
Doesn't belong here. (Score:1)
--
rdrr (Score:1)
Pick representatives out of the phone book... (Score:5)
All you/we have now are party systems filled by failed lawyers. And where they all tow the party line, which is to say whatever the other party is saying is crap. (They're both right.)
All they know how to do, more deeply ingrained than a knee-jerk reflex, is pass more and more laws. Some are hilarious, many are contradictory none can even claim to be representative.
Bet the lobbyists would hate that. They'd have to get real jobs instead of kissing lawyers' butts. (No elections, no pond scum running for office, no pond scum to sell your orifice out for a chance at office.)
Re:Not the end, the end as we know it (Score:1)
What chance politics in an online world? (Score:4)
I think that as we move more towards a "wired" world (sorry for the Katzism) in which any fool with a net connection can make there views heard we will see an increase in factionalisation as people reject traditional parties in favour of their own conclusions. In the short term, perhaps an end to party politics as we see them today. In the long term, the reduction of politics to anarchy and flamewars.
After all the net gives everyone their own pulpit from which to preach, but it doesn't guarantee anyone would be heard. And in a world where five years is becoming a huge period of time, people's opinions will change by the hour as they fall under different influences.
But is this a good thing? I dunno, but there is the risk of popular orators and demagogues being able to capture large chunks of the voting population through rhetoric and promises rather than through even an attempt at a solid foundation of policy. Throughout history we see how entire nations have fallen under the sway of charismatic leaders, and do we want to return to an era in which democracy falls to the first person who can make a good speech?
End of ELECTED and DEMOCRATIC poltiics (Score:2)
This is certainly true in the judicial and executive branches - the supreme court (which is growing in power and scope - an undemocratic trend that should alarm you) is entirely appointed.
The candidates for president are largely appointed - the primary system is largely a show at this point.
While the legislative branch is still somewhat democratic, the two-party system is becoming so homogenous that users are essentially robbed of real choice - those selecting the candidates for the house and senate have largely usurped the democratic process.
Spare Nader a look (Score:1)
_____________
I'll bet / with my Net / I can get / those things yet.
Libertarians? No big business ties? (Score:1)
Your honor, representing the environment, Smokey the Bear, bear attorney at law
Hmm, why do I think this is a bad idea?
We need some government to keep the corporations in line, though we're not voting anymore because the corporations becoming too powerful. Obviously, we need to increase the power that the government has over corporations, or live in a Gibson/Sterling corporatacracy.
No end to politics (Score:2)
Now what should end is the enforcements of borders. There's nothing more hypocritical to an ideoligy of freedom and equal rights for all humans than a border with INS officials starting with the assumption of "What right do you have to be here?"
-Daniel
whoops - s/users/voters/sgi (Score:2)
The Last Days? Hardly... (Score:1)
Right now, you can at least look at the politicians and see who is pulling their strings. Without politicians, you'll get 300,000 "opinions" from "ordinary" people. There's no way to verify if they're paid to think that way or really do think that way.
Perhaps a better way to fix the problem would be to take the Senate away from the people again. The original idea behind the Senate was that each State or Commonwealth's legislature would elect 2 reps to go to the Senate. In theory, these people would not be bound to a particular company or organization, since they would not have the need to spend huge amounts of cash on political campaigns. This would give a certain amount of balance to the US Congress. Right now, we have House and Senate members that are bought and paid for by special interests. These groups represent corporations, evironmental groups, unions, etc., who all want their merchandise (IE: Their rep) to vote their way on all issues. Is it any wonder the laws of the US don't follow the will of the people? A small group who purchases a legislator has more voice in government than the ordinary person. By returning the Senate to the original idea set forth by the framers of the Constitution, we would at least have a better chance of getting some true representation in the halls of Congress.
Gush vs Bore is over the Supremes (Score:2)
There are at least 3 and probably 5 new Supreme Court appointments for the next President. Plus a bunch of Federal Judges. They will serve for ~20 years, heavily affecting the Courts.
Now you can say that the law is becoming increasingly irrelevant too [Napster], but just how lawless do you want society to become?
Re:Doesn't belong here. (Score:2)
My God! It's the end of time! (Score:2)
No. Can you recall one from the last election? Or the one before that? Or the one before that?
Yes, American politics is in decline. Yes, it's less relevant than ever before. But this has a lot more to do with television, Watergate, and campaign finance than it does with anything that has a keyboard attached to it.
-
This Is As Untrue as Ever (Score:1)
Then I began talking with others about voting for Nader. Wherever I turned, I got responses that mirrored the following sentiment: "Please don't vote for Nader, he'll only take votes away from (Bush|Gore)." People still feel locked into the two-party system, so much so that they tell others to and themselves go against their instinct to vote outside the system just to prevent some "greater evil" from gaining power.
How can politics be dead when such attitudes still prevail?
AJS
It's the PEOPLE stupid! (Score:1)
It amazes me how short sighted we are to think that the here and now is so much different from any of the previous episodes in history, or that we will rid the world of the evils of [insert your enemy here]. Politics is, and always has been a slimey profession. One that is bent on manipulating and controlling large groups of people by any means available.
So we now have the internet, a wonderful media that no longer silences the ignorant among us (Hot Grits!). That will not change or eliminate political maneuvering. We have had other effective political tools in the past that have changed the face of politics, but the games still go on.
How many of you reading this actually believe ANY public opinion poll? I hope none, as these are political manipulation tools. I hadn't always thought this way, but after working at a polling firm for a summer job, I uncovered some creepy undeniable truths:
1) People (the vast majority of people) are stupid. Worse yet, the ones who actually take the time to respond to pollsters are ignorant of almost everything that they are asked about (invalid data that turns into a valid poll).
2) Polls, and the questions that they ask can be used to skew results to unbelievable conclusions. This never makes it into the nice USAToday pie chart or bar graph.
In turn, polls become self fulfilling prophecies for whoever paid for them to be taken, by changing the public opinion.
The internet will not end this, if anything it will provide for a larger audience to manipulate.
-- Len
No Politics are not dead. (Score:1)
Why National Politics Shouldn't matter. (Score:2)
The real people making a difference in this world are the local level politicians, where it's not as "political" as the national level. Sure people spend lots of money trying to gain the highest seats in local government (i.e. Mayor) but those people are still beholden to the people because they are physically present. I work within blocks of the white house, but have never seen the president. Not once. Not ever. He's never called me to see if he's doing a good job, or asked what I thought about foreign policy. That's not his job either. However, it is the job of the local politicians to be in touch with their people, and in lots of case they are. The internet didn't bring about this end, it only hastened it. It emphasized precisely how worthless Washington is in general, and how valuable your town council and school board are.
Katz, you asked in your article:
Nope. Not one. Not a single solitary one. These men are not leaders, they are figureheads of worthless old institutions. Neither of those men have the suitable qualifications to be President.If anything, the net has become useful in creating a more "central" party. It's created a more populist centrist politics which both these candidates have embraced. Both candidates are trying to appeal to the widest number (neccesary for election) and as such have no stands on any issues. Gore has the only foreign policy experience and Bush the only "outsider's view" Both are worthless. Yes, in 20 years, we will look back and laugh.
My Vote (Score:2)
Seriously, though, the Net isn't a hotbed of political activity. The Net is where people go to bitch about politics rather than actually do something about politics. This is why things like DMCA, stupid patents, and UCITA get gotten away with. Rather than let their frustration build until it charges them into action, most Netizens just let it all out on discussion boards and think of themselves as having "educated" someone else on-line, who probably won't do anything about it either.
What really matters? (Score:1)
good riddance (Score:2)
I'm more detached from the campaign than ever this year. I barely know or care who's doing what in the "republicrat" parties. I don't know who I'm going to vote for, I'm only certain that it won't be one of them. Maybe Nader, maybe Browne. At least then my vote will mean something, though probably not much. At least it'll be a vote for change. How's voting for a republican or democrat going to change anything?
It seems like people will gain a lot more influence by organizing to change things securely and anonymously online in the coming years--encryption will gain a foothold eventually. People don't need an office building or complex of office buildings anymore to create a strong organization. They don't need to be in the same physical location to ensure private communications.
I guess what I worry about most is, what happens when the politicians' biggest relevance is that they're the guys with control of the guns?
numb
Re:Politics are alive and kicking (Score:5)
Maul wrote:
The problem is not "the law," as you state here. The law has been very clear for 200 years now, as far as the Federal government is concerned, and yet that government has been allowed to far overstep its legal bounds.
The problem is instead the expectations and experience of the population, combined with mass-media reinforcement and propagation of those expectations. The stronghold is not externally-imposed by a two-party system. If anything, it is internally-imposed by the great majority of the population who neither know nor care about the alternative ideas out there (even if some are really "out there" ;-).
The only overhaul required for the political system is for you to overhaul the foundations of the thinking of those around you. Only if you can convince, educate, and enlighten the people you meet about the options open to them, can you even begin to think about overhauling the political system as a whole.
Re:Politics are alive and kicking (Score:2)
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
"A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a "Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble."
"Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up."
- Ghandi
Anyway, the point is you do you have a choice. If you had been watching the recent PBS series, A Force More Powerful, you'd realize that normal people seeking justice CAN make a difference, whether it's a labor unionist in Poland, a minister in Alabama, or a lawyer in India.
Vote Green (or vote Reform, or Libertarian). Vote anything other than status quo. The system won't change itself.
Re:the end of the republic (Score:2)
We have that already. It's called Slashdot.
"And in other news tonight, President Portman urged voters once again to reject the Hot Grits Act of 2010, saying it went too far. She was immediately drowned out by Anonymous Cowards singing the praises of Penis Birds."
-
It's started to happen in the UK. (Score:4)
Fuel for road vehicles (petrol and diesel) is taxed over 75% tax. This makes our fuel the most expensive in Europe.
Earlier this month a protest was started by the road-haulage companies and farmers. This consisted of peaceful blockades outside fuel depots and oil refinerys, preventing fuel tankers from making deliveries.
Within a few days this blockade, coupled with panic buying, brought the country to an effective standstill. In addition essential provisions began to sell out in some stores, again caused by further panic buying.
The government steadfastly refused to make any changes to this tax policy (despite it being the root cause of inflation). The dispute stopped, temporarily, to restart 60 days later if nothing has changed.
The upshot of this is that the government has suddenly become very unpopular (the Millenium Dome farce hasn't helped), the opposition party are also unpopular for starting this tax policy, and the third party are unpopular for pledging to put taxes up further. Most people I've spoken too seem to have no idea who to vote for in the next election, which will be called soemtime within the next 18 months (how I'd love to have a fixed term).
Re:What chance politics in an online world? (Score:2)
The problem is, in the online political landscape from my point of view, I don't see this happening.
I see Democrats and Republicans online, but they are akin to Barnes and Noble, just trying to build an online presence becuase it is the "thing to do".
Other than that, I almost exclusively see Greens and Libertarians, which seem to be almost directly precipitated from Democrats and Republicans, respectively.
There are of course some fringe groups, an anarchy movement led by 15 year olds copying the same files from 1982 on how to make C4 with clorox, a few communists, etc, but really these people don't come out of their little shell much.
I think the internet breeds ideas of Liberty and Social Freedom, and that is why the Greens and Libertarians have gained some momentum, among techies. Of course, Katz is right, neither party is as big as it seems from reading a board like Slashdot, but both are growing, and could be significant in the next few years.
Of course, not many who lived through the 70s are going to vote for Nader, but Nader isn't the only Green out there.
The libertarians are crippled by being led by people with pretty radical viewpoints, who don't know the meaning of Moderate Libertarianism, who would have every piece of road in the US privatized. (mmmm A tool booth every 500 feet, sounds fun)
For the record, I am a Libertarian, and I plan to vote that way. Politics are not dead, they are just changing, slowly, which is a whole lot better than changing quickly, since that usually involves lots of social problems. (think Russia.)
-
Re:What chance politics in an online world? (Score:2)
The nature of ubiquitous communication means that ALL good speech makers have nearly equal access. Historically, charismatic leaders seized power not by making good speeches, but by taking control of a position which guaranteed they'd be heard by all, while their opponents stood on street corners. In the future, EVERYONE will essentially be on a streetcorner.
Politics will prevail (Score:2)
As long as there are two sides of an issue, then politics will continue to be an important part of our lives.
If /. is supposed to be taken as a model for future decision making then civilization is doomed. We can't even decide on something as simple as which text editor or scripting language to use. I can't possibly imagine sorting out more difficult topics like what to do with our dams on the lower Columbia, or how we should manage our forests so that they don't all burn down. Even worse a change to online politics will not change the landscape at all, it will simply re-arrange the people calling the shots. In the future it won't be the Democrats and the Republicans, it will be the Linuxistas the Beosians, the Slashdotians, and the Wired-ians.
If there is one thing that can be proved conclusively it is that the Internet has not added anything to the lost arts of diplomacy and compromise. People are less likely to compromise online than anywhere else.
Of course, Jon is old enough to know better about sweeping generalizations of this sort. Every rising generation believes that they hold the key to righting the "mistakes" of the past, and yet mostly all you get is smoke and noise. Like the hippies of yesteryear the online revolutionaries will soon find that politics is both necessary and beneficial.
It is true, however, that the mass-media is going to play an increasingly small part of the debate. As people begin to look for their information online they will soon realize that they can very effectively bypass the pundits and get right to the heart of the matter. Also the cost of broadcasting is going to fall until it is withing all of our reaches.
This will certainly change politics, but it will not destroy it.
Douglas Adams (Score:4)
Anyone capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, series 2.
In the meantime, I recall the occasion when the Greens polled 5% in European elections in the UK. The result was a sharp shift greenward in all the party platforms. A vote for an unpopular party isn't "wasted" because both the mainstream parties will immediately steal any idea that looks like attracting votes.
Paul.
Politics still matters! (Score:5)
"Can anybody cite a single interesting or important idea or argument that's emerged from the months of campaigning in the current U.S. presidential race?"
Um, have you been paying attention? The differences in ideologies between the major candidates and even the third-party candidates are huge. Voters have a real and substantive choice here, regardless of what they think of the political process. Hell, you have Ralph Nader who couldn't be more outside the mainstream and hs no corporate ties and could do better than anyone thinks.
The entire thesis of Katz's article is just plain wrong. How many net-based campaigns have done a bit of political change without people actually getting off their butts and doing something. The whole idea that politics is irrelevant because of the Internet is like those who said that computers would replace schools - they haven't, they won't, and they can't.
There will always be politics. There will always be disagreements over who gets what, when, where, and how much.
The alternative to politics is a system where there are no decisions, no free thought, no choices, and no hope. Mr. Katz, you've railed against systems like that many times before - yet your proposals would lead exactly to what you despise.
Politics are what lets us fight injustice. Politics are what lets us fight things like the DCMA, the MPAA, and the RIAA. No amount of sitting behind a computer screen will ever fix those problems. You don't have to like politics, but you do have to live with it. It is those who actively take a stand that will decide the future, and the choice is clear: either be trampled by those who do realize this, or get organized and get involved.
Sesame Street, Epistemology, and Freedom (Score:2)
I'm reluctant to accept any argument that finds the one central problem. This article points out that that is precisely the problem. Essentially, politics has become an argument over whose abstraction will be accepted as the model for the issue, who gets to determine which are the two sides of the issue. Consider the similarity between multiple choice tests such as the SAT and ballots. Only one answer wins.
Politics is dead. But... (Score:2)
That politics has been replaced by a frightening monolith of government that has no room for real political conflict anymore. If you look at the current presidential campaign it is nothing but an endless series of promises to fix things that aren't actually broken and accusations that the other party broke it. They keep going on about how we have to save Social Security. BULL! Social Security survived worse than the coming tide of elderly in its past, the only reason it looks worse now is because they changed how they measure their projections to be ultra-conservative.
The problem is that while they are sitting their puting on a play for the constituents, the Republicrats are sucking from the tete of corporate money and doing anything to keep their supply from running dry. So we get horrible laws like the DMCA, that totally kiss that collective butts of the corporate media empires. We also get laws that pander to those few who still care about the elections, creating a new government enforced morality.
Politics is not a ghost fading into the distance. Politics is a rotting corpse in a very poorly ventilated room. We all sit around smelling it, and being nauseated by it, but none of us wants to touch it. So we sit there in our disgust, trying not to think about it, and wait for somebody else to clean it up.
---
Re:France Ahead of US (Score:2)
> the president is not very powerful.
> He is not the head of governement.
Actually, since 1958 (5th republic), the French president is very powerful, more than in the US, when the parliament and thus the governement is on the same side as he is. In this case, his powers are superior to those of the prime minister. This is a "Gaullist" thing.
When the parliament and the government are on the other side, as it is currently the case (prime minister Jospin is socialist, president Chirac is right-wing) then, true, his powers are mostly restricted to international policy (including European policy, so this matters), but he is basically impotent on internal affairs.
Posting E-mail? (Score:2)
This isn't a flame. Really. I'm wondering why Katz needs to post our e-mail and "threads responses." Don't we have this whole fancy messaging system just so that isn't necessary?
-Waldo
Nader is no alternative (Score:2)
Only real alternative is Harry Browne, and what's he at, 15 voters?
Of course politics is alive and kicking (Score:2)
Then again, you could be wrong. (Score:2)
Consider what we're witnessing this year, the current energy crisis. As fuel prices go higher, disposable income is lower, luxuries are sacrificed first. I.e. Consumer Electronics, the next best PC, etc.
Petroleum reserves in the middle east *are* becoming exhausted. We heard all about this 25 years ago, that the world had about 40 more years of petroleum. Saudi Arabia may last 10 years at the current world rate of consumption, but Kuwait, Iran, and UAE are five years or so from the bottom of the well. When they run dry the draw on Saudi wells will increase. Iraq, thanks to the Gulf War, will have petroleum longer, as it has stayed put for almost 10 years. Probably not a bad idea for Europe to make friendly overtures to them.
As this crisis unfolds over the next few years, politics will again become a keen focus. How do people in the northeast not freeze to death? How do people get to work? How do farmers plant and harvest? How do we manufacture? What do hundreds of thousands of auto workers and parts manufacturers do for a living when the big layoffs hit? How do we manage this chaos when the oil is going, going, gone? Yeah, then we'll really see some politics.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
McCain sucked (Score:2)
McCain proves nothing, except that the press (usually) cannot elect a President. The only popularity McCain held was because he managed to portray himself as an anti-candidate. When you people looked at what he really believed, he crashed and burned.
I don't disagree with some of what you say (particularly about the cynicism of this page), but I believe McCain is an example of the system working.
--
Re:Posting E-mail? (Score:2)
Maybe its because I live in New Hampshire (Score:2)
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Wow the apathy (Score:2)
Where do you get these figures? Are you french? It wouldn't suprise me since the French have had a history of crappy governments and social problems that their governments couldn't handle.
But if you vote, you're just giving assent and acceptance to the cage of control which you're in... just giving the government the key to your door.
What a load of crap. So basically your saying that you shouldn't vote because you are giving the government "the key to your door" and then you site the fact that the government does stupid shitty things that hurt people who didn't even bother to vote in the first place.
Government sucks. Devotion to governance only begets more government. We'd be a lot better off if Congress would take a long, long vacation and stop passing laws.
But government is elected by the people. Maybe it's the people who suck and don't vote that make sure that the government hurts the people who didn't vote.
Laws represent various interests that are in American society. You cannot have representation of all groups without some laws to appease them all. Some of those laws are going to be in conflict against the basic tenets of the binding social contract of the society (the US constitution) and are struck down in the US suppreme courts and various Federal courts around the country.
To the center!! (Score:2)
If indeed they were droping out we should see strong votes for the alternative parties..instead people are just staying at home. The truth is you only get large voter turn out when there is a real perceived difference between the canidates. Gore and bush despite their little squablles are, in the big picture, almost exactly the same canidate.
The reason they are the same canidate is because this is what the people want. Sure maybe they might have wanted a little differnt (like mccain) but overall they want buisness as usual.
People don't like to change or be challenged. This is why we pay to avoid new and possibly disturbing ideas at the grocery store and on TV. Bot explicitly but with our feet, we don't patronize places the have ideas (or advertisments) that we find disturbing (do you realize how fast a grocery store with pro or anti abortion propoganda around would go out of business). As a country we would far rather wallow inside of our self-made nest of comfortability than get out and see what is really happening.
How would online activities help this? Apart from a coup by power mad geeks hacking into ICBM systems not at all. While the opinions on slashdot may be differnt *everyone* is getting online and while it may seem like they are dissatisfied with the current system because they complain about it all the time this is just a ruse. The internet, unfortunatly, will be mostly sanitized and clean transformed into the steril, but non-offensive, storefronts of the suburbs pushing any real chance of mind expansion out into a distant realm of rarely visted web sites.
Libertarian Party seems dead to me this year (Score:2)
The people who were handing out the ballots had a hard time even finding the correct ballot for the Libertarian party, they finally found one, and had to have some guy signed it - it hadn't even been signed as "official" yet... Apparently I was the first one to show up that day (And it was getting close to the end of the day) that was Libertarian.
All I could do is smile and say "Well, it doesn't look like my votes are going to do much good, huh?"
I guess I'm stuck voting for the lesser of two evils in the presidential election, Gore is pretty unimpressive, but I'm going to vote for him. GWB reminds me of Councilor/Darth Sidious from SWE1, definite disconnection from reality there, everything he says makes me distrust everything he says. My internal bullshit/untrustable filters indicate 100% BS, bright lights flashing and sirens going off. (Although, I gotta say Liebermann LOOKS more like Darth Sidious! :)
Status of Libertarian party in Omaha Nebraska: Near Dead. Really disappointing...
More reason that we need to get into direct-vote, non-representative government. I know there are a lot of strong arguments against it, that it could possibly turn the whole thing into a mob-mentality popularity contest, but ain't that what we already have?
Direct voting would sure get people interested again, knowing that their vote will not just get ignored by their representatives. How many times have we seen that happen - a majority vote for an issue, but our "esteemed, wise" representative chooses to ignore the constituency and vote otherwise, saying "It's for the greater good, and I'm a professional, so I know what is better for you..."
Mod. this up! (Score:3)
Originally I was going to post an off-topic comment about various almost candidates (McCain, Bradley, etc.) but that would probably inflame somebody. I have realized that I don't dislike anyone who has run in this race, I just disagree about their fitness for the job. My opinion, like the opinion of everyone else in the contry, was formed by the sound-bite or staged candid shot. What do these men actually stand for?
My short voting career (since '92) has been filled with disappointment. Tsongas, my first choice back then, dropped out of the race before my state's primary. As I paid much more attention back then, Mr. Clinton gained and lost my support in subsequent days by making different mutually exclusive promises to conflicting groups. I couldn't divine where his compass pointed, and dismissed him as unworthy of my trust. Mr. Bush (Sr.) had lost the fire in his eyes. His body language told me (and the rest of the country) that he didn't want the job anymore, and was just going through the motions. I am almost embarrassed to say it now, but I voted for Perot, and was in a state of denial that he was a nut.
I went through the same this time around. I had a lot of respect for McCain before he ran. The mass-media that had built him up, had also delivered enough to tear him down. Quick, what rhymes with gook? Cook!
So now we are left with the two bastard butterknives in the silverware drawer (and a pair of salad tongs). It all comes down to who gets the best polish from the mass-media.
-- Len
"a single interesting or important idea " (Score:2)
Yes, there are issues in this campaign, but as usual, Katz is too wrapped up in his cynicism and "social theories" to actually watch the candidates.
I believe this is one of the most important ideas of this campaign: School Vouchers.
Education must be taken back from the Teacher Union Nazis, the social architects and the grad school failure "experimentalists" (whole language anyone?)*
Why anyone would be in favor of entrusting their child's education to the government rather than keeping control themselves in beyond my comprehension. My kid is only a year old, but there is no question that he is going to private school rather than public school. Fortunately, I have the means to do it. What's amazing to me is that the same people who rail against the benefits that upper class people enjoy are the same people who think that the poor should not have access to the best private schools.
In fact, I might even say there is a twinge of racism involved. Liberal do-gooders think that the poor (read: minorities) are not "sophisticated" enough (read: too stupid) to be able to make "proper" educational choices. Therefore, they need do-gooders to do it for them.
Now, I would send my kid to a non-religious school, but the religious school issue is a non-issue to me. The constitution says that the government is not to establish an official religion -- and also says that it should not prohibit the free excercise thereof. It's none of the government's business whether a child receives a religious education. As long as the government does not favor a particular religion, there is absolutely no reason that a religious school should not be paid for.
*Aside: Did you know that the people in the Graduate Education department at universities have the lowest GMAT (testing) scores? If you've ever talked to some of these people, you know it's true.
--
Neither candidate is advocating change - Duh! (Score:2)
When JonKatz stated:
Can anybody cite a single interesting or important idea or argument that's emerged from the months of campaigning in the current U.S. presidential race? Despite the millions spent on primaries, advertising, debates, press conferences, press-the-flesh tours, photo-ops? In the midst of a technological revolution, has anyone involved in this musty political ritual used technology in any imaginative or innovative way or invoked it, except as a (false) menace to children?
He was stating a fact - neither candidate is advocating radical change. The economy is doing well, the rest of the world is not about to invade us, crime is down, drug use is down, etc. NO ONE WANTS THINGS TO CHANGE. The public will only want *change* when things are in the toilet.
Both candidates are just "doing their job" - which is to piss off as few people as possible. People don't *for* a candidate, they vote *against* one. Neither one wants to be the one you vote against, so they stay in the middle of the road on everything. No big surprise there.
Me? I'm voting *against* both of them, so I'll probably vote for Ralph Nader. I encourage everyone to not "pick the winner", but make your vote send the message you want sent to Washington.
Re:Politics are alive and kicking (Score:3)
We have not had a political revolution since the Civil War (which may not even qualify as a political revolution). The power system is in place. The party system is in place. There will be no revolutions, merely evolutions. The previous century marked the rise and fall of American Unions. What will this century bring?
Both parties have raced to the Center - the only difference is the direction in which they lean. Any 3rd party hope is doomed to become incorporated into the mainstream.
Cheers,
Slak
No you're missing the point (Score:2)
I guess all the cops in Oklahoma needed to do when they confiscated copies of "The Tin Drum" was to say they were doing it to fight multinationals and the Green Party would have been behind them 100 percent!
Sure, in 1910 it was the "End of War" (Score:2)
Only skirmishes since Napoleon's defeat a century earlier.
Human nature, being ignorant, especially in "Jaywalking" America is doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Current techheads have tunnel vision and cant see past the last IPO.
Re:Politics are alive and kicking (Score:2)
Kind of reminds me of the IOP [inflatablewhale.com] (Inanimate Objects Party) my uni [rpi.edu] had for the elections.
Arthur Galpin for President in 2000!
--
Re:Libertarian Party seems dead to me this year (Score:2)
You're not stuck doing anything. If you want the LP to live, don't sell out and vote for Bush or Gore. If there aren't a lot of people running as Libertarians, run, or get a friend to run. Between apathy and ballot access laws, Libertarians have some major hurdles to cross, but we're making steady progress, and sustainable progress at that, as opposed to the Reform Party, which has just imploded after only 8 years of existence.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...vote Browne [harrybrowne.org]...
Political Apathy? Eat my karma, JonKatz (Score:2)
So, what exactly are you saying, Katz? That politics just doesn't matter to us "enlightened" citizens of The Net? This "politics sucks, so we can just ignore it" attitude is one thing I find really frightening about the Net culture. This kind of thing is funny to hear coming from Slahdot, considering how you are always posting outraged articles about the freedoms that are being taken away from us every day by the marriage of politics and corporations.
I am one of those young people that you think are just apathetic and disinterested in politics. The reason people have become disinterested in politics is that they have no say in it. We just tell ourselves that the political system is working fine without us, while it's being hijacked by corporate interests. Now what was a two party system has merged into a single party system with two faces, two identical candidates backed by the same corporations. Perhaps you will wish you hadn't been so quick to declare politics dead, when they take away your right to print articles saying what you believe. To quote Ralph Nader [votenader.com]: "If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you."
Negate the Vote (Score:2)
Lack of support for the current candidates does not necessarily translate into lack of support for politics. In the past, the reason I have opted not to vote has been because I was unable to commit my support to any of the existing candidates. The reason I have changed this stance is because of the failure of the other end of this system: impeachment. If there is no valid, functional mechanism to remove a failed executive officer, then it is vital that we exercise what little amount of choice we do have, on the front end.
An alternative? Tell me, of those of you who do not vote, or who do not actively support the candidate you vote for...would you vote if you could place a negative vote? So, I don't want to vote for either candidate, but I object to one more than the other. I place my negative vote against that candidate. When votes are tallied, positive votes are counted, and negative votes are subtracted. The candidate with the least objection wins. What do you say?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Re:I knew it was Katz (Score:2)
Katz and his wired pals should spend more time examining why this is, rather than the fact that it is.
Obviously the appeal of these candidates is two-fold:
They must be popular to their backers
i.e. Pandering to special interests
They must be popular to the electorate
Elect me and I'll slash your taxes, balance the budget and spend more on programs important to you.
We should be choosing leaders, not political weasels.
--
Chief Frog Inspector
Go north! (Score:2)
Virtually identical to the US two-party system, there is one fundamental difference in voting patterns: in the US, people vote for the party their parents voted for, in Canada, governments are voted out!!!
The majority government under Brian Mulroney (arguably the most corrupt/criminal PM in Canadian history) dropped to two seats in the next election. This has led to a gov't comprising roughly five parties.
I see a lot of problems with this. OTOH, I also see a number of far more serious issues with the two party system. So don't give up hope, the US may still eventually break the death-grip the two parties have on US politics.
Re:There's no need for politics (Score:2)
It is interesting to point out that one of the original ars is astrology. That, unfortunately, still exists. Philosophy, oration, and I forget the other two, still exist today. Rhetoric is simply a form of communication. Political rhetoric is little more than pandering (always has been, always will be.. a point Cicero could have learned from Julius Caesar). Not until JFK appeared on television was it popularized for political campaigns (15 or so years after it gained popularity). Not until FDR was the radio utilized extensively for political purposes (at least 15 years after it gained popularity).
The more I read about corps on slashdot, the more I shudder. I am sorry the proletariot (sp?) seem to have most posters oppressed. If you are waiting for someone to wrest power from the corps, are you in for a rude awakening.
Let's start with a simple axiom: the conservation of power (political, monetary, etc). There is only a finite amount of power that can exist. To divide power evenly is a recipe for disaster (cf Mythical Man Month--someone has to have more power to make higher level decisions, otherwise crap output). So, there must exist a pecking order. If you don't like it, take on the alpha-critter. Feel you don't have enough power to take on the alpha-critter, don't start there. Amass power and climb the pecking order. Always remember: power corrupts (as you will be as you climb) and s/he who has the gold makes the rules. Don't like it, find a place that exists that does not follow it (good luck--don't know of one) and move there. Try to start one. Even the hippie communes of the sixties all but fell extinct. And those that still do exist seem to have different goals than those goals expressed here on slashdot (otherwise, we would hear about them.. duh)
So there will always be a need for politics to handle this pecking order. Someone will always have veto power over you. Your creativity must be stifled for the benefit of the many (again, cf Mythical Man Month (specifically the surgical team approach) -- hate to keep quoting this source, but other managerial texts do not seem to have the repore of this book on /.)
Re:Libertarian Party seems dead to me this year (Score:2)
I'd like to welcome you back to the Libertarian Party, where we pay for our own primaries, and have an excellent presidential candidate Harry Browne [harrybrowne.org] and candidates for a majority of the U.S. House seats, a feat last performed by a non-Democrat-Republican party 80 years ago.
If the Libertarian party isn't too active in Omaha, activate it. Be a self-governor and take responsibility for your own political life.
Jon Katz' recipe for karma control (Score:2)
- Reach into every geek's darkest corners and excite their hatred for common fools
- Subtlely imply that they're all out to get us
- Delete last paragraph of article in order to make it look like an "open" topic
- Watch angered readers' karma drop when they criticize the numbness of your story
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re:Spare Nader a look (Score:2)
A member of the green party needs only to adhere to these 10 key values.
LOL! Those "values" say absolutely nothing. Almost everone would agree with those values, both Democrats and Republicans.
The devil in the details of implementation. The Greens are for extreme government control. Nader can say whatever he wants, but he is running on the Green party platform, therefore I have to assume somewhere in his heart he agrees with what the Greens believe, Socialism/Communism and all.
--
Katz gone Evil (Score:2)
Does Katz realize what the 2000 election means? I won't talk about the much more important local races since this is dependant on your area (assuming you're in the US; if not then just forget this post
As an openly gay tech nerd this scares me. This means that commercial empires will continue to reign (conservatives seem to be rather leniant on anti-monopoly policy), and I don't even want to think about the consequences it will have on Civil Rights. But it doesn't matter if you agree with me. Hell, I don't care if you are a right-wing xenophobic neo-nazi
In Jon Katz dreamworld where he can go around not even realizing that he lives in a world that is still very much in a constant power struggle between Nations/Interest Groups/Religions/Etc. But in the real world, there is a damn spoon, and if we ever forget that, think things will work out OK without our help, then I would be terrified to see the type of world we would become.
Shh! Nobody knows I'm gay!
Technological Determinism (Score:2)
Katz correctly notes that fewer than half of the American public bothers to make its preference known in federal elections (and the percentage is ever-decreasing), yet somehow fails to realize that this represents, not the failure of the existing power structure, but its ongoing victory over real democracy. Far from being out of touch, the political-economic power structure in the U.S. exists in a day-to-day frenzy of adaptation to its audience: no country in the world is more closely scrutinized, polled or focus-grouped. All that attention serves to keep the audience happy, applauding and in its comfortable seats, rather than up on stage with the players.
Is technology the ultimate determining force in politics? Will the Internet make you free? Maybe, if you've spent the last decade or so making sure you own a piece of it. For the Rest Of Us, though, that promise is rapidly diminishing as the process of laying tile, hanging neon, and spraying plastic ferns rapidly transforms the Net into the Biggest Shopping Mall in the World.
Re:Libertarians? No big business ties? (Score:2)
Yes, as long as the government is still accountable to the society. "Big business" is only accountable to its investors, who tend to be more well-to-do than the "typical" member of society.
Hardly. All they proved is that a centrally-controlled economy isn't all that efficient.
As far as big business working "well", all big business is good for is making money for its investors. If its actions start hurting the society in general, it should be destroyed and cut out, just like any parasitic cancerous growth.
I'm perfectly willing to live & let live, until some moron comes along & does something to hurt me or my family (steal my possessions, befoul my air & water, etc). When that happens, then I want them punished, to discourage them (and others) from doing it again - I certainly don't want them "left alone".
The information problem (Score:2)
The talking heads constantly bring us minute by minute tit-for-tat news of every misstep and foible of our leaders. And what, exactly, does the average citizen get to do about it? Absolutely nothing.
The eye tends to ignore static if favor of the quick moving bauble. By trying to satisfy the desire for 'news', we have 15 channels of gossip. The network execs don't care, it's cheap to produce, but the result is that it tends to get ignored over time.
This actually has little to do with the Internet, which only a small (but growing) portion of the population are really involved with other than looking up the next corporate offering. (Does cruising AOL to look at stocks really qualify as utilizing the Net to its fullest?) This has to do with people realizing that they are really only a small part of the universe that their small local problems are more important to them than national problems that they have no effect on.
Re:Why National Politics Shouldn't matter. (Score:2)
Machiavelli. (Score:2)
If it were a contest between two ideologies - however exhausted they may be - I'd be interested.
But it's not. There is only one ideology, and it's common to both of the major parties: power.
Power: How to get it. How to keep it.
The debates over Social Security? Nobody debating this issue cares about SS per se - they care about nailing down the Grey Power vote. Education/health? The soccer mom vote. Violence in the media? The religious right then says the things you can't say.
DMCA and UCITA are straight out of Machiavelli. Both the feudal lord and the Prince of the Rennaissance city-state can (and should) abuse the peasants all they want - the abuse prevents them from rising above subsistence levels, and the Church placates them. But don't ever piss off the nobles. They're where your real support comes from.
The 'net as a playground for terrorists, pedophiles, and pirates? Scare the ignorant into voting for you, and simultaneously lay the groundwork for a surveillance state - a necessary piece of infrastructure for long-term consolidation of power.
Don't ever delude yourself into thinking that anyone who wants your vote is interested in anything other than power.
Anyone who thinks "It Can't Happen Here" hasn't been paying attention:
From a CNN [cnn.com] article:
If you think the Chinese and Russian net.surveillance systems are things that can only happen in totalitarian states, think again. Since the end of the Cold War, we've gone from defending the free world against totalitarianism to helping totalitarian states set up their surveillance programs.
Yes, "politics is almost over". Not because of some fluffy Katzesque triumph of free Netizens, but because there'll no longer be a need for the charade.
The former USSR held elections for the 74 years following the Revolution. Present-day China does the same thing.
Power wins.
Petrolium reserves (Score:2)
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
News of death of politics is greatly exaggerated (Score:2)
If I understand you correctly, one of your central themes is that you and those whom you claim to represent aren't being spoon-fed political information in a tasty enough form. My response to this is to tell you to ignore the politico-marketing hype and take advantage of this new tool called the net to learn for yourself the issues and positions of the candidates. You could even (gasp) summarize your findings, package them 'imaginatively', and make them available to your fellow ennui-suffers. Which is exactly what's happening all across the web, if you'll take the time to look. Politics is not only not at an end, it's flowering in thousands of ways as the old obstacles to information dissemination fall. Criticizing 'the system' is just an easy excuse for not bothering to take part.
As you noted in your essay, even if you ignore the political beast, it isn't ignoring you. It will pass laws, subject you to surveillance, prosecute you, decide what you 'need', and generally make a nuisance (or worse) of itself unless controlled. Remember the quote, "For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing". Whatever your definition of political evil, you're running the risk of getting just that if you don't pay attention and participate.
In my experience, distaste for, and ignorance of, politics is a condition of youth. Get a little older, have a family, get some money in the bank and you'll generally start to care a lot more. For those who don't, I'm happy not to have their ignorant votes mucking things up for those of us who take the time to inform ourselves. Just sit back, we'll be happy to run things for you. Just don't bitch when it isn't what you wanted.
Re:There's no need for politics (Score:2)
Technology itself won't change politics. (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with a 2-party system (Score:2)
So, (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't belong here. (Score:2)
Geeks use clear and concise language so that difficult concepts can be understood as easily as possible. JonKatz seems to want to use the biggest words possible so he can get just the right nuance across. I think most slashdotters don't finish reading his articles because they get lost in the flowery language and can't pick out the main point as easily as they could from a manual.
Now don't be elitist and say /.ers don't think enough. Yeah, articles about culture and such require the reader to think more, so maybe they should slow down. But I feel as if JonKatz might as well be writing in Old English... it annoys me so much. He's not writing in the common language of the general Slashdotter. If he's doing it on purpose, then I think he should join another community that uses that sort of language on a day-to-day basis. First rule of writing: know who your audience is. If it's only a very small subset of the Slashdot population, then I don't think he's very useful here.
I'm not opposed to having our language/culture change, but he's so far out there that I don't feel like I can relate at all.
--
McCain was a product of the Media (Score:2)
The apathy in politics from the younger generation stems from the lack venue to "Get involved". Many people WANT to get involved but it's increasingly difficult to do so because of the nature of how politics is presented by the media. Watching any mainstream media outlet or even the Internet-based extentions of some of them (e.g. CNN) all you get is the station's/paper's spin based on the political stance of the publication. If these media outlets think that their readers and viewers don't pick up on these blatant biases they are blind. Take a recent CNN article (I only offer this example as the latest I've seen. This not an anti-Gore flame or anything -- just a recent example I recall). CNN has taken an incredibly pro-Gore stance in this campaign. As a result, Gore's continued tired rhetoric about "Saving Medicare" takes up 3/4 of the article and most of the "meat" while Bush's (euqally tired) discussions about education in America are glossed over in 2 paragraphs. Shouldn't an un-baised news source either give more equal coverage or make it two separate articles? Speaking as a voice of the 18-24 deomgraphic, I'm tired of the media attempting to slant my thinking towards their viewpoint. I recoginze that every writer's work is going to be at least somewhat colored by their own experiences and beliefs, but lately most media outlets don't even try. The younger Americans would be MUCH more likely to get involved in they had a more direct avenue of reaching and understanding the candidates.
Oh yeah? www.slaphillary.com (Score:2)
Why the Republican Form of Government is obsolete (Score:2)
This pretty much derives from pure Athenian democracy. The problem with Athenian democracy is scalability. Too many issues, too many people voting over them, it's just a lot of time that you or I don't have. And scaling that to a state or a nation is ludicrous.
The republican solution is to simply vote for the people you "trust" to vote the way you would. This is a better solution than simple democracy on a large scale, but it has its drawbacks. A lot of these drawbacks occur due to the fact that, since a limited number of people are actually making the laws, whoever controls those people control the nation. And it's a lot easier to control a small number of legislators than a large population.
One solution is a proposed "pebble democracy", described here [c2.com]. This solution relies on the extensive IT infrastructure that we now have, that our forefathers had no access to.
The general ideas are:
- Everyone gets an equivalent vote (but not necessarily one vote, perhaps one thousand).
- Votes are kept, audited, and tallied on a computer network. You vote from your own computer.
- All legislative issues come up to a general population vote. You still need executives and other "fast-acting" officers--democracies are good at long term decisions, not short term ones.
- You can use as many of your votes as you want to vote on any given issue, until you run out of votes. This way, you have more influence on issues you know and care about, and little or no influence on issues that are irrelevant to you.
- Anyone can set themselves up as a "legislator" by offering "tickets". A ticket is a suggestion on how to vote that you can download onto your own voting computer, if you trust the ticket's writer. A voter simply allocates votes to a ticket, and automatically uses those votes per the ticket's suggestions.
The last item, with "tickets", establishes the scalability of a republican government without the "limited number of people" issues. Special interests and lobbies become these legislators, writing tickets, and their power is directly related to the number of people who trust them, not how much money said people have.If you have a setup like this, to screw things up you have to fool (bribe, blackmail, influence) the majority of the populace, rather than just a few hundred congressmen and fifty one Senators.
politics is hardly dead... (Score:2)
I personally think mr. katz is off his fucking rocker to say politics is about at its end. You, dear sir, have just made the same idiotic mistake that every other technophile in the world has made: Believing that the net/technology is the end all be all of existance. You don't specifically state this, but it's in your tone. Your soliloquy about politics is bathed in terms like "The digital age."
This has been said before and it will be said again...and although you can disagree about the specific aspects of it, the fundamental point remains the same. The internet will not solve the problems of the children of etheopia. What makes us think it will solve the problems of politics or of the high cost of oil, or of any of the million other problems that plague us in a REAL fashion?
Sell your stock now...cause the only thing people are going to become less and less interested in is the "digital age" when they realize that it hasn't solved any of their problems. At least those corrupt politicians we constantly slander are trying.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Politics are not dead says uniforms with guns. (Score:2)
As long as a government has the ability to weild more force than the governed then politics is important. Regardless of if you chose to participate in government or not the policies of that government have immediate and permanent effect on you.
Those politicians make determinations on how much (more) of your money they will take from you and for which actions they may imprison or execute you.
Given that the government has become a major part of the population, and is certainly much better armed than the general population (and increasing the disparity through 'gun violence' and 'war on drugs' paranoia) it's a long way off before anyone can just offhand decide to ignore laws or taxes they decide are unjust. Ruby Ridge and Waco being a few key examples.
So you damn well better take part in the political process.
-- Greg
Re:Nader is the alternative (Score:2)
Right on. Been preaching that one myself for years.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
All things to all people (Score:2)
Most voters are well over 25 and still watch newscasts. Do any of us regularly tune in to watch Ted Koppel or Sam Donaldson go on about things that we already know, or, if we don't already know them, appear to be pure fluff about 'our health' or the Class of 2004? You can call it the Apathy Crisis or whatever, but the simple fact is that everything, that means everything political is commercial. Everything has a message, and behind that message is 'brought to us by...' directly after it. We don't care about what they have to say because we already know what they're going to go on about. They tell us what we want to hear and the 30+ adults out there soak it up like some kind of dilapidated sponge. Please mister Democrat, tell me you care about this. Please mister Republican, save my children. Please mister Nader, save the bad commercials from ruining our country. It's all sold-out over-hashed and under-messaged bullshit. We've become so jaded to the facts ads are in our face all day, we don't see or care what else is behind it.
A politician on slashdot is basically a bullseye target. Someone to knock down, pick up, then knock down again. They didn't do this, so slight them. They voted against this, pick them up and kick them again. There's no way you can continue to berate those who are in office and still expect them to respect and listen to you.
If a politician hasn't sold out to lobbyists and/or corporations, nobody has heard of them. If they have, people can't stand/believe that they would lower themselves to accepting money from such and such people. You can't have it both ways people. So which way do you want it?
1st step (Score:2)
My first step in reforming government would be to make elections for representatives 'at large' rather than by district. No district in any state, with the exception of Vermont a one district state, is going to have sufficient support for third party candidates to get them elected. Statewide however, third party candidates could probably find the support they need to get elected. Sure the Dems and Repubs will still get a majority of the seats, but with 13 districts (using my home state as an example) Libertarian, Green, and/or Reform candidate(s), even in bible belt Tennessee, could get elected. With a more pluralistic house, third parties could build upon the bases they create to leapfrog candidates to the senate and presidency.
Maybe that's a dumb idea (if so tear me to pieces) but it seems to me that it could easily work.
Boring (Score:2)
I think politics would be a great thing for many techies to get into. Governor Ventura has said how much he enjoys the job because he's always learning something. He'll be in meetings all day and talk about things ranging from environment to education to transportation to the economy. If you enjoy learning about diverse topics, politics is an interesting field.
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:It's started to happen in the UK. (Score:2)
Re:Don't be a puss, vote Nader (Score:2)
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Re:Libertarian Party seems dead to me this year (Score:2)
Status of Libertarian party in Omaha Nebraska: Near Dead. Really disappointing... [...] More reason that we need to get into direct-vote, non-representative government.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that the Libertarian party is "Near Dead" is not because the election process is unfair, but because the ideas have simply been rejected?
This is one of the things that drive me crazy. If someone's ideas aren't adopted, then "dang it, we have to change the system until they are!" or "People would elect us if they only we're more educated, yeah, that's the ticket."
Yes, I've read Ayn Rand. But the Libertarian Party will never achieve power in the US because many of their ideas are simply bad. It's not all bad, but they make the mistake that many extremists make of assuming that one set of principles are applicable to all areas of life*. It would be a great world if that were true, but unfortunately, it just isn't.
* Kind of like the OSS development model. :)
--
Re:Libertarians? No big business ties? (Score:2)
If you believe that the average American citizen who has a few shares of stock purchased through a 401(k) has as much influence with a large corporation as a large institutional investor with a couple million shares of stock, there's this bridge I can sell you really cheap...
A properly functioning government doesn't have to micromanage businesses - it just has to put bounds on the behavior of business to prevent them from abusing the power of their resources to hurt the society that the government is supposed to be protecting. (Whether or not the current government is actually behaving in the best interests of society, or is instead behaving in the best interests of those with lots of money, is a whole 'nother discussion.)
The government supposedly exists to protect the society - they have whatever rights the society thinks they need to protect the society. Put another way, if an individual is using their own private property in such a way that it is hurting other members of the society, then they shouldn't be surprised when the "other" members of the society gang up on them to whoop their ass, or delegate that power to an agent (e.g., the government) to perform the ass-whooping for them.
Private property is a concept which is "allowed" by the society - it's not a right, it's a privilege. (A deeply ENGRAINED privilege, and one which normally yields great benefits for the members of society, but still just a privilege).
If your viewpoint about the drug war is in line with the majority of the society, then this means that the government is no longer properly taking care of its duties as a steward of the society. It doesn't mean that letting business have its own way is better.
BS. The corporations have much better results (earning profit) FOR the owners. The government doesn't exist to make a profit - it's supposed to exist to take care of the society. The primary problems that I see with the current state of the government is where "big business" has subverted the function of the government from taking care of the society, to where the government is taking care of the "big business". I bet you still believe that trickle-down economics really does mostly help poor people.
Hardly. The US is powerful because of 1) a relatively sheltered geographic locale, 2) abundant natural resources, 3) we haven't had the necessity of rebuilding our country's infrastructure after a couple of World Wars, 4) a steady flow of immigration from the rest of the world to keep the population from stagnating, and 5) a healthy SMALL business environment (at least in the past, not so sure now). BIG business has generally proven to be a progress-inhibiting, stagnation-inducing, corrupting influence on both society & government.
Re:Pick representatives out of the phone book... (Score:3)
All they know how to do, more deeply ingrained than a knee-jerk reflex, is pass more and more laws. Some are hilarious, many are contradictory none can even claim to be representative.
And the -5 Bummer result is that we have tens (hundreds?) of thousands of laws and administrative regulations on the books... endless pages of mind-numbing BS that gets added to, but rarely deleted. It's like a massive software system designed by committee and written in Perl by an ever-changing team of thousands of programmers, to a specification that is constantly changing. It makes me hungry for spaghetti just thinking about it.
Certain laws are common sense... but this level of bureaucracy and micro-management is ridiculous. For Christ's sake, the FDA recently published a 15-page proposal to regulate the size of holes in Swiss cheese [lp.org]. How absurd is that?
--
Re:Nader is no alternative (Score:2)
In some states, Browne has a healthy lead over Buchanan, and in others Browne is even ahead of or tied with Nader. In one or two states, Browne is on the ballot and Nader is not.
It's quite frustrating that Buchanan and Nader get heaps of attention from major media (because they're celebrities?) and Browne gets very little, despite having risen this far in the polls without it.
--
Political change is only the tip of the iceburg (Score:2)
At the dawn of civilization, increases in population led to new developments in agriculture. These allowed cultures which were formerly hunger-gatherers and nomads to settle in one location. From there populations increased over time and with them the need to keep track of things like who owned which cows and where did one person's land begin and another's end. To solve this problem primitive writing was created. This evolved as the culture grew and expanded with its population. Civilization was born. The great civilzations of the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, or the ancient Chinese would never have existed without written language. It is because of their written language that we know of them today.
The printing press changed world when it opened up a new world of knowledge and ideas to people who formerly would never be exposed to them. Books became something that many people could afford, increasing literacy and improving the average person's understanding of the world. This was something the church fought because they rightly feared that new knowledge and ideas would lead people to question church doctrine, undermining its authority. At one point it was illegal to print copies of the bible because it put the word of God in the hands of the common man, removing his need to get it through a priest.
Radio and television have by and large been used for entertainment, but not exclusively. News reports put people in touch with events happening anywhere and everywhere in a way that even the best newspaper reporter never could. Even the entertainment programming contains ideas that influence how people think.
Now we have the Internet, the greatest tool for social progress since the invention of the printing press or perhaps even the written word itself. It allows people to not only experience the ideas of others, but to put forth their own ideas. It makes it very difficult for those in power to control our civilization's beliefs by controlling our access to new and different ideas. This is partly why interest in politics has waned, people realize that the power to change the world rests with themselves. This of course undermines the existing power structures which depend on maintaining the status quo by misdirecting the people's energies for change into useless and even counterproductive activities.
Information and Knowledge are power, as is the ability to communicate information and ideas. As people aquire these things they aquire power over their own lives and the power to influence the world around them. It is this which spells the downfall of tyrrany and oppression and the birth of true freedom. It is very difficult for political or social ideologies which are based upon lies to gain a foothold in the face of thousands or millions of people who are willing and able to speak out against it and be heard. The internet makes true democracy possible.
In the future historians will look back on this time as the point at which things changed. Things like this remind me of how easy it is to be oblivious to history when we're the one's living it. I for one am glad to be here playing, playing my part in the changes all around us.
Lee Reynolds