Is The Net About to Transform Politics? 172
It's not going to happen. Washington is the last holdout against the wall-busting power of the Net. They'll go kicking and screaming, but not next year.
The pundits are already hyping the 2000 Presidential election as the year in which the Net transforms mainstream politics.
The Internet, USA Today reported last week, "is a new wave in politics, one that could rival or surpass the impact of TV's."
Gushes Newsweek in a cover report on how the Internet is changing America: "E-campaigning has been upgraded from novelty to necessity in the blink of an eye. Candidates must now compete in the wilds of the Web, a world with its own rules, politics and governing may never be the same."
It sounds breathtakingly significant.
But don't buy it.
The pundits are wrong, especially when it comes to the 2000 election.
They ought to be right. Everything - the people, the technology, the timing - is in place for that Net tidal wave, except for one seminal ingredient: politicians.
Savvy political figures from Kennedy to Reagan to Clinton have always understood that technologies like television, radio and the Net are a powerful new way to communicate their philosophies. Reagan's "Morning In America" campaign was perhaps the best recent use of TV to evoke a successful political ideology.
Reagan, a professional actor, didn't really need to understand the details of politics or government, and never did. What he did understand was TV, which enabled him to reach a vast audience with a powerful philosophy.
In order for the Net to do the same thing, a national politician would have to emerge who really understands the Net in the way Reagan grasped visual imagery. There is no such person running for President of the United States.
Here, George W. Bush's decision to put his list of campaign contributors online is considered a monumental hi-tech political step, sending the Washington pols and their co-dependent reporters into a frenzy. But the information, which was already available to the public, doesn't alter the political system.
Al Gore would like to be Father of the Net, but he's had as much trouble capturing the imagination of the wired world as the other one. Elizabeth Dole is too busy campaigning against pornography on the Internet to notice she's by-passing the biggest untapped political constituency of our time.
John McCain has a savvier grasp of telecommunications issues than most other national politicians, but he's hardly an interactive political figure. Steve Forbes campaign promised to conduct the "first Internet-based campaign" in American history. But vast databases aren't a transforming digital political idea, and Forbes himself has hardly set American imaginations aflame, online or off.
Gore, Steve Forbes, McCain, Dan Quayle and others have already held moderated chats on outside sites such as washingtonpost.com and CNN. Dole's campaign, says she plans on participating in online chats starting this fall. None of these "chats" have made any news, sparked any political discussions, or had any impact on politics or individual campaigns. In the fact, the very notion of a single politician "chatting" with the tens of millions of people online manages to trivialize both the Net and the political system at the same time.
There's probably never been a meaningful live political chat in the history of the Internet. The very form makes the idea ridiculous.
Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura used his pioneering website jesse.net to raise money and round up volunteers, making a successful end-run around well-funded opponents. But Ventura isn't likely to leap to higher office, with or without the Net.
Some people are experimenting with political uses of the Net. Last year, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, husband-and-wife software developers in Silicon Valley, threw up a website - moveon.org -- to protest the Clinton impeachment. Within days generated a half-million electronic petititon signatures that threatened to clog the servers on Capitol Hill. But they didn't slow or stop the impeachment process.
The Democracy Online Project studied 161 Congressional and gubernatorial campaigns last year and found that 84 per cent of employed some form of online politicking. Seventy-six percent used websites to recruit volunteers, and 63 per cent were at least somewhat effective in persuading visitors to vote for the candidates.
Most of these campaigns raised some money online. Given the growth of computers, drooling political consultants believe the 2000 election will see the first significant contributions through computer links. John Phillips, president of the political fund-raising software company Aristotle, estimates that more than $25 million will be raised via the Internet by Election Day. But even if that occurs, it's a drop in the anticipated $600 million Election Year 2000 bucket.
As of September, Democratic contender Bill Bradley had raised only $330,000 of his $12 million presidential war chest online, and most of Bush's and Gore's campaign cash has come through the usual fund-raisers, committees and distinctly low-tech checks.
It makes sense that more and more money would be donated digitally, since more and more voters are going online. But transferring money on the Net isn't the same thing as transforming politics.
Some political and journalistic seers believe the first demonstration of Net power will erupt spontaneously: somebody will give a dazzling speech or perform brilliantly in a debate; voters, increasingly at ease rushing using their browsers for online financial transactions, will donate tens of millions of dollars through political websites overnight, and wake up snoozing Washington.
My own notion is that this may happen outside the context of a formal or traditional campaign, as with Ventura. The first Net candidate will almost certainly be young, someone who's grown up using computers and browsing the Web.
Most Washington politicians and the reporters who cover them are too mired in their incestuous talk show-dinner party, spin-the-news atmosphere to get what the Net is about or figure out how to use it politically.
Some of this is institutional constipation. All during the Monica Lewinsky drama, the U.S. Congress revealed itself as a remote, antideluvian institution unable to read the mood of the American public or respond rationally to it.
Part is journalism's continuing struggle to come to terms with the Digital Age. For many political writers, the Net is a nightmare, since it will inevitably erode their monopoly on communicating directly with politicians, and presenting politics to the rest of the country.
It's no accident that Ventura came from about as far outside Washington as you can get - Midwestern local government and pro wrestling.
Washington's political and journalistic elites are so disconnected from most Americans that any politician who goes online - even an ex-wrestler with a confusing political agenda - automatically becomes a charismatic populist.
But when some future Net-savvy politician does figure out how to use the World Wide Web, he or she will come nose-to-nose with the powerful ethos of interactivity -- and politics will finally be reborn. The most likely time for this to happen: the 2002 congressional elections, well away from Washington, national political reporters, or political conventions and primaries.
American-style democracy dates to an era when most voters never got to lay eyes on their elected officials, let alone participate in civic information-gathering and decision-making. Washington was constructed to do the talking and voting on behalf of constituents unable to join. Technology, especially computer technology, has completely transformed that reality as Wall Street, among others, is rapidly learning.
Voters can connect instantly with their government representatives, gather information, register opinions. Just as wired Americans are re-shaping financial markets, the music industry and retailing, they will inevitably get around to beating down the walls around Washington with their keyboards, and ASDL lines.
Washington may well be the last holdout. The music industry, banking, education, science, medicine and entertainment are all reeling - and changing -- as Internet-driven interactivity threatens their primacy and their profit margins.
How would a pol take advantage of the Internet?
Politicians need to understand the particular characteristics of the young, educated, technologically-centered people working, playing and communicating through networked computers.
In l997, Wired magazine and Merrill Lynch jointly conducted a Digital Citizen survey to discover distinct political values emerging from the online world.
The survey found that wired Americans - people who use computers to access the Net and the Web regularly -- were different from the non-Wired, often in ways that contradicted conventional wisdom.
They tend, for instance, to be enthusiastic and optimistic about democracy. Perhaps because they benefit from it, they love the free market system. They resist labels like "Republican" and "Democrat" or "liberal" and "conservative;" they regard issues one by one, rather than invoking ideological affiliation.
Smart and intensely communicative, they share pop culture as a common passion - they love movies, technology, TV and music in particular -- and are more likely to be talking about the weekend box office grosses at the water cooler on Monday than about anything they saw on "Meet The Press." But they're suspicious of conventional media, with little patience for the self-righteous moral policing or politics-as-wrestling presented on Washington talk shows.
A Net-savvy politician would trumpet the Net as a boon to research, a liberator of information, a spur to community building and new forms of communications.
He or she would bang the drums about preserving freedom online, jump into the ferocious battle over encryption, confront the growing power of the megacorporations flooding the Net, and advocate a competitive business environment where entrepeneurs can also flourish. He might embrace the techno-idealism of online political movements like open source and free software.
He might push for some national discussion of issues raised by supercomputing, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, technologically driven advances with enormous social and cultural implications, good and bad.
The Net pol might favor the equitable distribution of technology, so that America won't split (as it already has) into techno-haves and have nots.
A Net pol would leave moral posturing to preachers, parents and individual families. Enough of laws forbidding indecent language, unworkable and chaotic ratings systems, or copies of the Ten Commandments posted in schools as solutions to complex social programs. The Net is in its second generation, and it would be nice if politicians were as mature.
A Net campaigner needs some smart geeks high up in his campaign as well as slick pollsters. And this is important: he would have to be interactive, rather than pretending to be. Bush made a lot of noise in September by announcing that he'd list every campaign contribution received on his new website (www.georgebush.com), but he's about as interactive as a concrete piling.
Interactivity is a political, not a technological idea. It means sharing, not giving up, power. The Net candidate would not simply go on live "chats" but engage in some running online conversations, browsing the Web, e-mailing voters, downloading files, trawling through ICQ chat message boards where harried homemakers post messages while the kids nap, and teens go looking for MP3's.
Over time, this kind of interaction is transformative, to journalists as well as politicians. Different points-of-view seep into one's consciousness. Isolation and disconnection are tough to maintain. An interactive politician would have known from the first the public wasn't going to go for Bill Clinton's impeachment, no matter what Kenneth Starr found or did.
The candidate of the Net would re-engineer the political website -- from a static advertising and fund-raising vehicle peddling buttons and stickers to a genuinely democratic forum that uses digital technologies to amass continuously - updated information on what citizens want their leaders to address.
Entertainment and business currently top the list of sought-after content on the Net, according to Cyber Dialogue. Politicis isn't even on the list, a sharp commentary on the world's leading democracy.
At the heart of the Internet culture are the programmers, investment capitalists, designers, developers, entrepeneurs and users who comprise the core of the networked computing industry. The first politician who wins their allegiance will have enlisted the country's most powerfully-connected constituencies -and one of its most affluent and civic-minded.
Netizens believe in democracy. They believe in the future, perhaps because they are part of it. They see themselves as agents of change. They embrace the idea of using technology to identify problems and solutions.
They don't want a political system in which politicians and pundits lecture them on morality; they want a different one, marked by straight talk, an exchange of information an rationality in place of posturing, dogma, confrontation, hype and spin.
Does this sound like anyone you see popping up in primary states on the evening news?
Instead of clucking about how dangerous movies and pop culture are (Bob Dole), the Net candidate will go see them. Instead of viewing the Net warily from afar (George W.Bush), he'll be on it every day. Instead of claiming to be its founder (Al Gore), the ideal Net candidate will periodically trounce computer companies for their arrogance and greed.
Instead of spouting Millenial techno-blabber about the future (Bill Clinton), the Net candidate will be looking for concrete ways to get computers into the hands of every American kid, assuring not only equality of opportunity, but continued American dominance of the global economic boom.
This may be inevitable, but, strangely, it isn't imminent.
In an ideal world... (Score:4)
As for the ease with politicians dismiss electronic petitions: it takes three seconds of your life to cut'n'paste a protest email. They're also a hell of a lot easier to fake.
Is this really likely? (Score:2)
OK, a politition with enough commen sense to see thw net for what it is, and maybe even understand the problems it might hold is a nice idea, it seems unlikely to happen. After all, this is a 'semi-regulated anarchy' we're in here - or, as I've heard recently, the ultimate democracy. This seems to rule out the need for a 'Web Presedent'
Mark
Anyone can publish (Score:1)
I have published my lawsuit [sorehands.com]on the web, much to the dismay of Mattel. They tried to silence me with a baseless countersuit, but they have not.
The net allows people with adverse opinions to the people with large amounts of money to be heard!
Injured software engineer wins against Mattel! [sorehands.com]
A PC in every home... (Score:1)
If you think about it, Jon made a good point, but did not elaborate it...Regan's was the first campaign to effectively use the TV medium, primarily because he was an actor. This came many, many years after the invention and widespread acceptance of the TV. Let's face it by 1980 there was at least one TV in every home.
But can you say the same for PC's? Is there a PC in every home, or almost every home. The answer is no. And on top of that is the "web" generation old enough and influential enough to sway an election? Again, No. And until that changes, I think the medium of the web will be "un-tapped" in political races.
The Haves (Score:4)
BUT, 'net connectivity is not ubiquitous. There are people all over America, in big cities and in rural towns that have never been online. They have never participated in this Great Awakening that is the Internet. Unless we can bring this collaborative and communicative spirit to people that do not currently have it (so everyone has it), we will merely replace the current political elite with the technological elite.
And since there is probably a real correlation between wealth, income and race and connectivity to the Internet, it will basically be the same people in power.
More access to more people (all access to all people?)is the only way we can solve this . . . otherwise, it's just the same old political game.
Well.. (Score:2)
I'm not going to argue for or against what Katz wrote, but I find it hard to believe that Reagan would be the sole person responsible for any of the good things that happened during his presidential reign. There are a couple of other branches of government, after all.
NetCapitol (Score:2)
We're already making inroads in the more flexible world of non-profits and lobbying groups. Take a look at NetCapitol [netcapitol.com]. They offer a product for webmasters of interest groups to make it easy for their users to email or otherwise contact their representatives about whatever issue the lobbying group is concerned with.
Eventually, I think the net will be a strong force in American politics. We can only hope it'll be a force "by the people, for the people."
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
A contradiction Katz (Score:1)
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:3)
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:2)
In fact, helping end the cold war could arguably be said happened because Reagan wasn't a bullshit politician, he was a bullshit actor. For any of us other than the idealists, politics is just an extension of acting anyway, and should be treated as such. Reagan could probably have talked his way out of anything.
I don't want to talk trash about Reagan; he was one of the better leaders of our time, and as you pointed out he made much progress. But this doesn't mean he had to fit the typical stereotype of the politician with so much political and economic savvy. Acting is a big part, and Presidents need to be given credit for that.
---
Tim Wilde
Gimme 42 daemons!
Paragraphs (Score:2)
Please don't feel obliged to limit your paragraphs to one or two sentences.
It breaks up the flow and makes text harder to read.
The idea with paragraphs is they hold one idea each.
So you should group sentences together in the same paragraph, if they are part of the same idea.
Politics keep "transforming" for the worse (Score:3)
Thanks to TV, politics have become more about image and personality and charisma (and some people's ideas of living a "moral" life) than about any issues of substance.
Given the free flow of information on the net, and the scandal-addicted culture, I'm not so sure that having politics transformed by the Internet would be a good thing.
Of course, I could be being unnecessarily pessimistic. The more intelligent folks online tend to value substance over style. But are there enough of them to make a difference in the way this country is run?
I'm not so sure.
Political sites are just fluff (Score:2)
One is the amount of people on the net. While a lot, it's not the huge amount of people with TV.
Second are the amount of people who would actually go to the site. Unfortunatly, most voters are uniformed, and vote based on party or based on what they see and hear in normal every day activites. They're not ones to seek out information to make an informed decision.
For those of us that like to be educated about politicians and are tech savvy, there's a third problem. Political sites are just fluff. How many times do we argue on Slashdot about sites that make their product out to be the second coming? (ie "Those benchmarks don't mean anything, show us some REAL benchmarks!") Obviously, political sites are going to make the politician look like a saint and make their ideas out to be the universal problem solvers. Most of us are smart enough to see through that crap.
Thus, I think the age old notion of seeing a politician in person, and seeing them debate and answer hard questions is really the best way to get your information, and then possibly go to the website to fill out the online form for a donation. It won't change politics as we know it, it'll simply be a different (albiet biased) source of information.
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
Of course not! If he had known anything about politics or government he'd have known that those things were all impossible and he never would have tried attempted rediculous goals.
Kintanon
It's a tool, not a political philosophy. (Score:1)
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:2)
Reagan was clueless and did nothing significant to end the "cold war" - the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of an economic system that wasn't viable. That it happened during the Bush / Reagan years is a coincidence. If I recall correctly the country was still in an economic slump when he left office, and tax cuts are nothing to brag about if you sacrifice environmental programs and social programs to do it. I'll be impressed by tax cuts when the cuts are applied to lower income brackets not higher ones. Grandpa Caligula was no prize for this country...not that any president in recent history has been...but Reagan was only popular because he was affable and telegenic. It was comforting (if you turned off your brain) to see Reagan on TV because he had a great personal presence. He was also frequently inaccurate in public statements, presided over one of the most corrupt administrations ever, and was basically a puppet of his administration.
Just my 2 cents...
Obscuring in plain sight (Score:1)
Bush did put the contribution list on his site, but it's in a few big pages [georgebush.com] - about 1600K of text each. And it's in Acrobat, which makes it harder to import into a database.
...phil
Good Article, but... (Score:3)
The other real issue is the technological hurdle. Well, there are inherent problems in trying to keep anything associated with the Internet "secret". You won't be able to convince the populace that their campaign contributions will be kept confidential if they're transmitted over the Web. Granted, contributions are public record in the first place, but do you think your secretly gay Uncle Roy would be more willing to give to a gay frienly candidate, knowing that his contribution date, time and amount can be instantly displayed for the world to see?? What about the politician's reaction to having it publicly displayed that the Grand Dragon of the KKK just made a MAJOR contribution??
Again, This was a great article, a real thought provoker, but it missed the mark slightly... IMHO
Moving mountains (Score:4)
Additionally, I used to work for the 12th largest insurance company in the nation, and we had just received desktop internet access during this fiscal year. The powers that be simply saw no need until then. The insurance industry is very slow moving technologywise because its leadership is old and very set in its ways. I think politicians are similar. They don't think they need to revolutionize their jobs. They don't care about the whole contingency of people they are leaving out, beleiving that we aren't necessary for their success in the first place.
Kissing Babies (Score:1)
For example, how does a politician "kiss babies" on the net? That is, how does a politician, in a "spontaneous" moment of kindness and warmth endear him or herself to the voters?
Re:Political sites are just fluff (Score:1)
Are you ready to praise Clinton as well? (Score:2)
Now, doesn't sound silly to give a president that much credit for things that happen on his watch?
politics online...failure. (Score:1)
You have to be really unique to survive the web. If you open another auction website you have virtually no chance of surpassing the already established ones. Politicians have to come in with unique ideas...
Net Impact (Score:5)
They only managed to get two issues out untainted. The first being that washington politco's are horridly disconnected. This is true, whatever side of the 2.0+-.1 party system fence you sit on, strattle, or stare at.
I think he's right that there won't be a huge impact anytime soon. Polititions and their machines will most likely avoid the interactive part of the Net, because it's uncontrollable, at least in the conventional sence.
Personally, other than immedeate and continuing information distribution, and maybe public forums, i really don't WANT the net to have that big an impact on politics.
what? hunh?
Ok, almost the entire world would readily agree that the american public on the whole is rather knee-jerky and ignorant. The passing of law, regardless of the feelings of the public, is a process that needs to be spread over a period of time, so that both the governed and the governors can examine it in it's detail, and it what it's consequences mean.
For example, one thing i never ever want to see, is on-line voting. Let's assume it won't be abusing such a system to vote multiple times. I'll use a rather exaggurated example here of why we don't want a stream-line some of these processes. Some guys walking down the street. A watermelon falls from a 10th story window and hits him. a thousand news sites pick it up, as the guy was on his way to save someone from cancer and suppored a family of 20 by working 4 jobs etc. Big tragidy. Some polition instantly puts up a speech about the horrors and evil of watermelons and they must be banned. Instantly, touched voters hit they're little submit buttons and viola! water melons are banned. Thousands of watermelon distribution channels close. Watermelon farmers are out of buisness, perhaps even jailed for continuing to grow their products. And noone has a juicy delicios fruit to eat in the summer time. A bout a month later, anouther man is killed when a pineapple falls from a 10th story window on his head. Only this time it's discoverd that it was thrown from that window by a serial fruit killer... who also killed the first guy by throwing the watermelon at him...
It's several orders of magnitude more difficult to repeal a law than to get one passed in the first place, and even with a stream-lined kneejerk voting process, that is very hard to change. Bingo, you've ruined 100's of peoples lives for lack of facts, facts that indead may not have been able to be discovered quickly enough to support good voting in an instant process. Lets not even talk about the metal processes of the voters (long known to be rather retarded)
Thats a rather extreme example, but apply it to something more mundane and think it through and the ugly consequences flow forth. If you think i'm pessimistic, think on this; One bad law, historically, ALWAYS causes more harm than the good done by 6 good laws.
For a more indepth fictional look at what can happen to us if we alter our law-making and polition electing processes to quickly, to irresponsibly, read Tracy Hickman's book _Immortals_.
-Tilde
no "killer app" (Score:2)
Think about it- yeah, it would be really cool if George W. Bush posted a follow-up to this article, but would you base your vote on that? And even if everybody who read it immediately decided to vote for him, how much does that really buy him? (Not to mention the fact that in popular culture, being a Slashdot denizen might hurt his popularity rather than helping it...)
And in the past, politicians have done that very thing, with little effect. When Bush Sr. was campaigning against Clinton, he answered questions on Prodigy (did do the same thing on AOL?). Did it help? I think the fact that nobody remembers it is answer enough. You might be able to show a tiny effect, but certainly nothing compelling enough to make everyone jump on the bandwagon.
Now, had Clinton and Bush gotten into a Prodigy flame war, that would've been awesome... =)
Re:A PC in every home... (Score:1)
Not Reagan. The first presidential campaigner who made effective use of TV was Kennedy (briefly mentioned by Katz). It was around 1960 that US households had just become more or less saturated with TV sets, and Kennedy's campaign was the first to use TV advertising extensively.
It didn't hurt that Kennedy himself was fairly talented in that medium, not to mention that he was young and good-looking, especially compared to sweaty, jowly Nixon.
Who cares about equitable distribution?? (Score:1)
You're making an assumption that this is a bad thing, or even a long-lived thing. You need to come down off that mountain, and get to know some blue-collar people. They use the net as much as anyone else. I know some quite poor people who use the net. The techno-have / have nots are not split along class lines as so many people think. Internet access is quite affordable these days, and becoming even more so.
No, the people who don't have computers are the people who don't see the need. Why bother giving them computers? When they feel the need, they will do what countless others have done -- go buy them and start using them.
-russ
First effective use of TV... (Score:1)
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:3)
Let me ask - do you REALLY want this?
Ideally politicans are supposed to be people who know that one of the functions of the government is to do the things the majority want while preserving the rights of the minorities.
I know it doesn't really happen (see ten commandments in the schools), but if we go to allowing everyone to vote on the issues, then we eliminate this step.
All of a sudden, the country really becomes majority rule, the people who don't care about minorities take away the rights/freedoms of those minorities, and so on.
I'm sorry, but that idea scares me. Give that style 200 years of being tried and see if we can even recognize the constitution afterwards.
---
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:2)
I beg to differ. The military run-up was planned in advance as a way to break the cold war stalemate since it was not expected that the Soviet economy could sustain a build-up on anywhere near the scale that the US could. And, yes, Reagan did play a significant role in that.
Not enough of us ...yet (Score:1)
Rather than being a positive, leading force, I think that the internet has great potential for the sort of garbage that reporters like best: digging up skeletons in candidates' closets. I suspect that we'll see some "internet scandals" that make their way to the mainstream media. There just aren't enough people to lead a charge from the internet, though.
Re:Politics keep "transforming" for the worse (Score:2)
Semi-offtopic,
I was thinking while reading Jon's article about how our population as a nation has grown since 1800, but has the population of our congressional representatives grown? I know the senate has always been 2 per state, but what about house representatives? What I'm getting at, is that the congress has become much less representative simply because of the numbers involved, and the power of each individual congress person has grown way beyond what was originally set up.
Of course, sending 10 senators per state might get a bit burdensome and needlessly expensive. I was thinking that maybe there could be a system in place where a congress person's constituents would have a chance to "override" that representatives vote on any particular matter. Just a thought, but then I've always thought the internet should be used to make voting easier and more convenient, just as a way of enabling democracy.
OpenSource Politics (Score:1)
The real question is: does Joe public give a crap about intellectual freedom, or is this just the concern of the cyber-elite? If the answer is the latter, then how can we make the public understand why this is relevant to all?
--
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
The arms build up did cost a lot of money though.
Re:Paragraphs (Score:1)
are
so
right!
-russ
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
Oh yes, I'm sure the military run-up was designed to end the cold war and not fill the larders of the companies that supply weapons. That's it. The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse for years, Reagan did not have a significant impact on it.
Re:Show me a politician that can recompile the ker (Score:1)
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
Ideally politicans are supposed to be people who know that one of the functions of the government is to do the things the majority want while preserving the rights of the minorities. I know it doesn't really happen (see ten commandments in the schools), but if we go to allowing everyone to vote on the issues, then we eliminate this step.
I agree with both points of view, but then I'm not a politition :)
However, the issue as I see it isn't the necessity of polititions, I can't see them dissappearing, but whether the polititions will ever be able to completely support the net. We're down to the old net for business vs. net for academia/it's own sake arguement again I suppose...
Mark
tv was the worst thing that could've ever happened (Score:2)
We've moved from a typographic society to an image based one in just 30 short years. Politics as entertainment. Religeon as entertainment. Life as amusement.
Television has reduced us to a nation of drooling idiots who can't do anything but sit in front of the dull blue screen getting our buttons pushed.
In the ruins of this anesthetized disaster there is a faint glimmer of hope and that is the net. Media corporations are fighting it tooth and nail: they want to turn the net into entertainment, a glorified TV. For them, the net is not the opposite of TV but it's crowning jewel - interactive entertainment.
I still have a little faith that the net can turn this trend around but people have to be aware of the danger of being entertained by information.
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
I know it doesn't really happen (see ten commandments in the schools), but if we go to allowing everyone to vote on the issues, then we eliminate this step.
Why does everyone point to the Ten Commandments in Schools as a bad thing that oppresses people? Am I oppressing you if I tell you that Murder is a Bad Thing? If I tell you that stealing is Bad? It's not as if anyone is forcing kids to get down on their knees and beg for forgiveness or anything. I can't see how anyone could reasonably object to the prominent display of a good vlaue system... Would you be similarly objecting if it was the Wiccan Read (I want to say Rule of Three but I just know that isn't what it's called) being posted? When is it a bad thing to instill in children some kind of respect for human life and property?
Kintanon
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
I'd agree that the things he did economically in this country were more bad than good. Homelessness shot up, rich++ poor-- (tax breaks, IIRC, were primarily for the upper class, not the middle), environment got snubbed, etc.
He did have some brass cohones when it came to taking it to the Sov's, though.
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
Reagan also scared the hell out of the Soviets with all of his 'Star Wars' jargon. They spent millions trying to figure out how to reproduce it or beat it, when we really didn't have anything there at all.
Kintanon
Someone to Contact (Score:2)
this is slightly skewed on Topic
Visit FCC Commisioner Kennard's Home Page [fcc.gov]
This guy has fought hard to try and level the comm. playing field in the deregulated environment (an impossible task if you ask me). There is a form to e-mail him (which I did yesterday about the proposed Viacom/CBS merger-I felt pairing MTV/VH1 with the second largest radio network will severely limit music choice/variety), I don't know if it gets there and he reads it, but he is more 'Net savvy than other politicians.
I wish Katz had mentioned some of the 'Net legislation that politicos have tried to push through (hatch-feinstein anti-drug linking law) to illustrate their overall cluelessness. The 'Net will change politics, hopefully as much as it is changing business (guy runs for senate out of his garage), and I think it will, mainly 'cause the vast majority of us geeks want it that way.
Now is when we must fight the hardest as the old guard tries to use its power to help uphold the status quo, even as more and more people see how corrupt and inefficient that quo is. Knowledge to the people, Power to the people, that's what the 'Net brings. (now if we can just get everyone to use Linux as the default OS, they'll see what freedom is, and the price you have to pay... constant vigilance)
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
So give Reagan credit for speeding up the issue. Most likely Soviet Russia couldn't have lasted anyway. However, what's so great about the cold war being over?????? What's improved????? Is _anything_ better as a result? I can't think of anything.
But..... we do have enormous debt now.... we've managed to make enemies of a whole bunch of folks in this world..... we have managed to place many Americans in harm's way, mostly because we've positioned ourselves as the world's policeman. Also, if we'd had balanced budgets in the 80's and surplusses, instead of more and more debt and deficits, I wonder where we'd be now? I wonder where the Russians would be? I'm not sure what we won in the cold war, but we sure as hell lost a bunch.
Your mind is welded shut (Score:1)
Let's see, your country would have pulled itself out of its horrible economic slump no matter what he did. Economic behaviour is cyclic.
He did succede in getting tax cuts through. The rich were very pleased with this. The poor just got poorer: he created a huge transfer of capital from the poor to the rich.
While he maybe helped end the cold war, much of the credit must of course lie with Mikhael Gorbatchev.
Ask what the Nicaraguans think of Reagan.
See also http://www.dumblists.com/list-reag anairport.html [dumblists.com] and also "American conservatives love to take credit for the 'fall of Communism". [yorku.ca] (Scroll down to the bottom).
The Net and Your Congresspeople (Score:1)
Net won't ever really change politics (Score:1)
Big changes in politics occur when a large part of the population sees things getting drastically worse. That just isn't happening in the United States right now. The last big transformation was the big rightward shift beginning in 1980, as a reaction to the 70% income tax, 18% inflation, and 12% unemployment of the Carter years, the changes in public mores of the 60s and 70s, and the perceived impotence of the US abroad.
After 18 years of Reaganite economic policy, the economy is doing quite well, and the winners significantly outvote the losers. Reagan's foreign policy lead directly to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and our foreign policy is now mostly about cleaning up the mess of 70 years of ideological empire-building. Once we figure out what to do, we do it.
The big transformation of public mores in the 60s and 70s has been partially reversed, to the point where there is a rough political equilibrium between those who would roll back more and those who would return to the 70s. Both sides are incredibly politically savvy, and use every tool they have, including the internet, to counter each other at every turn.
Money, security, and "sex & drugs & rock 'n' roll" are the three big issues in America today. No major transformation will occur until that list changes. It is possible that some issue or another which is mostly a local issue (schools, police, property rights) may force its way to the national arena, and that a significant realignment will take place because of it, but there will be netters on both sides of the issue, and both sides' consultants will use the internet for their own purposes.
Meanwhile, what the heck does Katz mean by a more interactive politician? Does he mean one who changes his policies in response to the public mood? Bill Clinton's been doing an excellent job of that without being the internet presence Katz would expect - he trims his sails to the slightest puff of an opinion poll, and would have no trouble doing so in the pre-internet age. Or does he mean one who changes his views based on rational discussion with other people with different views? That's NEVER going to happen - people in politics are either unprincipled power-seekers like Bush senior or Clinton, or have some rock-firm core beliefs which they'll never give up, like Reagan or Gephardt. Neither type will be an "interactive" politician in some new way.
Politics will change. The internet will have something to do with that. But the changes in style won't be revolutionary unless the changes in substance are, and the internet isn't likely to cause significant changes in the issues - just a gradual improvement in the economy, and a gradual erosion of the ability of government to be idiotic.
Campaigns First, Politicians Second (Score:1)
Why would a candidate devote energy towards reaching voters through the Internet? As someone noted, the percentage of net-savvy voters is too small and too diverse to justify the expense. What technology would the candidate use? Spam? Web Pages? And if a web page, why would people visit it?
I think the first real significant political fallout from the Internet will come within campaigns, political action committees, political parties and public interest groups. Within these organizations there is a real need to share resources and information.
These organizations will utilize the net to mobilize people interested in their cause, to share information and databases with similar organizations, and to refine their skills at influencing public opinion. The political parties will miss the boat if they do not develop a network sharing information akin to the network that Great Harvest Baking uses to share information among its store owners. In the same way that Extranets allow businesses to share information throughout their sales channels, political groups can use the Internet to organize their mainly disparate members and contributors.
I expect that the first time we read about the Internet seriously disrupting politics as usual it will be from a normally marginilized group that uses the Internet to gain a political victory (lobbying, election, etc.) that they could not have done without the Community and Communication tools of the Internet.
Re:First effective use of TV... (Score:1)
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
Writing Style (Score:1)
Some of your articles require too much work to decode. You make lots of points that seem to come together to make a larger point, but it is layed out in some stream of consciousness way. In articles like this, I struggle to understand your message (in fact in this one, I just stopped reading after awhile).
I suggest you start creating an outline before you write your feature. Also, structure your features with actual paragraphs (as opposed to one or two sentences thoughts)....I should probably not be giving specifics so much, considering I am not an author and not a very good writer.
I do think the general topics you talk about are very interesting, but I think your current literary style is a turn-off.
-Mo
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:2)
I know this is offtopic, but I must say it anyways...
If it's posted in schools, it suggests that the entire decalogue is considered a good thing. That includes the two commandments related to religious belief. How do you think a hindu student feels when the government is supporting telling kids "Thou shall have no other gods before me", meaning the Christian god?
If the government really wanted a code of values posted in schools, it wouldn't be hard to make one that was not biased toward one religion over another. But instead of doing that, they posted a religious one. It's clearly more of an attempt to get Christianity in school than anything else.
Imagine how the public would feel if they posted a code that included one commandment which said "Thou shall bow to Satan God of destruction three times a day". You think they'd ignore that one because the others may have said stealing and murder are bad?
I would have no problem with the Wiccan Rede because it contains no religious references within itself.
When is it a bad thing to instill in children some kind of respect for human life and property?
When it appears they are biasing the respect of human life toward respecting only those people with certain beliefs.
---
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
Let me ask - do you REALLY want this?
Yes, I do. I'm more scared of a small group representing a larger group than I am of the larger group representing itself. I'm scared of that small group being bought and owned by the rich. The current system would be better except it doesn't work. It's become rule of the wealthy.
I wonder where this fear of majority rule comes from? Microsoft? Monopolies? I can see that, but really, is it worse than the rule of the have's over the have-nots? I think we're confusing majority rule with mob rule. I think there's a difference.
Mmmmm, Katz... (Score:1)
If Katz had left his analysis as that, analysis, this article would have rocked, but instead he got carried away, and started stroking our egos with his glowing rendition of what we wonderful "Netizens" are like.
I'll tell you what we are like: we are lazy, greedy, and stuborn; just like everyone else, but because of the nature of the net, the SNR keeps growing (because our filters improve, and our links get recast), which is why we sometimes appear to be so wonderful.
If katz would stick to reporting and writing, instead of posturing, he be a really good journalist, because he picks the right issues at the right times. Posturing is used by those who want to force an issue, and it just isn't necessary for most of the stuff he writes about.
-Crutcher
Re:Are you ready to praise Clinton as well? (Score:1)
Lets start with the economy stupid.
Reagon, bush, clinton, all, did JACK.
The only president to have a really significant
impact on the economy this century was FDR,
who's policys were meant to be short term and
have caused an incredible amount of chaos and crapola in the wait to be repealed.
We have probably the feest market system, which means that the economy is run by the market, not the government. The government can be a consumer, and thus help the market, but no more than any large spending body; or it can not consume, and not really hurt it. Economics is cylical, pulled about by the gravity of different population groups market inovation and strength. There was a recession in the 70's, a boom in the 80's a recession in the early 90's, followed by a recovery that's still ongoing. Attributing these characteristics to the presidents at the time is silly. It makes out Carter as putz, Reagon out to be fantastic, bush to be iffy, and clinton to be equally inept and then ok. Additionally, economics is slower to change than government policy regarding econimics, thus, if you still want to attribute things to presidents, to it to the one of the preceding 10 years. Carter was struggling with fords screwup, reagan finished carters work, then fudged it up, bush fixed again, and clinton is taking credit for bush's work. Attributing the strength and robustness of an economy to the actions of a president is like predicting a craps game with astrology.
As to the rasing taxes BS, it was congress than re-ordered the budget to payoff debts -- a plan that clinton was categically opposed to until it was so painfully obvious (with the republicans gaing control of the house and senate) that that was what the american public wanted that he couldn't ignore it anymore... so he flip-flopped and took credit for it.
What did he want to do with the extra money from raising taxes? More pork. Read his old speeches and press releases.
In the context of your first paragraph, your second one is idiotic.
-Tilde
Re:Politics keep "transforming" for the worse (Score:2)
Given current broadcast media (TV, radio, etc.), only so much can be said on a given topic. Thus, we get sound bites--whether we want them or not. There is a real demand for in-depth reporting, but the media chooses instead to meet the demand for shallow and broad reporting.
The Internet is big enough for deep and broad reporting. You can browse the sound bytes, or click deeper and get the stories behind the story. AFAIK, this makes larger newspapers obsolete; portals provide national news better than papers or TV/Radio can. Of course, I still keep my local paper, since portals don't cover my area specifically.
Reagan, Cold war & taxes (Score:2)
The argument about his spending the Soviets under to win the cold war is nonsense, and if there were any truth to it, it was completely inadvertant on Reagan's part. He justified all this spending by scaring the public about the Soviet "Evil Empire" that was poised to take over the world if we didn't get ready to fight back.
If the Soviets were so strong & agressive a military build up wouldn't have put them under. Of course the military, who should have known better, went along with this as they got lots of shiny new toys and $500 toilet seats out of it.
It can be argued that the Soviets made us needlesly spend more, after the cold war ended it was revealed that some of the big scary rockets paraded past Lenin's tomb on May Day were fakes. In at least one case a fake long range nuclear rocket caused the US to spend billions on countering it!
Of course Reagan's fiscal policies tripled the national debt, so that even now the biggest item on the budget is interest payments on the debt. Thanks Ronnie!
At the same time Reagan was borrowing and spending he had the Education Department re-define ketchup as a vegetable so that a few $ would be saved on school lunches for poor kids.
What an American Hero!
Re:A PC in every home... (Score:1)
Wow. One sentence. I need more caffeine.
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
Nothing is wrong with instilling a respect for human life in children, but why does your religion deserve to be the state sponsored one? Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, etc. are all good, but it is the Thou shall not hold any other gods before me
(or somesuch) that says to the young Wiccan that what they believe is wrong.
- Jarod
Re:Did anyone actully read the whole article... (Score:1)
CMDRTACO for president! (Score:1)
CMDRTACO for president!
Who else could katz be talking about - unless he's trying to volunteer himself..... Let me guess, malda for prez, katz for spin-doctor?
Exhibit A:
The candidate of the Net would re-engineer the political website [snip] to a genuinely democratic forum that uses digital technologies to amass continuously - updated information on what citizens want their leaders to address.
Exhibit B:
He or she would bang the drums about preserving freedom online, [blah, blah] encryption, [blah] megacorporations [blah, blah, blah]. [blah, blah, blah, blah] open source and free software.
Exhibit C:
He might push for some national discussion [blah] supercomputing, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, [blah, blah, blah......]
Sorry. Please moderate this post "redundant".
+++++
Re:In an ideal world... (Score:1)
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
For almost 2000 years they've been a large part of the make up of western culture. Christianity influenced everything, including the founding of this country. ("One nation, under God...") Should people not be told that, Should they not be told that those were the founding principles, weather or not they are correct, or applicable to day, they WERE the founding principles. Hell, Baltimore was founded as a haven for english and german catholics, Pennsylvania as a christian land were all people were brothers (though William Penn was a Quaker) an several of the origianal 13 colonies were places founded where puritans could be free to pursicuit their own instead of having some one else do it.
Why would be post the Wiccan Read except in a vaguely historical sence (it's after all, a reconstructed regligion that may infact bare no resemblace to the way it was orignally practiced)?
Not teaching things or removing things from a curriculum because they're aren't PC, is flat wrong, more or less regardless of religion/political stance, unless your a fascist.
-Tilde
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
Although I'm sure the military contracts for campaign donaters (if there were any..I have not seen any evidence of this (not saying much there, considering..)) was a nice side effect
Re:Your mind is welded shut (Score:1)
Hahahahaha... explain to me again how all this capital got transfered from the poor to the rich? I thought if you had lots of capital you were, by definition, not poor....
Oh, I see you are one of those liberal idiots who doesn't see any problem with 70% marginal tax rates, as long as you aren't paying them...
Re:Show me a politician that can recompile the ker (Score:2)
On the other hand, if he fought against net censorship, and stopped some of the boneheaded net related laws from being passed, i might support him, but i can compile my own kernel, and need my president to do other things for me.
-Dan
For the opposite view of this subject... (Score:2)
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
The founders of the US came from Christian backgrounds, and at least some of them were Christian (others were deists, which is different). And this should be taught honestly. But that includes teaching that the founders intentionally kept any Christianity, or any religious belief, out of the constitution because they wanted to keep religion and government seperate.
And don't forget that many of the original colonies that were founded to escape religious persecution ended up themselves persecuting different beliefs.
And this is NOT a Christian nation, in any way, shape, or form. The founders made that completely clear.
Not teaching things or removing things from a curriculum because they're aren't PC, is flat wrong, more or less regardless of religion/political stance, unless your a fascist.
It all depends on HOW they are taught. Teaching Christianity as a major influence on western culture is a good thing, so you can know where they came from. But just because it's a large influence doesn't mean that the public schools should be teaching it as part of the curriculum.
You can teach the Ten Commandments in a historical sense. But when you start actually endorsing them as correct, you've stepped over the line drawn by the first amendment. And that's exactly what the intention was by passing the bill to place them in schools. They weren't meant as a historical record, but as an attempt to affect the values of students. Which means not only were they pushing "Thou shall not murder", they were pushing "Thou shall have no other god before me".
---
Re:Reagan, Cold war & taxes (Score:1)
Actually the biggest item in the budget is Social Security payments and other entitlement programms... but hey, don't let facts get in the way of making a point!
Bull... (Score:1)
As for 'net politicians' not having view on moral legislation -- all laws are about morality. When you finally wake up, you'll realize that. Laws are nothing more that the formalized coding of a societies mores. You may not like the mores some politicians are fighting for, but guess what, a large portion of the VOTING public does. That's why those politicians have a voice.
You say you still don't like the fact that a large portion of the population didn't want an adulterous liar for a president. Well, you can go out and shoot all the STUPID people so that they can't vote or have a say in how the country is run, but that would be against the law because it is immoral isn't it.
Everyone believes that the world would be perfect if only I could be king for a day. The net will not change that. Most people will still be lazy and vote for:
1) who the preacher likes
2) who Larry King likes
3) who the wacko environmentalist leader likes
4) whoever promises more social-security
5) whoever is black
6) whoever is not black
...
My Mom voted straight Democrat one year, because she had voted straight Republican previously. I begged her not to vote anymore, but would campaigning on the net have any effect?
Putting more information online only helps if people actually look for it there.
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
Luckily for other countries in the situation is better (Poland, East Germany, for instance). I just wanted to point out that the end of the cold war wasn't as much fun for everybody. Probably the current economic situation in what's left of the soviet union was unavoidable. We sure didn't help the communists with their revolution, they did that themselves.
About Reagan, he's never been my favorite politician but since I'm no American I don't really care American politicians.
BTW. I don't envy America for its current lack of choice in politics. I would have a hard time picking anybody from the president candidates list in the article. Basically their main contribution to this world seems to be how much money they can collect (in all sorts of interesting ways) for their campaigns and how often they can get their ass on TV. They are prepared to say anything that pleases the average American. And it is so obvious that they are lying all the time.
Lets elect Katz. His wisdom will save us all. (Score:1)
"Reagan, a professional actor, didn't really need to understand the details of politics or government, and never did. What he did understand was TV, which enabled him to reach a vast audience with a powerful philosophy."
Reagan was no genius, but comments like these rheak with cluelessness.
Its hard for me to believe that the economic boom of the 1980's, the end of the Cold War, and the designs for numerous arms reduction treaties (among other things) came from a guy who "didnt understand the details of politics or government". Its equally moronic for you to assert that Reagan (or any president, for that matter) can supplant media-savvy song and dance routines for honest leadership. See, Clinton tried that....it nearly got him thrown out of office, in case you weren't paying attention.
Why Rob gave you the ability to stand on a soapbox and flap your gums above everyone else is still a mystery to many of us. So long as you're going to do it, tho, it might be a good idea for you to back up your point with hard facts.. Otherwise, it's a complete waste of everyone's time if you ultimately have nothing to offer which supports your claims.
Bowie J. Poag
Re:Are you ready to praise Clinton as well? (Score:1)
In the context of your first paragraph, your second one is idiotic.
You got that 100% backwards. The first one is idiotic; the second one is the context. The whole point is to say that presidents tend to be bystanders as the economy passes them by. They get praise or the shaft depending on what happens while in office.
As to the rasing [sic.] taxes BS, it was congress than [sic.] re-ordered the budget
Exactly the point. The US government isn't run exclusively by the executive. The executive implements congress's spending plans (money makes the govt. go 'round after all). Sometimes the executive sets the agenda and gets what he wants, and sometimes congress gives him some serious boostafazo. My point was that the original poster in this thread was giving the executive way too many daps (and that has nothing to do with the revisionist Reagan-sainthood theology or doing the same for slick willie).
Sometimes it just doesn't work to post sarcasm on
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
Re:A PC in every home... (Score:1)
Incidentally, it also varied by demographics...
{shrug} We saw much the same effect w/ our current Prez, 'natch.
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:2)
Wait a sec, I thought we wanted a majority rule. We have it now, but it's more a majority of money instead of a majority of people. I don't know if we need to have a true particapatory democracy, but we can get closer than the 635 reps we have now. It just isn't feasible for each citizen to be knowledgeable enough on each subject to make an informed decision. I think we could expand it to 100,000 or so reps each representing 2500 people (block groups or so). Expand various committees and make the reps VERY accessible to their constituents. There are many things we can do to make our government and it's decisions more correctly reflect the will of the People, that is the goal, right?
Re:Your mind is welded shut (Score:1)
The reason you can have a transfer of capital from the poor to the rich is that there are teeming piles of poor and very few rich. If I only had a nickel for every 'poor' person in the country....
Also, instead of using 'poor,' I think the arguments would be better received if 'middle-class and below' were used.
I'm surprised at the number of non-rich people who defend tax cuts for the rich. I mean, the people who really benefit from a lot of that legislation are so far beyond upper-middle-class that there are very few of them, compared to the general population. Is it in hopes of some trickle-down effect?
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
Slashdot should interview Pres. candidates (Score:2)
Use Slashdot's standard question and answer format. The level of questions posted here will probably cause most political candidates to broaden their horizons.
Perseverence is a strong will; Obstinacy is a strong won't.
Future of politics - Totally new methods (Score:2)
For most issues we don't really need a representative. Most of their time is spent meeting with special interest groups, campaigning, etc. It wouldn't be hard to keep as up to date on the issues as the average representative.
Electronic voting, either via telephone or the internet would let people directly vote on the issues.
Being able to proxy votes to other people (anonymously, and without a direct count available to the proxy-holer, to prevent forced proxying) would get past the issue of having too many issues to vote on. With a little setup you could proxy everything, everything except certain issues, or everything related to certain issues. For instance, you could vote internet, encryption, and constitutional issues yourself, proxy IP law issues to the FSF or ESR, proxy drug issues to the ACLU, etc.
A test, similar to that talked about in the recent electronic polling thread, where you had to read a text about current issues and answer a certain number of fact-based questions correctly (or take another test, until you finally learned enough about the issues to score high enough) before being able to vote would stop people from simply endlessly proxying their votes to someone without actually participating in the process at all.
To be eligible to receive proxies, a person would have to make their votes public, as well as details as to who they proxy certain issues to. This would let you choose someone to represent you without having to trust them to not change their mind, and without having to wonder about secret deals.
Perhaps people voting proxies could even vote a day early to give news agencies a chance to review their votes and warn people who might be unhappy with their decision to revoke proxies before the final counting.
The drawback of this system is that voting blocks would be fairly powerful. The religious right wouldn't have to count on members going to polls to vote correctly when they could easily get them to proxy votes on the desired issue. But this also works in favour of the moderates. It's easier to bus 100k fanatics to the polls, but how about the pro-choicers who aren't so fanatical? Now they can vote their choice on the issues without compromising on an otherwise lousy representative, or missing work, etc.
Some public figures would be very powerful. Oprah wields a Slashdot effect when it comes to directing people to books. She'd probably have a similarly huge block of proxies. This is countered by the fact that 1) politicians are already votes in based on their hair as much as their ideas, and 2) proxies could be withdrawn if abused.
To prevent voting in of nightmare laws, constitutional ammendments could require a higher percentage of votes. To raise or lower a tax could requrie 51%. To modify the constitution could require 85% and a similar ratification after a 1y cooling-off period before being implemented. This system of higher requirements and cooling off periods could be used to stabalize policy where flip-flopping would be harmful, such as in building a new highway (start it, spend a lot, stop it, rip it up, start it again, etc) or foreign policy.
To similarly provide consistency, the positions now filled with elected politicians, such as the senate, and various senate commitees, which are deemed to be useful (public debate on CSPAN would be more useful if people had a stake in watching it and controlling the political futures of the people arguing) could be filled by selecting the people with the most proxies over the last however many months. Similarly a commitee would be filled with the people with highest number of proxies on specific issues.
This has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, but why should we be happy simply letting our 'representatives' rules us more conveniently by letting us elect them on the net when we could go all the way and get rid of the representatives.
Future of politics - Totally new methods (Score:2)
For most issues we don't really need a representative. Most of their time is spent meeting with special interest groups, campaigning, etc. It wouldn't be hard to keep as up to date on the issues as the average representative.
Electronic voting, either via telephone or the internet would let people directly vote on the issues.
Being able to proxy votes to other people (anonymously, and without a direct count available to the proxy-holer, to prevent forced proxying) would get past the issue of having too many issues to vote on. With a little setup you could proxy everything, everything except certain issues, or everything related to certain issues. For instance, you could vote internet, encryption, and constitutional issues yourself, proxy IP law issues to the FSF or ESR, proxy drug issues to the ACLU, etc.
A test, similar to that talked about in the recent electronic polling thread, where you had to read a text about current issues and answer a certain number of fact-based questions correctly (or take another test, until you finally learned enough about the issues to score high enough) before being able to vote would stop people from simply endlessly proxying their votes to someone without actually participating in the process at all.
To be eligible to receive proxies, a person would have to make their votes public, as well as details as to who they proxy certain issues to. This would let you choose someone to represent you without having to trust them to not change their mind, and without having to wonder about secret deals.
Perhaps people voting proxies could even vote a day early to give news agencies a chance to review their votes and warn people who might be unhappy with their decision to revoke proxies before the final counting.
The drawback of this system is that voting blocks would be fairly powerful. The religious right wouldn't have to count on members going to polls to vote correctly when they could easily get them to proxy votes on the desired issue. But this also works in favour of the moderates. It's easier to bus 100k fanatics to the polls, but how about the pro-choicers who aren't so fanatical? Now they can vote their choice on the issues without compromising on an otherwise lousy representative, or missing work, etc.
Some public figures would be very powerful. Oprah wields a Slashdot effect when it comes to directing people to books. She'd probably have a similarly huge block of proxies. This is countered by the fact that 1) politicians are already votes in based on their hair as much as their ideas, and 2) proxies could be withdrawn if abused.
To prevent voting in of nightmare laws, constitutional ammendments could require a higher percentage of votes. To raise or lower a tax could requrie 51%. To modify the constitution could require 85% and a similar ratification after a 1y cooling-off period before being implemented. This system of higher requirements and cooling off periods could be used to stabalize policy where flip-flopping would be harmful, such as in building a new highway (start it, spend a lot, stop it, rip it up, start it again, etc) or foreign policy.
To similarly provide consistency, the positions now filled with elected politicians, such as the senate, and various senate commitees, which are deemed to be useful (public debate on CSPAN would be more useful if people had a stake in watching it and controlling the political futures of the people arguing) could be filled by selecting the people with the most proxies over the last however many months. Similarly a commitee would be filled with the people with highest number of proxies on specific issues.
This has a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening, but why should we be happy simply letting our 'representatives' rule us more conveniently by letting us elect them on the net when we could go all the way and get rid of the representatives.
Re:Who cares about equitable distribution?? (Score:1)
Didja ever notice that only the people who already have access to something think it's ok that other people don't?
I know some quite poor people who use the net
I would really love to hear your definition of 'quite poor'. I come from an area where most of the people are poor (and no, blue collar and poor are not synonymous) - most of them wouldn't know a net connection if it bit them on the ass.
Internet access is quite affordable these days, and becoming even more so... No, the people who don't have computers are the people who don't see the need.
I've got a wake-up call for you, Bunky. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over 40% of the households in the United States make less than $19,000 per year. Do you really think these people can just run out and buy a computer anytime they want?
Whether you want to face up to it or not, the fact is that for far too many American families, a $400 e-machine is every bit as out of reach as a Mercedes for each family member. A $20/month recurring bill for anything could sink them. You're correct in one thing; many of these people don't see the need to have 'net access. They're far too busy busting their asses trying to feed and clothe their families, and trying to create a future in which their children can have the luxury of worrying about such things.
OTOH, I know several people who are worried sick that their children are going to be 'left behind' by the current technology revolution. I also think it's instructive that these people, many of whom are under 35, think they already have been.
Re:what about the LP? (Score:1)
Katz's CyberPol sounds like Tom Campbell (Score:1)
The man and the politician both use the internet to interact with constituents and keep abreast of the latest technology news which is the top dog in his district.
These people DO exist. They just usually don't make headlines.
Re:Your mind is welded shut (Score:1)
I think tax cuts are good for everyone, not just the rich. Hell, I pay about $20,000 a year in Federal Income Taxes, and that is way too much. Its not in hope of a trickle-down effect, its because they earned the money, why should the damn government take it? Why punish those who prosper by taxing them at higher rates?
If you think you are undertaxed, the Department of the Treasury does take donations....
Why you'll probably never see our net candidate (Score:3)
That having been said, I think there are a number of reasons why we won't see someone like this anytime soon, and really, probably not ever at all:
I think a large part of the problem falls on us. As a wired society, we have spent too long amongst ourselves arguing over the finer (and not so fine) points of Internet regulations and laws, and less time making sure that the politicans who made these laws know loud and clear how we feel about their work, not only in the voting booths, but also on a day to day basis. For example, many politicans won't touch Social Security benifits. Why? Because they know that if they do, they'll be attacked (and as Sen, John Glenn can tell you, I'm not only speaking metaphorically here!) by seniors. And how do they know? Because the AARP is telling them they will. Every day. Right after they hand over a nice big check for the politican's next campaign.
So, if we want politicans to acknoledge us, and the things we see as benifical to the future, we should probably recognise that the Internet doesn't exist in a vacuum. WE should be out there, making our voices heard in ways that the politicians can hear, and we should make sure that when we're speaking about the future of the internet, we're all speaking in unison.
Because if we're only talking here on the Internet, no one outside the Internet can hear us. And if we all start talking outside on our own, it shounds like white noise. But if we're all saying the same thing, at the same time, it sounds more like a large part of America, and that voice is what the politicans are going to hear, and more importantly, listen to.
But, given the naturally chaotic nature of the Internet, I don't think that would really be feasable.
$.02 dropped in.
What we can do (Score:1)
Opinion storms, not constructive interaction (Score:2)
That's the way it works in theory, but in fact the Internet will not transform politics, but rather become a mere extension of the political arena for both citizens and politicians.
On the citizen side, the Internet would be chiefly a tool for discussion and debate. This will not bring about a revolution in politics if existing examples of net-based discussion count for anything. People tend to use the Internet more to broadcast their own opinions and experience rather than for any serious exchange of ideas.
The fact is that most people who are old enough to vote and actually do so have already decided what their basic political philosophy is and their minds will not be changed by discussion or debate. Have you ever known a person to, in the midst of a storm of rhetoric, suddenly see what you're saying and agree with you? Very few (none that I know of) have switched parties (political or otherwise) as a result of open-ended discussion.
On the politician's side, the Internet becomes merely another media for advertising, like television and radio. Granted, the Internet does allow them to communicate more actual information than a thirty second commercial, but again, nobody's mind is going to be changed even by hard, undecorated facts they see on the site of a politician they dislike. Also, any information published on a politician's site is likely to be presented with such a partisan slant that everyone will be taking it with a grain of salt.
That leaves independent analysis and the media, which will not cause any more ripples in the pond through the Internet than they do already. There is nothing magic about pixels that makes a news report or a study appear any more objective and credible than it does on your local newspaper.
Remember, the underlying principle here is that people will interpret information in a way that fits a political model they have already accepted. This is true on the Internet as much as it is anywhere else.
The collapse of the Soviet Union (Score:2)
You probably mean 'since the collapse of the socialist system'. But, in any case, that statement is quite doubtful.
10 years ago all soviet citizens had jobs
Well, not having a job used to be illegal and punished by imprisonment in the USSR. There always were jobs in the labor camps...
You also forgot to mention KGB, party line, mandatory work in agriculture, etc., etc.
Then capitalism was introduced and the whole country collapsed
You've got both the temporal and the causal sequence wrong. Actually, first (the cause) the socialist system collapsed, and then (the consequence) on its ruins a very strange mixture of robber-baron capitalism and a corrupt third-world statism developed.
Corruption has entered all layers of power
Yep, but what does this have to do with capitalism? Corruption is basically a consequence of Russia being a third-world country without any checks and balances on huge and powerful government bureacracy.
Many people in the former soviet union haven't got enough money each month to buy even the most basic stuff to stay alive
That means that they all die each month, right? Your statement makes no sense.
Alcoholism is a major problem and the average life expectance is about 20 years lower than in the western world.
That was the case under socialism, too. Life expectancy did decrease after the collapse, but again, the cause for that was not introduction of capitalism, but rather the collapse of the socialist system.
Kaa
Yah, Reagan, the guy that maxed the national debt (Score:1)
He put the country into huge debt to spend money on planes, ships, and other weapons that we never used.
Fix the economy? No way, we'll be paying off his mistakes for 20 more years.
The Net has already changed politics (Score:2)
A counterexample to the Monica Lewinsky scandal is Salon's [salon.com] coverage of far-right politicians "conspiring" against President Clinton. In this case, the President publically acknowledged the e-zine for news that may never have been seen outside of your local free alternative newspaper.
The media has long been considered to be the fourth branch of the the US government. They cover the bully pulpits of President and the Legistature and keep the public abreast of political happenings. With the arrival of the Net and CNN, the media has become reporting on a 24 hour cycle which meant more invasion of politician's lives and their motives. The consant need for new news forces the media and the media pundits to continue talking, trying to find new scandals, trying to finds new angles on old scandals, trying to tittlate, and letting finding solutions fall onto others.
Katz tries to convince us that the new political "Max Headroom" will change American politics via the Net. But there is no Max Headroom, no entity that exists only on the Net who can show as much charisma as a live/taped politician with party support. It's hard to convey that sense of charisma over the Net and no reason to do so. I can think of few people who get their primary political information off of the Net. Increasing interactability doesn't necessarily mean a net chat when doing a radio talk show will reach so many more people (something politicans are loath to do). I don't expect to vote for someone because of their website anymore than I would vote for them because I got their junk mail. However I can be influenced by a variety of news websites.
The Net has already changed politics, but not in the way that Katz thinks it has or will. It has become another media filter, but one that is improved by not just being another corporate newsmill. It allows disperate views to have their say on a more level playing ground than any other form of media. It's more alternative than your local alternative rag and has more POVs than a cocktail party. As it expands, there will be even more opinions and ideas. The question is if people will listen to them.
-S. Louie
Coincidence-same subject was on Diane Rheme today (Score:1)
I was paying at-best half-attention to the discussion, it sounded to me like the politcal reporters and the host (not Ms. Rheme) need to get more clued-in to the potential of the Internet themselves. They were trying hard, but I sensed a disconnect.
I also recal a science fictional treatment of Internet-based politics about 10-15 years ago in a book called "David's Sling". There are vauge references to an "information age solution" to various geopolitical problems (e.g. the cold war gets VERY hot) and a major political figure backed by big tobbacco loses an election when the on-line community mobilizes at the last-minute to defeat him.
Re:Anyone can publish (Score:1)
Rick Rezinas
Representation and population in the US House (Score:1)
Good point. The original way [usconstitution.net] was that every state got one Representative per 30,000 (including the infamous "three fifths" rule, whereby slaves counted as 0.6 person for the purposes of calculating seats in Congress). Minimum 1 per state, of course.
This was superceded by Amendment XIV, Article 2 [usconstitution.net], which states that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers". That number is currently set at 435, although since it's not hard-coded into the Constitution, in theory Congress could pass a law raising the number of Representatives to, say, 650. As this would dilute the power of each current Representative, I'm not holding my breath.
Note that Senators were originally seen as representatives of the individual States, not as "popular" representatives. A common practice was for the Governor to appoint each Senator. Popular election of Senators was not mandated until Amendment XVII [usconstitution.net] was ratified in 1913.
Both the characteristic modern parties believed in a government by the few; the only difference is whether it is the Conservative few or Progressive few. It might be put, somewhat coarsely perhaps, by saying that one believes in any minority that is rich and the other in any minority that is mad.
-- G. K. Chesterton, What's Wrong With The World [ccel.org]
Re:Lets elect Katz. His wisdom will save us all. (Score:1)
Economic boom of the 80's? You mean the one fueled by deficit spending, the one that took us to the crash of '87 and the recession of the early '90s?
Remember how that wealth was supposed to trickle down? How many beggars did you see on the streets of America prior to 1980? How many did you see by the end of the Regan/Bush years?
The recent revisionism of the Regan era is astounding to me. Doesn't anyone remember Iran-Contra? The man was either incompetent or a serious criminal. Probably incompetent - we're talking about a guy who consulted with astrologers here, and believed that a literal Biblical Armagedon was coming soon. We're lucky to have survived his term of office.
The one thing he did have was the ability to surround himself with talent - speechwriters, handlers, and advisors - who provided the illusion of competence.
Actually Clinton is an interesting case... (Score:1)
But there was something to be learned from a popular actor like Reagan. If a president is popular he can find some power. His power is in his image! Then he isn't just a president with very limited constitutional powers. Then he's the speaker of the people, the head of the state, the leader of the free world, and all that other B.S. To a large degree for a politician, perception is reality. Later after learning how better to go about his political job, Clinton was able to be a much, much more influential president.
I think that this is what Katz was getting at with Reagan. He didn't necessarily have much political savvy, but he did know quite a bit about image.
Re:I quit reading after this line... (Score:1)
Re:Is this really likely? (Score:1)
Never trust a government who's idea of seperation of church and state includes printing "In God We Trust" on it's currency.
Voters have less access today (Score:4)
In an otherwise decent essay, Jon Katz manages to get this point nearly backwards:
The small kernel of truth in this statement is that the U. S. Constitution deliberately sets up a republic rather than a direct democracy. This is for reasons both practical (the country has always been too big to run via direct vote) and ideological (the founders were concerned with the problem of mob rule, or "tyranny of the majority").
But otherwise, this is sheer hogwash.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, town-hall democracy was well-established in New England, giving citizens more experience in "civic information-gathering and decision-making" than most citizens get today.
Given the smallness of most communities in those days, the idea that voters "never got to lay eyes on their elected officials" is nonsense. Perhaps for the President, or their state's Senators. But, the Constitution originally established that there would be one Representative per 30,000 [usconstitution.net] citizens. Now tell me, do you really think that a polititican, who needs to run for office every two years, can stay out of sight for the majority of voters in that small of a district? This doesn't even count the variety of State and local offices, which in the days before telecommunications, interstate highway systems, and immense growth in Federal bureaucracy and power, had much more effect than they do today.
In the famous Lincoln-Douglass debates, it has been estimated that more than half of the voters of Illinois attended at least one debate. These debates were over six hours long. When was the last time that more than half the voters of a state heard their senatorial candidates in person engaging in substantive debate for more than a few minutes of media sound-bites?
Technology, for the most part, has not helped. Oh, sure, it's tough to avoid seeing candidates mugs on TV during the election season. Great, so know I know what they look like at their most photogenic and hair-styled. What is their political philosophy? How is Tweedledum different from Tweedledee this year? TV campaigning takes us further away from those answers, not closer.
And the internet? I have to admit that the ability to check pending bills, voting records, etc. without having to be physically present at the site of the legislature can be nice. But that is subject to how timely that legislature's web site is. And, if the "real" politicing is done the old-fashioned way, via face time, dollars, and grass-roots vote-gathering, then the "wired"-ness of legislative or executive bodies is not particularly transforming. At best, it's a nice bonus. At worst, it provides the illusion of public access and accountability without the reality.
It is vain to rule if your subjects can and do disobey you. It is vain to vote if your delegates can and do disobey you.
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Great Shipwreck as Analogy"
Re:Net Impact (Score:2)
We are the American people. What you are saying is that we are too stupid, and we need the politicians too protect us from ourselves. Horseshit! They've already proven that they react knee-jerky. We're protected from a lot of crap because a) the process of passing a law, and b) the battle between the two parties. If we were a true democracy, we'd still have the process to protect us from too-quick decision making, and we'd have battles between a huge multitude of groups.
Representation allows a few to make decisions for all. This allows money to be the primary influencer (money can buy those few, money couldn't hope to buy the masses). It also means those few get together and "deal". Oh, goody.
Even with a true democracy, there's still a smaller number that would write laws, and also an even smaller few who would administer the process. I'm tired of these arguments. Until it's tried, you're fears seem contrived. Maybe you need to have a healthier fear of the current system.