Republicans love to suggest that they are in a political contest with liberals. The notion of what constitutes a "liberal" is somewhat like a diseased soul --- morally degenerate, whimperingly sympathetic to the poor, employers of illegal immigrants, and probably drug addicts. To admit that you are a liberal is to emerge from the primal slime of the vegetative earth. How can anyone admit to it? I don't see how Republicans get away with this crap, frankly; except they do.
But nothing really highlights the center of this contest more than the present Republican attack against NPR and Public Television. What is the problem? NPR and Public Television are intelligent media. It is intelligence that offends the Republicans. Those liberal creeps all went to big public universities and took higher degrees. They want the media to be truly critical and to organize genuine discussions. Ridiculous! How can you make a decent buck in a world where people are actually able to ask real intelligent questions about what you are actually doing? Preposterous!
The sad truth of our world is that we are not locked in a two-party political conflict but rather in a vicious and uncompromising war between ignorance and intelligence. Major issues --- healthcare for example --- are fought out in almost complete ignorance, in terms of ridiculous notions and assumptions about death panels and loss of personal choice. No one will listen to an intelligent argument --- that is, to first understanding what the legislation provides and then asking why and what alternatives might be. You might find some of those discussions on NPR --- but not for long if the Republicans have their way.
Why are Republicans so afraid of intelligent discussion? Because it is in their interest to have an ignorant and impoverished population.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Internet and Democracy
Back in the '90s when the internet was just developing and way before the invention of Facebook and proliferation of incredibly compact and powerful cell phones, techies used to dream about what the internet would do for democracy. I participated in any number of discussions where the "democratizing power" of the internet was boasted upon. And some of that was actually true. The internet does put the power of information into people's hands. You don't even have to own a computer and have a DSL line; you can walk into the public library.
Of course, one of the costs of voluminous free public information is that not everything you find on the internet is true to facts, nor is everything as neutral of secret aims and motives as one might first like to assume. Nor is it always easy to track down the origin and authenticity of materials you'll find there. So what we have is the following problem. If you want intelligent inquiry and reporting, you have to educate and employ teachers and journalists; and that means that not everyone will have access to their wisdom because it will only be available in reputable institutions and publications with limited distribution or access. If you want free universal access to information regardless of origin, authenticity, etc., then the internet is what you want but you are left to decide in some way what is informative and worthy. That turns out to be a daunting task.
Now, we are witnessing a new feature of the democratizing power of the internet. Facebook and wireless communications are being used in Africa and the Middle East to rally masses of people into protests. Egyptians unseated their president, and Lybians have started a civil war. But if this is democracy, where is it leading? The rule of the whole is desirable so long as the whole (that is, everyone in a society) is well informed, intelligent, and responsible. But this is not always the case, as Rousseau observed in his "Social Contract." The ability of a society to be governed by a particular constitution will always depend upon the level of cultural maturity in the society. So we have to ask whether the Egyptians are ready for democracy or whether will simply lead to something worse. Ditto Tunisia, Lybia, etc.
But what if this were America? Would we be happy if mobs of Americans, spirited into action through the internet and wireless communications, succeeded in bringing down our government? The Tea Party and other extremist movements are already way too close to this. Is this democracy or mob rule? The political situation in this country today suggests an extreme lack of cultural maturity. The Republican Party is incapable of thinking about anything except winning elections, hence, winning power. They spent the entire eight years of Clinton's administration trying to unseat him and now they are clearly trying to do the same with Obama. It is not about ruling or governing or serving the people, with the Republicans, it is all about pure hunger for power. After the latest elections, the Republican leadership made it clear that they are only interested in closing off Obama to a single term. But what about the people, the economy, jobs, etc? Apparently they could care less. Is this democracy in action? Well, it's raw power expressed by the majority but there would seem to be other important criteria that ought to be in play to make democracy work well. And that, I think, is something that the internet has not dealt with effectively.
Of course, one of the costs of voluminous free public information is that not everything you find on the internet is true to facts, nor is everything as neutral of secret aims and motives as one might first like to assume. Nor is it always easy to track down the origin and authenticity of materials you'll find there. So what we have is the following problem. If you want intelligent inquiry and reporting, you have to educate and employ teachers and journalists; and that means that not everyone will have access to their wisdom because it will only be available in reputable institutions and publications with limited distribution or access. If you want free universal access to information regardless of origin, authenticity, etc., then the internet is what you want but you are left to decide in some way what is informative and worthy. That turns out to be a daunting task.
Now, we are witnessing a new feature of the democratizing power of the internet. Facebook and wireless communications are being used in Africa and the Middle East to rally masses of people into protests. Egyptians unseated their president, and Lybians have started a civil war. But if this is democracy, where is it leading? The rule of the whole is desirable so long as the whole (that is, everyone in a society) is well informed, intelligent, and responsible. But this is not always the case, as Rousseau observed in his "Social Contract." The ability of a society to be governed by a particular constitution will always depend upon the level of cultural maturity in the society. So we have to ask whether the Egyptians are ready for democracy or whether will simply lead to something worse. Ditto Tunisia, Lybia, etc.
But what if this were America? Would we be happy if mobs of Americans, spirited into action through the internet and wireless communications, succeeded in bringing down our government? The Tea Party and other extremist movements are already way too close to this. Is this democracy or mob rule? The political situation in this country today suggests an extreme lack of cultural maturity. The Republican Party is incapable of thinking about anything except winning elections, hence, winning power. They spent the entire eight years of Clinton's administration trying to unseat him and now they are clearly trying to do the same with Obama. It is not about ruling or governing or serving the people, with the Republicans, it is all about pure hunger for power. After the latest elections, the Republican leadership made it clear that they are only interested in closing off Obama to a single term. But what about the people, the economy, jobs, etc? Apparently they could care less. Is this democracy in action? Well, it's raw power expressed by the majority but there would seem to be other important criteria that ought to be in play to make democracy work well. And that, I think, is something that the internet has not dealt with effectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)