Posted by: bwana | April 30, 2007

Different, but Better?

Our colleague BVBL presented what appears to be about a fifteen minute speech on the political power of blogs and the internet in politics to the recent Manassas GOP Gala.  He offers up the text here, and offers a stirring paean to the participative properties of the internet society. Speaking of those who foresaw the web-or something like it- as a means of energizing political discourse, BVBL said

“They were crafting a new means of human interaction which would fulfill a specific sociological function. These “geeks” deliberately tried to reinvent our society, to close the distance between us, to allow us to access more information and use that to solve ever more complex problems. One of those problems they intended to address was to improve the quality of our democracy by lowering the barriers to entry hindering citizens from participating in it. They didn’t specifically say they intended to create blogs, but they certainly foresaw that their creation would enable and encourage discourse and allow citizens to more easily obtain information.”

I am not a Luddite by any means. However, what strikes me here is that BVBL assumes too much. On line discussion of all types and internet presence may increase discourse and the flow of information, but I don’t think the internet lowered barriers to participation. Moreover, the low of discourse may be faster, but I don’t know that the quality has necessarily improved.

Blogs do give more opportunities to folks to have their say. How many out there would know my thoughts on any given subject were it not for a blog by which I can ruminate? We in Virginia saw the power of internet politics first hand last fall. Let’s consider George Allen’s Macaca Moment if it had happened twenty years ago. There was no widespread, easily had technology to get clear footage of him in the first place, there was no place to readily make the footage ready, and no means to keep the story alive. Twenty years ago it becomes one of those “wow, if folks only knew” stories that comprise local political lore…today it changes the course of state and perhaps national politics.

However, what barriers are being lowered? Are people any less able to vote, join a political party, or vote now than they were twenty years ago? If anything, participation has declined if only because it is now harder to vote the graveyards in West Virginia, SW Virginia, and other regions who have long lived by the credo “vote early, vote often”.

To paraphrase Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepherd, American democracy is hard work. It always have been. You have got to want to make things work, to make things happen. Access to more information does not mean better information, and the easier it is to get swamped in the details. I suggest that the core information the voter needs to make a decision has always been there, but you have got to want to participate to parse through it…regardless of whether you are sifting through a hard copy of a position paper or on line.

Maybe it is the word participation. Maybe that is the hinge that causes our doors to swing in different directions…

You see, no matter how you get the information, you still have to have the fire to participate. I think participation is more than just getting educated on issues and voting. That is the bare minimum, and should amount to a duty. Participation goes far beyond that. To participate, you have to be willing to pick candidates and make your choices known. You have to be willing to work in the trenches, to get up before the dawn to do lit drops and work the polls, to stay out far past sundown to call voters and stuff envelopes. Participation is more than exercising the suffrage. Partiticipation is a desire to make things happen, to make things different-or keep them the same. Participation is not a matter of the mind-it is a matter of the heart and the gut, getting more information or having the ability to vent online is not the same.

Let’s not forget the costs to participation the Internet creates. The Internet is well named, as it allows everyone to interact less with other people. Want to watch a movie? No need to go out-order it online and watch at home. Need groceries or most any other retail item? No need to go out-order it online and it will come to you. Want to research a subject? No need to go to the library-work the web! I suggest that the diminished human interaction creates a diminished interest in community-and with that diminishment comes a lessened interest in the things that make a community work-things like politics and political involvement.

I think the heightened flow of information simply fires up those already interested…it supplements, it does not create the original fire. The less interaction we have, the less chance a spark will start a fire of interest.

Then there is the whole matter of anonymity. I have stated before why I blog under a pseudonym, but apparently the risks of putting oneself on the web grow greater and greater. The WaPo writes today of the challenges faced by woman bloggers, but note that while women face greater risk of intimidation and threat, male bloggers also face challenges (as the Letieq-Bouchillon quarrel of a year ago shows). As far as encouraging participation and lowering barriers, the WaPo took a different perspective:

“…women have censored themselves, turned to private forums or closed comments on blogs. Many use gender-neutral pseudonyms. Some just gut it out. But the effect of repeated harassment, bloggers and experts interviewed said, is to make women reluctant to participate online — undercutting the promise of the Internet as an egalitarian forum.”

Yes, the internet has made our methods of politics different-more information and more easily accessible. But there is a cost, and I don’t know that the resulting world, while different, is better


Responses

  1. I would have disagree with your assertion that Blogs have not closed the Gap between the process, and the people. Before Blogs, the process consisted of a central meeting, primary, or some other nomination contest, for the purposes of selecting a candidate. Information regarding a candidates character and background was doled out on a need-to-know basis, by the mainstream media, and the individual campaigns. The internet changed all of that, allowing the people a means to find out a lot more good and bad about a particualr candidate. Blogs took it a step further, and allowed for commentary, and depending upon the mix of the readership, spirited debate. You point to the example of George Allen. I’ll add to that Steve Chapman. In his first attempt at the nomination, Chapman challenged Harry Parrish. The voters knew little about Chapman, except what his campaign released. Chapman received 45% of the vote. When Parrish passed away in office, and Chapman made it known he was running again, an anonymous blogger called BVBL started a campaign that presented Chapman, warts and all, to the voters. Chapman was so distracted by all of the negative attention he was receiving, that he forgot to file for the 50th HOD convention, and as a result, knocked himself out of consideration. He then filed what many believe is a junk defamation lawsuit against the anonymous blogger (and the current blog owner), which essentially made him a laughingstock amoungst local voters. He has since pretty uch dropped off of the locval political landscape. From Strong primary contender to political nobody, and even Chapman gives the credit for his undoing to a blog.

    Another example is the blogger(s) who brought down Dan Rather, exposing the CBS forged documents. This may have made the difference in the 2004 Presidential election.

    What have blogs done? They have given power to the people. Information dessemination is no longer at the sole discretion of the Main Stream Media, or the campaigns.

  2. Apparently you only skimmed over my post. I do not see where I suggest that blogs do not aid information dissemination. What I did suggest is that blogs and the internet also add to individual isolation, and as such has a downside that BVBL chose not to address. Information dissemination does not equal participation, no matter how much bloggers claim that it does.

    Blogs have not given any more power to the people than people already had. Citizens don’t have any more chances to vote or donate funds or participate in campaigns now than we had before blogs fired up. They simply have more information by which to make decisions. Given that the turnout in the last few elections has not skyrocketed up with the creation of blogs, it seems that while blogs put out information, it does not encourage participation any more than the old methods did.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: