Has the Internet ruined the US Republic?

[halplm]

As much as we like to say we are a democracy, it is of course not a true democracy. It's a republic. I personally think that this system works better than a true democracy can... especially with a population as large as the US has. There's no possible way that everyone can understand everything that is necessary to cast a vote on a law. Nor would most people want to!

So, I think voting for a local person to represent local intrests, so they can devote their time to making sure the country runs effectively, is a good system. It has worked pretty well for a while (certainly not perfectly well, or even "really" well).

But with the availability of high speed information that the internet provides, that intermediate level of leadership seems to be eroding away. It's not just the internet, of course. It's sophisticated information gathering techniques, as well as ease of travel, and leaders living far away from their constituents.

But the bottom line is, leaders seem to pay more attention to the "opinion polls" of the country as a whole... and less attention to what their own personal constituents would want.

This essentially reduces the country to a pure democracy, led not by leaders with purpose and agenda, but by the often mysterious opinions of random samplings of "ordinary" people.

Not only that, but such polls are largely influenced by the pollsters themselves, giving that "industry" an inordinantly large amount of power.

It's interesting to think about, anyway.

[axordil]

Actually, television and polling firms ruined it. The internet might finish it off, or save it--tune in later for details.

[vison]

I don't know about "ruined", but "changed", certainly.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm personally glad that corporate media outlets no longer control the flow of news, which they can and do frame to serve their own interests first.

When the Bush Administration does one of its "document dumps" in response to a subpoena, now anyone can access them, and hundreds of people at blog sites such as TPM Muckraker comb through them immediately looking for anything significant. And finding it.

Inconsistencies in the words and behavior of public officials are now easy to document. Remember when Bush said he'd almost never said "stay the course"? And Keith Olbermann's show, I think it was, compiled something like thirty-eight separate clips of him saying it and cut them together? It was hilarious and made Bush look like an idiot. I don't think they'll try that again.

All these things seem good to me.

[Crucifer]

Hmmm... As I don't live in the US Republic, I don't really know, but surely anything that gives the electorate a chance to access true, unbiased information is good...

[yovargas]

Inconsistencies in the words and behavior of public officials are now easy to document. Remember when Bush said he'd almost never said "stay the course"? And Keith Olbermann's show, I think it was, compiled something like thirty-eight separate clips of him saying it and cut them together? It was hilarious and made Bush look like an idiot. I don't think they'll try that again.

That sounds awesome. I wanna see it!

[Crucifer]

Try youtube.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, there is just as much biased information on the Internet, but it's biased in all directions instead of just one. And with time and experience, you can find good, reliable sources of information. But you can't believe everything you read, or even everything you agree with.

The standard of accuracy is pretty high. It's hard to post an error without being immediately corrected in the comments, at which point you are expected to correct the post—but bloggers often do this by using strikethrough text for the mistake, so it doesn't vanish. And of course you're expected to provide links for your assertions. Newspapers and TV news by their very nature can't do either of these.

[Crucifer]

That's what I meant. You don't just get one opinion.

[Primula Baggins]

"Stay the course":

[yovargas]

[Crucifer]

[Primula Baggins]

Glad you enjoyed it, Yov and Crucifer! There are longer versions.

I neglected to make the point this illustrates—that the Internet makes it possible for things like this to live for a looooong time and be seen by many more people. That was seven months ago, and it it took five seconds to find a dozen copies on YouTube.

It's also helping us get away from the days when what was said during a debate or a speech was defined by the TV talking heads and newspaper pundits who interpreted it for us, rather than by what actually was said. Hence Bush being able to "win" a debate by "exceeding expectations" because he stood upright and remembered most of his lines, whereas his opponent merely effectively delivered the expected well-thought-out arguments—clearly a loser!

Now every gaffe or inconsistency or stirring moment is out there where we can find it for ourselves.

[Crucifer]

Exactly my point. Thanks for putting it so eloquently, Prim. (I'm practicing driver theory tests at the same time as this so I'm sort of unclear with posting)

[axordil]

And people wonder why I'm suspicious of the project to replace the current internet with a more "efficient" model. Efficiency is going to be hard to separate from corporate and government control.

[halplm]

Well, you guys took things the opposite direction that I was talking about.

I don't see information being readily available about our government being the problem. If anythign it's highlighted the problem.

The problem I see, is that leaders have near instant information at their fingertips about how people will react to a given decision the COULD make. Thus, they often choose a position based on people's opinions... rather than on any well thought out plan or agenda.

You can see this even more clearly when comparing the current presidential candidates... they all seem virtually the same... because they're giving the public the answers it wants to hear... not the answers that might actually work.

[baby tuckoo]

Well, you guys took things the opposite direction that I was talking about.

I don't want to point a finger, but it's Axordil's fault.



I think I disagree, halp, with the premise that the current of public opinion is predictable. As with the weather, too many factors make more than a three-day prediction impossible. Our attention span (I'm speaking collectively here; I'm certainly not one of them) is notoriously short. Look here: you've already grown impatient with what I'm writing.


Unless there's an ongoing body count, no candidate could predict a "hot" issue fast enough to get a speech written. The eternal polarities (abortion, taxes, France) won't change. Tomorrow's crisis is unpredictable and terrible. Then it will go away, unless the body count goes on.

Between the eternals and the crises is the real playground of politics, and it is next week's weather. I don't see how a close reading of the blogosphere will help any candidate calibrate his message.

[halplm]

that's just what I'm worried about! They seem to place a high value on the "three day prediction" that an instant poll can give them.

It doesn't take three days for a politician to change their tune if they see an opportunity to say things that "people want to hear"

I don't think public opinion i predictable... that's why the idea here bothers me. I don't WANT our government to be based on public opinion.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, the recent vote on funding the Iraq war was pretty much right in the teeth of public opinion. The U.S. public overwhelmingly wants out, and Congress gave Bush a blank check to keep right on going.

Politicians seem to find polls handy for cover, but I think they vote in their own political self-interest far more reliably than they vote in accordance with public opinion.

[Holbytla]

Meh.
The medium may have evolved but the politicians certainly haven't.
They have and will continue to exploit whatever means lay at their fingertips.
Many times to the detriment of themselves.
Case in point;