Slashdot Mirror
The Web Fueling A Crisis In Politics?
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet could be fueling a crisis in the relationship between politicians and voters. 'Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters — and other initiatives such as environment secretary David Miliband's blog and Downing Street's new online petition service — showed the government was making good progress in using the Internet to become more open and accountable. But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.' 'But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage." Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you.'" Some credit was given to the Internet for high voter turnout in this month's elections ... how is that a bad thing?
Politicians are having their dirty laundry aired to the world and they are complaining. What a suprise.
Honestly they brought it upon themselves.. The dirty spear campaigns have existed since the civil war and they will continue, the net is simply a new tool they realize they can use.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This looks like another case of political spin attempting to fix the symptom and not the problem. If you're a politician and the internet reveals that the people you represent are angry at you, it's not your job to block that anger or try to make them express something else- it's your job to find the source of that anger and make it right again. The "Damn The Man" mentality doesn't arise spontaneously on it's own, there's always a reason fueling it- wether it be obscure or not. And hey, when you're in a position of power as great as Tony Blair's, this kind of thing should be expected. Complaining about it seems to be to be the equivalent of a construction worker complaining about all the noise or a pianist complaining about the number of notes on his piano.
Basically, deal with it.
I think one point they're really missing is crucial.
There are a lot of us that are just so tired of "business as usual." We are sick to death of the war on this, the sanctions on that, the backdoor business deals, the pandering and "moral outrage," the manipulation... all of it. The Internet gives us a way to:
- Communicate (with each other) outside regulated channels- Disseminate information around the world (ie. cameraphone pics - see recent UCLA tasering incident) without censorship
- Effectively inform the busy, everyday, "influenceable mass" when reality is inconsistent with the dominant political opinion
As a simple example - 10 or 20 years ago, very few westerners realized what was happening in the Middle East. We all saw the reports on CNN, or the blurry graphics as American tanks rolled through the desert. Now, we have camera phone pictures coming back from places like Lebanon, showing the devastation caused to people just like us, by our weapons.
The Internet brings people together from places around the world. It makes us, as individuals, realize that we're all the same. We all want to live productive and enjoyable lives in peace, without the overburdening influence of others. When you talk to someone from Iran, and realize that they're basically just like us... it gets difficult to swallow the "end of the world" scenario, used by our governments to justify mass killings.
Mr. Taylor, people are waking up. It's only going to get worse. You will either learn to deal with the fact that lying and manipulation is going to get harder every day, or you will be replaced.
Ironic, isn't it, that the tool that can ultimately be used to control and restrain our governments was created by a government agency.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you'."
And this is a crisis? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure everyone was thinking this WAY before the internet. The idea that the average person thinks "Politicians are crooked" only since the internet came about is ridiculous! The only difference is that the internet makes that more visible. The same thing with the "incommensurate" demands of Joe Sixpack. Of course we all want to pay no taxes and receive a ton of money in Social Security when we retires, but a lot of people don't understand that it's impossible! But now because of the internet the average person gets heard. It should be obvious that what is on the mind of the average voter is actually a very good thing for a politician to know, even if it is ridiculous demands and distrust of leaders.
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
The things you're citing from the article are high-level problems that actually could have used government intervention to guide a common effort into a better place for everybody. They have been identified for a long time as something that needs real leadership on (energy sustainability, equity of opportunity for economic advancement of the young and poor, etc.) as these issues require concessions to be made on all sides and real leaders to broker a compromise between the competing interests. Sadly, we get none.
These people are there to serve the public interest, and not line their pockets in a perpetual job. They have lost sight of this.
For the author to essentially complain that "They asked us for transparency, and then bitched and moaned because what they saw on the inside was rotten to the core," is absurd. Of course we should complain! We aren't and weren't normally afforded the insight and oversight to make sure the current state of affairs never came to pass. We elected our representatives and expected them (naively) to do their jobs. And many of those representatives have had their positions for longer than much of their constituency has been alive (hyperbole, but not by much), at least here in the States. I'm not sure how easy it is for an incumbent to be re-elected in England but if it's anything like the States then said representative complaining that the constituency is restless probably is/was/has been part of the problem to begin with.
People say you get the government you deserve -- I believe this is true only if the government is truly accountable to the people. In the US, for at least as long as I've been alive, this has not been the case.
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
And there is your problem - ask why it takes $500,000 to get a seat.
Well, there's the initial filing fees, the campaigning inside the party to get the nomination, the TV time at $10,000 for a single 30 second advert, the campaigning against other candidates- democracy in a free market is expensive even if your main form of advertisement is just handbills (printing costs money!)
Because people vote for a face they're familiar with, regardless of how well they know them; and because $500,000 is how much buisnesses are prepared to pay for the ammount of power they can get from this person.
Yep- and unfortuneately the salary-to-campaign-costs is a logrithmic scale- the higher up your are, the more the corps are willing to pay your challenger, so the more you have to spend to get the seat.
Not an easy problem to fix, but the best one I see is either make publicity cheaper with the internet, and/or remove the ammount of power those people have and spread it around a bit more.
Unless someone has a better idea?
Not better, just different- how about removing personhood, and therefore free speech rights, from the corporations? Then at least you're down to individual private contributions instead.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If you RTFA, you'd see that the real issue being discussed is the problem of (on the internet) people berating, criticizing and/or demanding of government (officials) without offering any solutions or compromises.
Voters want results, but not costs:
Better schools without raising taxes.
Cleaner power... but Not In My Back Yard!
Cheaper housing, but no more construction
Et cetera
At least in the real world, if you want to make those gripes, you have to write in to your local paper, or attend a town hall meeting... where the politicians can respond to you directly.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Yes, I have a better idea.
This evens the playing field such that people who are probably electable (demonstrated by signature gathering) all have equal access to media, etc. Those who manage that access best and send the voters the most successful message are elected. No "sideways" moneys may be used at any time, including moneys from the candidate's own fund EXCEPT if the candidate wants to opt out of the govt pool, in which case the candidate may spend up to the amount the other candidates get from their own pocket. This amounts to a nice civic gesture, but cannot affect the amount of marketing available to the candidate as it does not result in a difference in the amount of funding. As a registered voter, you could sign one or more "I want to run" lists; that way, if there are two candidates you'd like to see run, you could help get them both on the ballot. This in turn would do away with the two party system (because political parties would not be allowed to market themselves in any way that involved spending money, only individuals would and even then, only when they have enough certified signatures.)
With the political parties gone, two thresholds have to be set. One to pass laws; another to disenfranchise them. My thought is that about 80% should have to vote for a law to get it operative, and about 40% should have to vote against an in-place law to knock it out. 30% of the representatives asking for a vote on an in-place law forces a vote. This biases the system towards only passing, and keeping, laws that really apply to the population in general instead of one group of loud crazies. If something turns out to be a social fad (like these idiots who are voting "defense of marriage" into law) then it is relatively easy to retreat from such a stance, just a small change in outlook, one vote, and bingo, it is gone.
Anyone caught taking bribes or falsifying a signature on a vote-for-me list goes to jail for life. Or we can shoot them. Just so long as they don't get to spend the bribe, run for office, or otherwise continue to screw up the system.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm to the point that I don't think a politician can get on the ballot without being corrupted.
A friend of mine ran for congress in the election just past, on almost no money at all. She was able to get the nomination largely because she's a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, so the heavy hitters weren't interested. Even when the race got unexpectedly close, the party refused to assist her in any way - not even returning phone calls - on the basis of historical voting patterns in the district, completely ignoring the problems that her Republican opponent was having. In the end, she was outspent something like 100:1 (refusing to accept corporate contributions), and lost by something like 4 percentage points.
I'll never know if she would have been "incorruptible" in office had she won, or if she'd ever have been able to get anything done there, but it would have been interesting to see.