Posted by
syd on
Nov 18, 2006; 10:20pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/BBC-Web-fuelling-crisis-in-politics-tp756p759.html
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 14:28 -0500, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> Gurstein, Michael wrote:
> > I would say that Russell McOrmond (on this list I think) and his group
> > around Canadian copyright issues have gone about as far along this road
> > as anyone I've seen and I think anyone interested in this subject (I
> > know that I am) would do well to take a very close look at what he and
> > his colleagues have been doing.
>
> I'm here. Hope it is OK that I dive into some "thinking out loud"
> as "just some guy" without a political science background that has been
> trying to learn. I'm a technical person, coming from a community that
> is not known for getting politically engaged (In fact, many of my peers
> believe in the "Net will route around it" ideology when it comes to
> politics, and think I'm wasting my time).
>
>
The notion that only experts can participate is killing democracy and
most other aspects of culture. Culture *is* participation. Democracy
*is* engagement.
> I believe the Internet is fueling a crisis in politics, which is that
> it is exposing to the general public just how irrational and ugly
> democracy really is in a way that didn't happen in the past. Take the
> filters (and the ideological blinders :-) away that are offered by the
> mainstream media, and citizens get to see all the warts personally!
I agree with your conclusion about the value of democratized media, but
I wanted to say something about your characterization of the bazaar of
public discourse as irrational and ugly. My comments may also apply
partly to the attitude of Mr. Taylor in the BBC piece and others like
him.
You have to separate the democratic ideal from its instantiated
actuality. The less we use patient, thoughtful discourse as our
preferred method of addressing social and political problems, the less
democratic we are. The more we abandon discourse for nihilism, the less
democratic we are. Democracy's ideal isn't ugly or irrational. Insofar
as we abandon its ideals, we stray from democracy. I don't mean this as
a way to save some eviscerated, hollow idea of democracy, but as a way
to encourage more discussion and debate from many points of view. The
only way to do that is to instill hope in citizens that the ideal of
democracy remains a worthwhile path. Instilling that hope will allow
citizens to maintain healthy skepticism about democracy's warts while
remaining deeply committed to democratic ideals and practice. Such a
separation of the ideal from the actual will help rescue democracy from
the doldrums of apathy and cynicism where it currently languishes. We
will be able to "love the sinner and loathe the sin", so to speak. I
think the 50% split in the last few American elections is as much a sign
of apathy and lack of meaningful discourse as it is of the oft-noted
"polarization" of the US electorate. With no real discourse about ideas,
voter allegiance simply follows the law of averages.
Ugly and wart-ridden though they may be, Garth's weblog and even places
like slashdot (
http://slashdot.org) are helping to renew interest in
citizen debate, and that's a Good Thing :-)
I don't suppose this is anything that hasn't been said before, but I
thought it important enough an issue to warrant mentioning.
Regards,
Syd