Digital Citizenship Symposium, Part 2
I was very upset to miss the speech The Good Citizen and New Forms of Political Participation by Russell Dalton. I was running all over the Wayne State University campus trying a half-dozen different methods of printing a Penguicon flyer, and failing because the PDF file was rendered as the wrong page size when I made it.
I managed to get back in time for the Q&A followup with Professor Dalton, but couldn't ask my questions because I didn't know if it had already been covered: I don't know how to be a good citizen as traditionally defined. When my friends talk to me as if I should join them in handing out flyers supporting empty-suit candidate X who is playing along with the system, I look at them goggle-eyed like they are from another planet. I do not understand what happens to intelligent people sometimes.
For instance, one of the slides in today's first speech happened to depict someone who illustrates my point. (I am not saying the speaker, Fred Stutzman, is like that; he was talking about something else entirely.) It was Barack Obama's Facebook profile. I saw that his campaign described him with that traditional bluff made by all presidential campaigns: "the next President of the United States". Are they delusional? Surely they know that this claim has been refuted by the example of every loser in every previous election. The only explanation must be that they are deliberately B.S.ing to manipulate easily-manipulated voters. They have identified themselves as professional spin doctors, and I simply cannot take the campaign seriously. The dillemma of democracy is that campaigns cannot speak effectively without manipulating the gullible.
I know people who work full-time for causes I believe in, and distort the truth on a regular basis in service of the good guys. If this is civic engagement in democracy, I cannot stomach it.
Professor Dalton clarified the point of his speech for a questioner, from which I gathered:
- Guilt trips to make us work out of duty, for a political system we see as gullible and manipulative, will absolutely not succeed. (Thank you!)
- Politicos need to convince us factually (not with emotional distraction) that by changing the outcome of an election, we would change the outcome of public policy in favor of a noticable improvement in the best interests of someone we care about.
- Politicos need to readjust their definition of a good citizen to the reality of how we are actually engaging with our communities, not how they want us to.
I like this last point. When I reject preachers, politicians, or any other boondoggles on which others lean for hope, I don't feel hopeless. I am an imaginative person, and innovation is the answer to all cynicism. The person who would describe my attitude as cynical merely lacks the imagination to innovate alternatives.
Here's one alternative I've found. We have this cultural story we tell ourselves of the legendary hacker, whose mode of changing the world has got nothing to do with politicians; in fact, they can do it from their mom's basements. They write software that changes all the rules, and give it to everybody for free. Help dissidents circumvent the Great Firewall of China. Put Linux on free laptops for kids in the third world. Use peer-to-peer filesharing to protect traditional limits on copyright. It's like hackers are standing on a streetcorner handing out boxes of pure, shining empowerment to passing strangers. If it turns out that this self-image of power and virtue is a lie, I'll find something else. That's not cynicism, it's adaptation.
No wonder Virtual Citizenship needs a whole symposium to wrap our heads around it.
Comments
Anonymous on Nov. 30, 2007 6:53 PM — "Next President"
Regarding the "next President" title:
I think we can safely give the politicians who use that phrase the benefit of the doubt, and assume they understand that no one knows who the next president will be. It's even very likely they assume their readers understand that no one knows who the next president will be.
If both of those things are true, then I think they're probably just trying to show the confidence they have in their candidate and do a little cheerleading for him or her. I don't even think it's manipulative to express confidence before the election: it probably just helps potential voters to take the candidate seriously as an option.
matt-arnold on Nov. 30, 2007 8:16 PM — Re: "Next President"
I think you forgot to log in before posting.
tesral on Nov. 30, 2007 8:16 PM — Politics as usual
I hear you. I am more or less disgusted with the entire process and the processors myself. It's like an honest candidate cannot win. It is set up to choose for the worse people for the job.
I suggest you check my livejournal entries and Gadsden's Grumbles part of my website. I think we have a lot in common.
"The greatest evils are done in the name of good." --The Tao of Phoenix
stormgren on Nov. 30, 2007 8:21 PM
I am an imaginative person, and innovation is the answer to all cynicism. The person who would describe my attitude as cynical merely lacks the imagination to innovate alternatives.
Properly applied innovation is a good answer to all cynicism. Improperly applied, it proves the cynic right.
Dr. Guillotine's invention was considered by many to be an innovation.
Here's one alternative I've found. We have this cultural story we tell ourselves of the legendary hacker, whose mode of changing the world has got nothing to do with politicians; in fact, they can do it from their mom's basements. They write software that changes all the rules, and gives it to everybody for free. Help dissidents circumvent the Great Firewall of China. Put Linux on free laptops for kids in the third world. Use peer-to-peer filesharing to protect traditional limits on copyright. It's like hackers are standing on a streetcorner handing out boxes of pure, shining empowerment to passing strangers. If it turns out that this self-image of power and virtue is a lie, I'll find something else. That's not cynicism, it's adaptation.
Given that at least one of those is being used for nefarious purposes as well. The operating system kernel that empowers an African schoolchild can also be the basis for more efficient bomb targeting and air strike scheduling. It can and has helped those in power stay in power, and abuse that power. The empowerment works both ways. To see it in purely idealistic terms can be quite fragile to one's sense of the world.
Personally, I'd rather invest in ideals that are tool-neutral. Those are a lot more adaptable and survivable, and in general, tend not to cast one adrift.
matt-arnold on Nov. 30, 2007 10:44 PM
You are correct.
I should specify that when I said innovation, I meant imagining alternative sources of hope and motivation; those alternatives do not need to be a technology. Psychosocial inventions and material systems can be equally dangerous to misapply. This goes to your point, which is well taken.
atropis on Nov. 30, 2007 8:43 PM
word.
squeekyhoho on Dec. 1, 2007 2:23 AM
I think they use the term "The Next President" because, well... the other ones suck pretty bad.
* Presidential Hopeful (Gee, that sounds like a beauty contestant)
* President-in-waiting (Always a bridesmaid, never a bride)
* Aspiring Presidential Candidate (When I grow up, I want to be President)
* President-to-be (TLA KIT BFF)
* Presidential Wannabe (I'M IN UR P0LITKS, MAKK1N UR L4WZ)
* Future President (I have COME from the FUTURE with a MESSAGE to LAY OFF the BACON)
* Candidate (Don't worry, citizen!)
* Defendant (Hey, maybe this would work)
Problem is, someone decided to use "The Next President" after getting jacked up on some Power of Positive Thinking class, and the rest of them decided it was a good idea. Unfortunately it's lost all meaning in the current context because everyone is doing it.
Anonymous on Dec. 1, 2007 12:53 PM
"the next President of the United States". Are they delusional?
You're a literalist...
handing out boxes of pure, shining empowerment
...but an inconsistent one :-) But seriously, a possible explanation for some of your world view just popped into my head. Perhaps things that come from your mouth are fully understood by you, and so are allowed to contain symbolism or abstraction or allegory, but such devices in other's communication are deemed incorrect or uselessly imprecise?
Use peer-to-peer filesharing to protect traditional limits on copyright
Perhaps you mean that it can be used for such, but if you mean that it is or usually is or often is used for such then this is self-justification for a disrespect for the work of others. Or maybe you believe that things that are not physical, tangible, or needs-on-the-spot-labor aren't things people should be able to earn a livelihood producing?
matt-arnold on Dec. 1, 2007 1:39 PM
Who are you?
Leave a Comment