On the very first page, Levin states that for all the bright predictions of commentators, predictions of a more informed public, huge increases in voter participation, and a decrease in the importance of money in elections, they’ve all fallen by the wayside and can’t be picked up again. At first glance, it seems like he’s totally wrong – we have loads of political information coming directly to us every day, party debates have moved to YouTube so everyone can watch instantly, and more. However, considering these points further, is he really so off base? We have more information streaming to us, but do we take it all into account when we make decisions? And doesn’t every election ad we see on our sidebars still say “Paid for by X”?
Another point that Levin was right on is the fact that our representative democracy has still not been replaced by a direct democracy. It seems as if the Internet Age would have led to this in any case, but with all the recount demands and risks of hacking, it doesn’t seem like we’re going to be seeing this soon.
The author’s reasoning why the online politics revolution wouldn’t come was spot-on: “Empowered by the Internet and the personal computer, citizens could now know more, participate more, and influence the system more directly and effectively. They could, but would they want to?” Even though we now have the potential to shape our government more, the level of apathy and lack of action among us is higher than ever. For every activist who calls on people for action, there are dozens of people who only have vague opinions and are unwilling to put forth much effort to ensure that they’re represented.
Levin references the difference between what people can do and what they choose to do several times, and the next point he notes is that we can look up exactly what we want on the Internet, but this limits our thoughts to things we actively look for. This is almost like what I stated in my first post, how we surround ourselves with opinions and people that are like us.
Also, another of his points later in the article is comparable to what I said in my second post about the presidential ‘race’. Levin states that “politics will be more of the same, but faster” and that our leaders will have to act with greater speed in order to keep up with the demands of the public. As he says, the system is more responsive, but quality is sacrificed for pace, much like some people demand sleek and streamlined campaigns that they can support without much effort, involvement, or even understanding.
The last section I’d like to call attention to is Levin’s opinion of blogging. He calls it a mixed blessing, and says it’s only instantaneous reaction. Yet that’s really what it should be, because blogging represents a person’s true feelings through their reflex to certain issues. Levin claims it will break down the barriers between professional and unprofessional, official and unofficial. However, this is what we really need, because the first way to overcome apathy is to have impulsive reactions – refining them into mature arguments and well-thought-out ideas can come later. Not that a direct bridge between our government and our most vocal politically-oriented citizens would necessarily be a good thing, but getting more citizens involved and willing to debate rationally and make agreements would be a good first step.
Even though the Internet hasn’t caused a huge change in how our country is run, it has changed how people react to it. In the future, it could lead to good or bad; it all depends on what we do with it.
Thank you for reading; see you next time.
Referenced article: Yuval Levin, “Politics after the Internet.” Troy.edu, Fall 2002. http://spectrum.troy.edu/~shelton/Articles/Levin.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment