Hacktivism, uh, what is it good for, absolutely nothin', uh

I hope all the new media freaks and digital media democrats and netroots fans and participatory bloggers and their ilk are really feeling their democratic engagement, their Twitter revolution etc.

So, how many friends does health care have on Facebook?

Ooh! Move-on--really another great indication of the democratic potential of the internet, isn't it!

I can't count the number of times young Euro-geeks have lectured me on Move-On and meet ups, Obama and Facebook. They always want to convince me that the internet enabled the 'revolution' of 2008 (like it was an amazing feat that the party out of power in a 2 party system won against the party with the most unpopular president ever).

The amazing thing: the damn town halls are good old fashioned opposition, people showing up and making noise. Loud voices in small places. Signs, shout downs, totally outrageous claims--why get stuck on the facts if that's the way you are going to lose? Facts? Facts are for those who can't handle the political.

Comments

[Alain]

I think you make a fair point but I have to disagree with you a little: no one would know much about the angry town hall folks if it wasn't for 24 hr cable tv and the internet. And Sarah Palin did pronounce her "death panel" declaration on face book.

I think the bottom line is that the medium is not always the message - sometimes content makes all the difference.

[Jodi]

there was a time when people read newspaper, indeed, when newspapers were a major source of information; also, before the internet was popular (end of the 80s) talk radio was a big deal and was discussed as a force in the prominence of the right; when I started teaching in Texas in 1992, Rush L. was huge.

[Alain]

Certainly you are correct but I also remember the advent of Rush and right wing talk radio - it was ascending in the early 1990's but I don't think it had the impact that it would when coordinated with other media (I believe FOX news started in the mid 1990's). So I think you are right that the internet and technology are overrated in terms of their potential to promote "democracy" - but I think they certainly contribute to the cacophony of noise and the decline of symbolic efficiency.

[Anthony Paul Smith]

Didn't you make opposite complaints about left-wing protesters during the Bush years? I'm confused. Are we damned if we do and damned if we don't under your analysis?

[Jodi]

APS--I complained that left wing protesters were not doing what the right has been doing. The prob has been the left's pathetic approach to political action and organization.

[Karlo]

I'd agree that political protests and movements must be very savvy and that the Internet doesn't change that. There's much talk about how the Internet has flattened the hierarchical structures of previous discourse, but the reality is that Google searches and links still tend to converge on several key speakers (even if they're bloggers or websites) in a fairly hierarchical manner. I think a key feature of any political organizing should be ensuring that the processes and decisions aren't touched by economic interests which are already structured and corrupted by the current system. The Internet does have some potential as an organizing tool in this regard. Academia, although vilified in American culture, also could (and to some extend already does) play a role.

[Marco]

In the same way that some political analysts here in the Philippines viewed that the main reason behind ousting Joseph Estrada from being the president of the country is indebted to the capacity of text messages or emails that were sent all over the country and mobilized the people. Apparently, the main point that must be registered, were these technological tools are strong enough to alter the coordinates of the same system that perpetually place everyone in an impoverished condition and intensify the class war? Technology may contribute but at the same time, it will always fall short, and it should never be an approximate to militant actions and mass demonstrations all over the streets.

[Jodi]

well put, Marco--I like the way you put this:

the main point that must be registered, were these technological tools are strong enough to alter the coordinates of the same system that perpetually place everyone in an impoverished condition and intensify the class war

it seems to me like a prob among left techno-utopians as well as liberal democrats and tons of students is the perpetual attempt to find the silver lining or the point of justification for the technologies that are actually major vehicles for reinforcing/producing extreme inequality

[Andrew]

Nice post, although I think the principle problem with "the Left" is that it hardly exists, a fact for which it itself is only partially culpable.

As far as liberal democrats go, I'm going to paste in a post I made to a liberal-democratic online forum regarding the lack of passion for healthcare reform coming from Democrats, especially young ones.

>> [Lib Dem X quote:in the news they call this a "passionate debate" but 1 in 4 americans really don't care. sure, among those who do care, it's a seriously passionate issue. but on a whole, the numbers average out to a pretty low amount of "passion per capita" behind this.]

Me: A recent Pew Research Center poll suggests that Republicans are more passionate about opposing health care reform than Democrats are about pushing it.

[Truthdig quote:According to Pew, those who would be “pleased” if health care reforms proposed by Obama and Congress are enacted outnumber those who would be “disappointed.” But when you look at those who feel most passionately about the issue, just 15 percent say they would be “very happy” if the reforms go through, while 18 percent say they would be “angry.” Among Republicans, a full 38 percent would be angry if health care reform finally passes—but among Democrats, just 13 percent would be angered if it doesn’t.

It’s hard to argue that anger, per se, is something we need more of in American politics. But passion—which sometimes, yes, finds expression in anger—is a powerful and legitimate tool. Health care reform is something the Democratic Party has been trying to achieve since the Truman administration, and only 13 percent of Democrats would be angry if it fails? Only 27 percent of Democrats would be “very happy” if reform passes, according to Pew, while 42 percent could only bestir themselves to feel “pleased” that the Grail long sought by the most beloved Democrat of all, ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy, has finally been attained?

One reason for this imbalance of passion about health care reform, I believe, is that there still is no single piece of legislation around which Democrats—and others who see the need for reform—can rally. But it’s impossible to deny that the Republican strategy of generating anger and fear has also been a major factor.

Where are the millions who so passionately chanted “Yes, we can!” at Obama’s campaign rallies? Where are the legions who cried tears of joy on election night and tears of pride on Inauguration Day? Is Sarah Palin now the only politician capable of inspiring “passionate intensity”?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200 ... ion/]

Me: Question: towards the end of the Presidential campaign, didn't the Obama camp suggest that, post-election, they would mobilize Obama's unprecedented national grassroots volunteer base if the House and/or the Senate proved too recalcitrant? I swear I remember something to this effect. Has the Obama Admin mobilized Obama's networked Democratic citizen corps in favor of the public health option? This kind of mobilization would seem a basic measure of Obama's commitment to the public option, and I haven't heard word one about it.

[Lib Dem x quote: so back to your question about obama's re-electability, i say at least the young people will keep voting for him. to most young americans, the pitch of "at least i'm not a republican" sounds just fine, and the outcome of the healthcare debate isn't really significant.]

Me: I think it's fair to characterize a lot of the young voters excited by the Obama campaign as LIVs (low information voters). Many were basically empty vessels and Obama's somewhat nebulous mandate of bi-partisan "Hope" and "Change" appealed to (and fostered) a post-political, post-ideological sensibility devoid of a passionate investment in ideological struggle. And what is the mechanism of popular passion for (and against) health care reform, if not ideology: the very thing Obama's triangulating, Clinton Mach 2.0 centrism disdains.

Republican scare-mongering (lies and manipulation) is of course the most cynical means of ideological fulmination, but Obama and the Democrats have no commensurate ideological investments, no equivalent fire in the belly, with which to meet it.

Obama criticizes the private insurance industry rhetorically while he collaborates and seems willing to cuts deals with them behind closed doors: it's the very opposite of the quasi-grassroots, participatory campaign his camp waged to take office.<<