I agree with most of what you say. People are increasingly apolitical and it seems the only way to get them involved is to engage them. Directly. Not through one of the increasingly irrelevant political parties (which are quite similar).
Direct democracy can be dangerous. Our present hodge podge can also be dangerous. The libertarian trend on the Net is interesting. I guess it reflects something. Maybe the pendulum is swinging. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Robert E. Bowd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 10:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: direct democracy // Schwarzenegger Hi Arthur, I wanted to respond to your post in relation to my rhetorical question concerning Web-citizensip. I inadvertently deleted it. You have correctly pointed out the nature of the contemporary political alliance that constitutes our political hegemony. I would add that there are many professional technocrats and authoritarian populists who are also arrayed with that alliance. However, I do not accept that the introduction of technology, as argued by some proponents of cyber-democracy, constitutes a greater democracy. If anything, it may simply represent a new technological mediation of the political forces already dominating the political culture. I think the intensified corporatization of the internet points in this direction. I have been reading Manuel Castell's "The Internet Galaxy" and am struck by the role that libertarian thinking has played in the shaping of the Net. (I am aware of alternative *progressive sites*, of course.) In the open cyber-forums (public spaces) I have seen the regulation of these sites as proprietary sites, often under constant surveillance by right wing libertarians, who precipitate flame wars to silence voices they do not want to be heard. It has always rankled my free speech sensibilities. If we are going to move down the road to cyberdemocracy, then we will have to understand, clearly, which democratic ideology we are embracing. As someone who is skeptical about the level of political awareness, and sense of individual political efficacy, in postmodern society, where image is valued more than substance, I have some trepidations in just accepting a new technology as the solution to the crisis of democracy. There are examples, where it has worked, as we both know, such as the use of the Internet to stop the MAI Treaty, but again this has involved selected institutions, such as the Council of Canadians, working with other activist insitutions, internationally. I suspect the hegemonic powers-that-be have learned the lesson well, from that experience. For every Michael Moorse Website, there is a libertarian website, in Texas, (Moorewatch) attacking his credibility. Talking to a Generation Y sales clerk, at Indigo, last weekend, it was Moorewatch that was given credence. I suspect it was because Moorewatch reinforced the conservative values in his middle class family, as the culture has shifted rightward, with neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Political processes are complex and I think it is still necessary for people to get away from the atomization of cyber-cultures to talk to one another, face-to-face. It's a different kind of human communication. Enjoy your Thanksgiving! Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:36 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Re: direct democracy // Schwarzenegger > Agree with all that you say. Which is why I mentioned a measured (and > should have added deliberative) online referendum. > > The recall itself was a referendum. The vote for who to succeed was > something else. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2003 1:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Re: direct democracy // Schwarzenegger > > > The California recall has very little to do with direct democracy -- > after all, it was an election of a representative, not a vote on a > single issue (as is usual in referenda). The only DD component was > the timing of the (re-)election. > > Also, from the land of direct democracy I'd like to remind you that > DD is not just a matter of technical possibilities (e.g. E-democracy), > but what's necessary to achieve sensible results is that voters are > well informed and educated, both on the issue of the referendum and > on politics in general. Else, DD is just a matter of which side has > a higher advertising budget or irrational assets like movie stars. > > Btw, in a country where kids flush their goldfish thru the toilet > (to "set them free") and other kids jump off skyscrapers wearing > a Superman dress (thinking it makes them fly), after watching the > corresponding movies, it's not really surprising that an actor who > starred in a movie named "Total Recall" wins the Recall election. > Americans have difficulties to distinguish TV from reality (also > with CNN / Fox"News") ... > > Chris > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword > "igve". > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
