inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

Politics 2.0 – Real Democracy is close

by Rob Paterson

I had one of those coming out of the shower aha’s today. I think I see how Obama might be able to get the changes that we have all dreamed of – both for right and left.

So first I ask why is it impossible to get any real change – real change being defined as something that has to overcome the establishment in any field?

To have a real change – there has to be a President who will risk political capital and a majority vote in the house. By design right now this is impossible. Why?

Because until now the President has needed  a lot of money to get elected and to have a chance of a second term. Because until now Congressmen and Senators need a lot of money to get and stay elected.

Because until now, the electorate were largely ill informed, passive and often even helpless. Their only involvement was to vote every few years and, even then, many chose not to do even that. Why should they? They knew that the decisions were being made by another process.

Washington has been bought by lobbyists. The lobbyists represent the establishment. The phone rings in a senator’s office. It is you the voter. A second phone rings, it is a major lobbyist. Which call gets priority?

No wonder we are all cynical.

How could health care or agriculture be reformed when all the money is behind the status quo and money is what is needed?

That is until now!

By building a vast grass roots organization by using 2.0 principles, Obama was able to raise more money than by using the traditional lobby pools. He not only got more money but he is less attached than any president in generations to the special interest himself.

Is this organization going to go away now? No – there are signs that Obama intends to grow this organization. Here is the link to his new site, Change Gov,  just released yesterday.  It is clear that he plans to go around the Hill.

He is preparing for the war of the future – A People’s War – where the President has a direct ongoing relationship with the people of America.

Roosevelt started this. His use of radio in the 1930’s was a masterstroke of using the then new media – to talk in a conversational way with the people. Now the President can listen to our conversation and converse with us.

I expect that we will start to see a new electorate – an engaged electorate – that will grow out of the grass roots campaign network.

I hear rumours of a new “Peace Corps” not to be deployed in foreign lands but at home. I see that community development and engagement will become paramount in the years to come.

So where does leave the old power brokers on the Hill? Isolated!

The smart Congressmen and Senators had better follow suit and fast – they will have to catch up with the people and the President. The real money that they do need will come from their engagement in the betterment of those that they represent.

The voters will awaken. They will start to be active. They will seek to take back their power so that what affects them most – so that decisions that affect them the most having access to good work, to energy, to food to a good environment and to better healthcare to a better education will be made by them and not a by a few who care only for themselves.

So politicians will have to awaken too. It will be more than their voting record that will be watched. It will be their larger actions to help their people. The greater transparency of our time will shine on them all. Those who serve the people will be rewarded and those that serve the elect will be punished.

Where does this leave the lobbyists? The best lobbyist will themselves have more than a check book. They will have to represent groups of active engaged voters or leave town.

A real change in health care demands that the insurance companies, the drug companies and the doctors have to be taken out of the position of political control.

A real change in energy policy means that the oil and coal companies have to be taken out of their control position.

A real change in how we spend money and on what in defense has to taken out of the hands of the main suppliers and the senior officers who serve them.

A rel change in how our financial system is governed means that control needs to be vested fram the leaders on Wall Street.

A real change in food systems means that BIG Ag has to lose control.

Without going around the Hill. Without directly engaging the People both in the policy and in the action – real change is systemically impossible.

This is Martin Luther all over again. The system cannot be reformed from within. A new direct model is the only way.

This is possible. For the first time, real democracy is possible.

Share and Enjoy:
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!
  • TwitThis
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt


5 Comments »

Noah David SimonNovember 7th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

while I have no doubt that what he did worked… I don’t think it worked the way you think it did with any Web 2.0 Jolly Gee Wizzz…. Shizzz….

reality is it didn’t work for Ron Paul…
reality is it didn’t work for MoveOn.Org or Howard Dean….
this was not so much a victory for Obama and Web 2.0
…as it was for the failed PR of G W Bush

the GOP had slash and burn economics and they used up the resources. Regardless… they did put together an incredible game in the end… but the truth is they were not beat by Web 2.0… but rather by CNN, MSNBC, PBS and mainstream cable TV….

it isn’t so much a revolution of change… as the same old… same old… and hopefully we will live to see the pendulum of death swing around a few more times before a Nucleor Holocaust.

cross your fingers.

…this isn’t to say that that Web2.0 hurt core convictions… and grass roots were certainly helped… but there is a reason Obama spent his big bucks on TV.

SavvyGrindNovember 8th, 2008 at 1:16 am

The Obama08 campaign’s embracing and implementation of Web 2.0, Internet Marketing, and ‘new’ marketing in their campaign was impressive. Considering the scale…

* Text Messaging
* Social Networking
* Social Advertising
* Video
* Microblogging
* Social News
* And the list goes on…

Joe PNovember 10th, 2008 at 7:09 pm

I think an in-depth analysis of ‘Politics 2.0′ would be pretty interesting, but we need to get beyond the superficial.

As the comments above pointed out, Obama raised an insane amount of money. Yes there were ‘grassroots’ donations, but there were all the big name lobbying orgs, corporations, PACs/etc.

He used 2.0 outlets, but really spent a lot on his 30 minute TV spot and other mainstream media outlets. He also had a lot of help by getting these outlets on his side (See today’s article by the WaPo, on the WaPo’s coverage…interesting).

I found the debates on TV surprisingly devoid of intelligent conversation about anything. Both he and McCain danced around issues and never really debated – in the classic sense of the word – any kind of policy. They basically just pointed fingers, caricatured and argued.

And my impression of the young voting block is not great — maybe I’m biased by the “Rock the Vote”-type exposees where the 100,000+ new registrants had a hard time answering how many Senators we have, what the Bill of Rights is, what happened in 1776, etc.

I would love to see some hard proof about how people are using 2.0 and collaboration to:
a) Intelligently discuss/debate issues (not just flame others or ’sound off’ against the left or right)
b) become more informed of issues in a bi-partisan fashion (e.g. what blogs/wikis/Facebook groups discuss alternative energy, healthcare reform, etc. and aren’t a front or tool of a heavily left-leaning or right-leaning organization)
c) act as a seeding ground for new policy ideas and solutions to our problems

Anything that shows 2.0 technology accomplishing or trying to accomplish any of the three things above would be very impressive to me.

Noah David SimonNovember 10th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

exactly my point. the election was bought. Acorn, Soros, Buffet and all foreign money desperate to turn America isolationist. this isn’t tin foil hat stuff… all viewpoints point to the same truth that the media and the powers that be either (a) cheated the vote or (b) bought the vote. hipsters tweeting around did not change the world… in fact they were reactionary, viral and lacking of any autonomy. Why does Obama get away with it? because he is following the precedent set by Bush… which is why in the future the GOP should favor fair election policy because 2000 just backfired. What comes around… goes around…. but the rules are out of wack. tweet tweet tweet!

RobertNovember 11th, 2008 at 12:28 am

As long as we all rely on the beneficence of one leader to grant us real democracy, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we have achieved any sort of ideal.

Obama can make as many websites as he wants, but in the end, all decisions are up to him and him alone. That’s more like a democratic monarchy than a true democracy.

If you want to see real, actual change of the system, you should check out the Metagovernment project. They are building a Web 2.0 system that will completely free us from the tyranny of politicians.

» Subscribe to the RSS feed for these comments

Your comment

Want an image to appear near your comment? Go to gravatar.com

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Additional comments powered by BackType