Presidency in the age of the internet.

[WashingtonBay]

For being on the eve of a fairly major political event, this section sure has been quiet.


I've been quiet because I've been brooding about something… A thesis… a theory… an observation maybe, about how different this world is today than the world we had when George W. Bush took office 8 years ago.


Bush didn't cause the change, but I think he has suffered it the most.

In fact, Clinton was the first president to deal with this new and growing change. Though he didn't cause it either, he merely had to endure it his last few years in office.

The change is the internet. The impact of the internet on politics is profound, and I don't think it's impact has been fully understood yet.

I think it has caused many to believe George Bush is leaving office in disgrace and defeat, when I think the truth is he has served well and honorably, and in many important issues, been highly successful. I don't think he is given nearly the credit he deserves, and I for one still respect and admire him.

And yes, I know that at least half of you just laughed at me, and wondered how I could be so stupid.

I've been trying to figure out how to articulate what I think about the impact of the internet on politics and public opinion, and the phrase that keeps rolling around in my head looking for a chance to be heard is "death by a thousand paper cuts".

Can any presidency survive it? We'll see.

Free speech is one of our most cherished civil rights. And well we should. But can a country remain united or even governable for very long, in the face of free speech without responsibility? Without restraint? Without manners?

Are we going to remain governable at all when we have all the dissent and outrage and disagreement we want to find, at our fingertips, all the time? Any whack job with an opinion and an internet connection can freely express whatever the heck he thinks, no matter how misinformed, unwise, or unconscionable , not just to the guy next to him, but to the entire world, and remarkably, find like minded people to help validate it and nurture it. No matter how cancerous it is. No matter how damaging to the public mood it is. No matter how far from the truth it is. No matter how unfair it is. No matter how bad mannered it is.

Doesn't the first amendment demand the same good manners and restraint that the second one does?

Death by a thousand papercuts.

Can any presidency survive it? We'll see.


I think it's possible that if there's one thing George W Bush will be looked upon for handling really well, in hindsight, it's the constant second guessing of the internet. He listened to trusted advisers and made a decision he thought was right and he stuck to it. He believed in it. He didn't run home to check the reactions on the internet to what they think about what he just said and fill himself with self-doubt and uncertainty and regret, or even defensiveness. Sometimes his supporters found this really frustrating. Why doesn't he answer some of these allegations and defend himself? People think he was out of touch and insulated. Perhaps that is the only way to remain at all focused on a goal that has a life of more than mere hours and days in the making.

I think Obama will be much more challenged in this regard. He and his staff are bucking and resisting stern warnings by intelligence and security concerns that they abandon their blackberries and emails and curtail their participation on the internet. For them it's a security issue. These things are too easily hacked and compromised.

But I think that is not the biggest harm. I think the biggest harm is that they are too potentially careless and impulsive. The thoughts and opinions of presidents and close advisors should not be vulnerable to accidentally hitting 'send', or angrily flaming back without the benefit of thinking things through, something that will be forwarded to millions within hours. And advisors should not be googling for answers to their questions or to learn what to think about something. They ARE the answers. The internet is there to keep track of THEM, not the other way around. Or at least it used to be.

Obama and his team are very much part of this internet generation. I think it will be interesting to see how they handle it.

Anyway… those are my thoughts this morning.... grist for the mill.

Anyone else have any thoughts? Is this thing on?

[lovesfortune]

I just wanted to say, I know what you mean. I'm an Obama fan, but you already knew that. But we both shall see. :)

I did rather like how genuine Bush's last press conference was (last week?).

[WashingtonBay]

I liked his press conference too. But I think he's always been genuine.

[lovesfortune]

Well I guess I just don't think he's a great speaker... but with that one, it wasn't like someone just wrote something for him to read and he kinda struggled though. plus I liked how he was honest when asked about "what you would do differently" or mistakes he's made. and the whole being able to look in the mirror, etc.

[Cat]

I'll be watching with interest how the internet plays any part.

However, I don't have such a pessimistic view of it. I think it can be used as a beneficial tool if someone wants to. You can go to the internet and research and get other views besides what the media wants to spoon-feed you. It can be enlightening or it can be a curse. All depends on how the tool is used.

[WashingtonBay]

What actually got me thinking about posting this was the criticisms and infighting.... papercuts really.... tedious, needling, angry criticisms.... not just on the right... but on the left, already, about Obama.

There's almost more bitching about Obama on Democratic Underground than there is on Free Republic. Obama hasn't even taken the oath yet and already he has angered and disappointed the gays, the antiwar people, the people who think Bush and Cheney should be thrown in jail, those who like Dean, those who hated Hillary. Death by a thousand paper cuts.

[WashingtonBay]

Well I guess I just don't think he's a great speaker... but with that one, it wasn't like someone just wrote something for him to read and he kinda struggled though. plus I liked how he was honest when asked about "what you would do differently" or mistakes he's made. and the whole being able to look in the mirror, etc.

Bush is not a great speaker. Not all the time. I think he has a groove he can get into when he's "on". if he's not in it, he struggles. He's much better off prompter when he can just talk to people, than he is in a speech.

I don't think Obama's a great speaker either really... or maybe more accurately, he's not a good off the cuff talker. Off prompter, he stammers repeatedly.... Count the "ums" sometime. I recognize this because I used to have the same trouble in public speaking assignments.

[HoustonFarrier]

Bush is not a great speaker. .

Neither is Obama. Ever heard him when he WASN'T reading a prepared speech.......

One good note on Obama though, from a pastor here in Houston. He said he thinks that young black men are coming around to having a better view of themselves....a new-found pride, resulting in them PULLING THEIR PANTS UP !!!! Way to go Obama !!!

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

...a new-found pride, resulting in them PULLING THEIR PANTS UP !!!! Well that would be a silver lining in this, wouldn't it!?



I would propose this, regarding public speaking. It could be that it is our expectations which have grown beyond reach. We all think presidents should sound like they do in the movies. Yes, we have old speeches from old presidents like JFK's famous speech... but really... it's just one speech that gets played over and over again. It's a carefully preserved and filtered image, we only show the good parts of past presidents... not the real-time reality.

In fact, I think we think much of real life is not as good as the movies. I love legal thriller movies with great courtroom argument and oration.... Have you ever watched a real trial all the way through? Boring, stammering, slow, snoozefest.

[HaveFaith]

You make a good point. I've never really thought about the internet influencing the way people look at the president. It has to have a giant impact, even if a small part of it is the speed of people exchanging opinions and thoughts.

The part I hate the most is the media, as Cat brought up. Either it's because I'm older and I pay more attention to it now, or it was worse with this election. I think most of it was one-sided and had to have a big impact on the population.

[HoustonFarrier]

What I find VERY interesting is the almost TOTAL SILENCE of the ...naacp, rainbow coalition (JJ), al sharpton, farrakahn, et al. Wonder why ???? I would of thought they'd be singing from the rooftops of the innauguration of the "first black president" ....surely they are happy about it, aren't they ?

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Well, if I had a hope of why they've been quiet, it would be because they are polishing up their resumes and looking for new jobs.... now that we have a black president, maybe those kinds of organizations have finally outlived their usefulness?

Because that's when we'll have achieved real equality. Well, that and when white people stop congratulating themselves for how advanced they are just for supporting him ;)

[JackieB]

That was a very eloquent post, WB. Thank you for it. You really thought it through and made some very compelling points, in my opinion.

As you might expect, I don't think that history will be very kind to this President Bush (his father will fare better). And I'm afraid that I have to say that the negative assessment will mostly be justified. In my opinion the failures of this administration came down to not realizing where the line between being decisive and stubborn exists. I think Reagan's quote that twofingers uses in his signature applies to this administration "...the things they know that just aren't so."

Regarding the economy, you're absolutely right that a lot of this mess isn't President Bush's fault at all. But, we believe in strict accountability for our leaders and that's just the way it goes. Carter is still being blamed for economic woes that probably weren't his fault, either.

But your point about the presidency in the age of the Internet is sure well-taken. It is possible for anyone, even those with ridiculous ideas, to espouse them and gain a following.

I'm more optimistic than pessimistic. However, I do wonder sometimes if the USA will ever get back to somewhere close to where we were just a handful of years ago, at least in terms of economic power. We're nationalizing industries, which is bad, bad, bad, and globalization means that everything is changing regardless.

Water seeks its own level and it's fair to say that the USA has enjoyed a standard of living and economic power that was extraordinarily rare elsewhere in the world. Well now that globalization is transforming everything and the economic floodgates are open, so to speak, perhaps we'll have to learn to come down closer to the level of countries in say, Europe or some in Asia (smaller homes, one car, less discretionary income, more modest meals, much less energy consumption, and so on).

Interesting times. But, I'm not going to worry myself sick over it. Just keep working, enjoying the horses, and taking life one day at a time. :)

[JackieB]

What I find VERY interesting is the almost TOTAL SILENCE of the ...naacp, rainbow coalition (JJ), al sharpton, farrakahn, et al. Wonder why ???? I would of thought they'd be singing from the rooftops of the innauguration of the "first black president" ....surely they are happy about it, aren't they ?

Steve

Now that you mention it, that's a very interesting point. I don't know what to make of it. You're right though. It's been pretty quiet from those groups.

[WashingtonBay]

We'll see JackieB :)

And I don't actually fear for our standard of living any time soon, I think that will only go up. But that won't stop people from worrying incessantly about it, in traffic, listening to how bad the state of the economy is while surrounded by $40,000 cars.

[HoustonFarrier]

..and it's fair to say that the USA has enjoyed a standard of living and economic power that was extraordinarily rare elsewhere in the world.

And you want to know why????? Because we were the ONLY truely free market society....with little govt regulatory guidance. While it has it's faults.......it did allow this country to prosper beyond all others....and it provided a system where entrepreneurs could flourish. Obama and his liberal pals are surely going to try and change that.....(spread the wealth).

perhaps we'll have to learn to come down closer to the level of countries in say, Europe or some in Asia (smaller homes, one car, less discretionary income, more modest meals, much less energy consumption, and so on).

NO, NO, NO, NO...if YOU want that....then MOVE there, don't force that standard of living on me. I WANT the freedom to work as hard as I choose to work, so that I can live the standard that I choose to live. If I am willing to dowhat it takes to earn $1B a year, then I want that freedom to do so....not some govt nitwit beauracrat telling me I can't/shouldn't.

Steve

[Tiz]

Oh Steve, no government nitwit is going to tell you that you can't work your butt off and earn 1B. They'll say you can't keep it, that's all.

The internet is such a fertile ground for dishonesty, it's made it extremely difficult to know what the truth is. That said, it's been indispensable in exposing some things we may never have known about without it. I guess it's a matter of personal responsibility again, and Reagan's trust, but verify, creed.

I don't see the United States adopting a more European standard of living. Not willingly anyway. In fact, I doubt Europeans would live that standard, were they not forced to by punitive tax rates. Their incentives were crushed decades ago, and they are a weaker, more government dependent, population as a result. When you see rioting and burning when people are required to work for pay, you know something has gone awry.

[JackieB]

NO, NO, NO, NO...if YOU want that....then MOVE there, don't force that standard of living on me. I WANT the freedom to work as hard as I choose to work, so that I can live the standard that I choose to live. If I am willing to dowhat it takes to earn $1B a year, then I want that freedom to do so....not some govt nitwit beauracrat telling me I can't/shouldn't.

Steve

I'm sorry, I think maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't endorsing this change. I just meant that I think globalization is likely to cause some of the wealth to be transferred regardless of whether or not the government stays out of things (as it should). For example, it's super-easy to manufacture goods in China now and transfer services to India. Even a really small company could probably figure out how to do those two things without difficulty. But the accompanying jobs and some of the wealth go to those countries as well. That's globalization. The money doesn't make its way back to the US and our economy kind of has to shrink. I'm not placing a value on whether this is good or bad, just stating what I think to be fact.

[elevenelevenxo]

And you want to know why????? Because we were the ONLY truely free market society....with little govt regulatory guidance. While it has it's faults.......it did allow this country to prosper beyond all others....and it provided a system where entrepreneurs could flourish. Obama and his liberal pals are surely going to try and change that.....(spread the wealth).


NO, NO, NO, NO...if YOU want that....then MOVE there, don't force that standard of living on me. I WANT the freedom to work as hard as I choose to work, so that I can live the standard that I choose to live. If I am willing to dowhat it takes to earn $1B a year, then I want that freedom to do so....not some govt nitwit beauracrat telling me I can't/shouldn't.

Steve

I am so, so, SO sick of hearing this "spread the wealth" BULL CRAP being twisted around to the exact opposite of what it was intended to mean. Look at this country. It's turning into the 18th century and we're in dire need of a Revolution. The richest of the rich run this country - NOT THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WORK FOR IT. I'm talking about you, myself, the people on this forum, every average worker out there. Think about the cost of inflation. Think about it. Think about all the foreclosures out there. Think about the fact that CHINA OWNS the good 'ol US of A because of this "wonderful" truly free market society we live in.

And we're $10trill in the hole. Yep! That system's workin' GREAT!!!!

We can't dig ourselves out of debt because we can't make money. We can't make money because companies are shutting down and laying people off left and right. We can't keep companies open because CEOs can't manage their money. Yet the CEOs are living the life in their 10 mansions spread across the world, patting themselves on the back for a job well done with bonuses and retreats and you know what it is? It's the same stuff you're mucking out of your horse stalls.

"Spread the wealth" means getting these MORONS in check so that the rest of us have a fighting chance!

I realize this post is going to hit the nerves of a lot....but that's fine. I enjoy a good debate.

[JackieB]

Because we were the ONLY truely free market society....with little govt regulatory guidance.

I'm afraid that it's going to be a long time before there is the political will to go back to "little gov't regulatory guidance". Even Alan Greenspan admitted that he made a mistake in opposing regulation of some securities. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the mortgage meltdown and accompanying deep recession is not ultimately going to be primarily because lenders were pressured to make bad loans (e.g. Barney Frank drove them out of business). It will be because there was lots of money to be made from issuing those mortgages, repackaging them into securities, and selling them again. Lenders simply were not saying "I can't keep making these subprime loans, they are bad business." They were getting rich from those loans and were quite happy to make them.

One of the most astute comments I've heard about this whole mess was from an expert who said something like "When there's a lot of money to be made, people don't ask questions, they just take it."

[twofingers]

addressing the original topic. using the internet is the best way to subjugate, manipulate and control the masses. with the click of a mouse I can send false misleading information to millions and urge them to action.. why do you think the next administration wants to put a computer in every students hands- so they can research for them selves and find the facts and truth. No that's not what the computer generation does. or most of us for that matter. we go to "our sites" believe what they tell us and act according to the truth we perceive. there are several groups here [seattle] who send out e-mails telling folks where to meet for "social events" the next thing you know there are sever hundred people outside your door demanding justice for the sea kittens. Last month 400 santas converged on the Lustly Lady for free peep shows - no such deal existed. Move-on dot org. maintained a constant presence on the republican sites and overwhelmed them with false info.

[HaveFaith]

Speak of the devil, Al Sharpton was on CNN when I got home from work about tomorrow. We knew it was to good to be true.

[Equine_Woman]

I think you might be on to something WB. The internet is certainly an interesting addition to the world and certainly allows information to disperse at lightning speeds. Who knows if anyone can stand up to the scrutiny and the hate and vitriol that is spewed on the net 24 hours a day. I certainly feel for those who are the subject of it. Including Bush. I do hope he has a nice life ahead of him out of the spotlight if he so chooses. Give him time for his papercuts to heal. And I hope Obama has on his chainmail!

[HoustonFarrier]

I am so, so, SO sick of hearing this "spread the wealth" BULL CRAP being twisted around to the exact opposite of what it was intended to mean. .

I think maybe you should go back and LISTEN to his speeches......he has "set the bar" at (now) 150K (started at 300K in the beginning of the primaries). So, if you make 150K or more, EXPECT to lose yet more $$$ in taxes. FYI...that bracket is already at 38% of income is LOST in taxes......

And us small Businesses can expect to have to "spread our wealth" as well, as he has stated. When are y'all gonna learn......Dem = Bigger Govt = TAXES!!!!!!

I'm just taking the man at HIS WORD......

Steve

[vicklynn]

I think maybe you should go back and LISTEN to his speeches......he has "set the bar" at (now) 150K (started at 300K in the beginning of the primaries). So, if you make 150K or more, EXPECT to lose yet more $$$ in taxes. FYI...that bracket is already at 38% of income is LOST in taxes......

And us small Businesses can expect to have to "spread our wealth" as well, as he has stated. When are y'all gonna learn......Dem = Bigger Govt = TAXES!!!!!!

I'm just taking the man at HIS WORD......

Steve
Aw crap Steve. Question, is that before or after expenses? If after were safe, if before, were screwed.

[HoustonFarrier]

Aw crap Steve. Question, is that before or after expenses? If after were safe, if before, were screwed.

Oh, I guarantee you it's before taxes.

Steve

[elevenelevenxo]

LOL. :) Ok. I have listened to his speeches, Houston. Thank you thought for pointing out what I was already saying.

Good thing I don't make $150k+ a year! Personally, I think socialism is a great concept. Too bad Obama is NOT a socialist....as so many people like to attempt to suggest he is. If only....

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

For being on the eve of a fairly major political event, this section sure has been quiet.


I've been quiet because I've been brooding about something… A thesis… a theory… an observation maybe, about how different this world is today than the world we had when George W. Bush took office 8 years ago.[...]

I think you're on to something.

Politics has always been nasty. Usually the worst of it is eventually lost to history. The things said about President Lincoln, for example, were perhaps even more vile than the stuff said about Bush. He was pretty much the most hated man in the world. He'd just gotten over 600,000 Americans killed in combat back in a day when that was a significant percentage of the population. The papers were over the top in their just plain mean coverage.

So I don't know if the tone is necessarily all that different, but the volume certainly is. Or moreover-- the Velocity is so much much faster. It's the immediacy of the Internet. Information velocity. Information saturation.

"A lie will get halfway around the world before the truth even gets it's pants on..." and THAT was Winston Churchill. If it was true then it's exponentially more true today. The thing that is best about the Internet is also the thing that is worst. It is unfiltered, unedited and unmoderated-- and it is crushing in it's volume and immediacy. It is so difficult sometimes to tell what the truth is, and there's no time to spend on analysis when we're too busy just trying to keep up with the stream of factoids.

The big danger though is what it does to governance. Good government is slow government. Nothing that happens fast in government will be as effective as it should be. As the saying goes: You can have it done right, cheap, and fast. Pick any two.

A terrific example of the -- dare I say-- manufactured instant crisis is this latest bit of legislative feces called TARP. A trillion dollars and counting with nobody knowing anything about where it is going or what it is supposed to do but BY GOD it MUST happen NOW. Really?

I think it's really just an... artifact... of the Instant Information Culture. Now we don't even have to wait for an "EXTRA" edition to go out on the streetcorners in the evening. The next headline is only seconds away. We don't know really what it is all about, how it really started, or what the best thing to do is. But we have to have something done by lunchtime even if its the wrong thing. The newswires are waiting.

[WashingtonBay]

You can have it done right, cheap, and fast. Pick any two.


I love this. :)


Good grist for the mill :)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I think it's really just an... artifact... of the Instant Information Culture. Now we don't even have to wait for an "EXTRA" edition to go out on the streetcorners in the evening. The next headline is only seconds away. We don't know really what it is all about, how it really started, or what the best thing to do is. But we have to have something done by lunchtime even if its the wrong thing. The newswires are waiting.

I should have added something that even more scary about the High Velocity Instant Information Culture (not a great name for it. I'll work on that): The people writing the most, know the least. Reporters. Bloggers. Some bloggers at least sometimes have actual expertise on a topic, and usually they're up-front about their biases.

Reporters for the traditional (and therefore reputable) news sources tend to have no expertise, so far as I've been able to tell. Which means that when they report what they hear and see they have no more idea what they are talking about than their readers. Sometimes less. That and they tend to keep up some facade of evenhandedness, which is a lie. Think about stories you've read where you have some inside information, you were there, or you have some expertise on the topic. Did they get anything wrong? Yep. Every time.

So all this information is coming faster and faster with more dubious sources and less editing, less fact checking, less analysis. And there's never a second draft. On to the next story.

All that said, I will moderate it with a positive thing about the Internet. I really like news discussion sites, like Free Republic, Lucianne, Slashdot... and such. Sure they have their faults. But one thing they provide is sometimes that missing layer of analysis and context that is so often missing. Just as there is a lot of misinformation presented on such sites, there is also often some very good discussion and interpretation that can be found too. People with real expertise shine through, and people with real facts or inside information eventually get their chance to correct the record. It lets the story slow down a little and catch it's breath. After a while it gets easier and easier to spot the good and skip over the bad. It's a skill that comes with experience as a consumer of knowledge. Like anything else.

And maybe that's it. The Internet is still a young thing. We're just getting the hang of it.

[WashingtonBay]

Discernment is vital.

And all too often missing. But you're right... While I often mock the Junior Detective Squad at Free Republic... BS doesn't often survive the scrutiny of a long involved FR thread. Because on really big forums like that with a big breaking news event.... Odds are high that along about the first couple hundred posts will come someone who actually knows about that thing. Or two, and sometimes they will disagree and fight it out and out of it comes the truth. Like the MemoGate story. It does happen.

Of course... there are events where the research is just uniformly biased on a place like that too. The subset that is absolutely sure the "Obama's not a citizen" story really has legs, for example.