How the Internet Threatens Democracy
As the forces of reaction outpace movements predicated on the ideal of progress, and as traditional norms of political competition are tossed aside, it’s clear that the internet and social media have succeeded in doing what many feared and some hoped they would. They have disrupted and destroyed institutional constraints on what can be said, when and where it can be said and who can say it.Leaving aside "the ideal of progress," a whole separate can of worms, the article starts off by saying control has been lost. In other words, up until now there were controls on what can be said, when and where you can say it, and who can say it. An anti-American regime was/is in power.
Even though in one sense President Trump’s victory in 2016 fulfilled conventional expectations — because it prevented a third straight Democratic term in the White House — it also revealed that the internet and its offspring have overridden the traditional American political system of alternating left-right advantage. They are contributing — perhaps irreversibly — to the decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints in American politics.Alternating left-right advantage is at the level of presidency. Various states and the U.S. Congress have been ruled by one party for decades on end. The Democrats controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for about 60 years until 1994 with only a brief interruption. Or if you believe in cycles of history, the left has been in control since the 1700s or maybe the 1930s. A major shift to the right would not be a surprise, in fact it is probably overdue.
Second, one can only laugh at a leftist writing about "the decay of traditional moral and ethical constraints." Do you have a moment to speak about Jesus Christ?
Matthew Hindman, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University and the author of “The Myth of Digital Democracy,” said in a phone interview that “if you took the label off, someone looking at the United States would have to be worried about democratic failure or transitioning toward a hybrid regime.”He's talking about the 2008 and 2012 elections, right? Right?
Such a regime, in his view, would keep the trappings of democracy, including seemingly free elections, while leaders would control the election process, the media and the scope of permissible debate. “What you get is a country that is de facto less free.”
The use of digital technology in the 2016 election “represents the latest chapter in the disintegration of legacy institutions that had set bounds for American politics in the postwar era,” Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Stanford, writes in a forthcoming paper, “Can American Democracy Survive the Internet?”Institutions built by communists and socialists in the postwar era.
Finally we get a straight paragraph describing how America is becoming more democratic thanks to the breakdown of institutional control:
The influence of the internet is only the most recent manifestation of the weakening of the two major American political parties over the past century, with the Civil Service undermining patronage, the rise of mass media altering communication, campaign finance law empowering donors independent of the parties, and the ascendance of direct primaries gutting the power of party bosses to pick nominees.
“We are witnessing a period of deep challenge to the core claims of democracy to be the superior form of political organization of civilized peoples,”Right here the Cathedral tells us they are built on a house of lies. If you are a real pro-democracy true-believer you want institutional controls smashed and direct democracy for the people. Everything that is happening is good. The current shift to the right is merely a reflection of leftist institutional control. The left is more ossified than the right and unable to quickly maneuver in the new environment, unwilling to give up institutional power. The dissident right has no institutional power and therefore wholly embraced change. The left will catch up once their rebels take over.
The current moment of democratic uncertainty draws from four central institutional challenges, each one a compromise of how democracy was consolidated over the past few centuries. First, the accelerated decline of political parties and other institutional forms of engagement; second, the weakness of the legislative branches; third, the loss of a sense of social cohesion; and fourth, the decline in democratic state competence.
Additionally, if you believe in these institutional controls, then you don't believe in pure democracy. You admit there must be limits. If there must be limits, then let's discuss what the limits should be. Limiting the franchise to white males is a limitation and would preserve all of the "traditional moral and ethical constraints." The loss
If you thought this was supposed to be an intelligent piece on the changing landscape of American politics, you are wrong. It's simply a long set-up for another "Russia hacked the election."
Two developments in the 2016 campaign provided strong evidence of the vulnerability of democracies in the age of the internet: the alleged effort of the Russian government to secretly intervene on behalf of Trump, and the discovery by internet profiteers of how to monetize the distribution of fake news stories, especially stories damaging to Hillary Clinton.
There is good reason to think that the disruptive forces at work in the United States — as they expand the universe of the politically engaged and open the debate to millions who previously paid little or no attention — may do more to damage the left than strengthen it. In other words, just as the use of negative campaign ads and campaign finance loopholes to channel suspect contributions eventually became routine, so too will be the use of social media to confuse and mislead the electorate.Confuse and mislead means does not believe in the Cathedral Narrative.
Our politics are vulnerable to nefarious influences — whether of the Kremlin variety or the Breitbart variety — not because our information landscape is open and fluid, but because voters’ perceptions have become untethered from reality. For reasons that are both complex and debatable, very many voters have stopped seeing government as a tool for the production of the common good, and have instead turned to politicians (and others) who at least make them feel good. Thus, the news we consume has become as much about emotion and identity as about facts. That’s where the vulnerability comes in, and its roots are in our politics — not in the internet.If that is the problem, we know the solution: physical removal of leftists. We can achieve this via Exit, by creating new, leftist-free spaces. It is taking place on the Internet as alternative media of all stripes create new outlets and their own narratives. Before getting to an ethnically homogeneous state, there must first be an ethnically homogeneous nation. The next step for the Right will be creating alternative entertainment in digital media, movies and television. This is the Cathedral's remaining source of Narrative control. Once it loses its white audiences, it will stop creating media that whites want to see. It will be the Fox News effect. Once you create an alternative and your enemy is ideologically opposed to competition that requires appealing to the market, you can monopolize the audience. Today, the right can only bitch about leftist Narrative in movies and television. It's spurs the Right to confrontational action, but it is mostly unproductive. After creating its own media, when the right hears that Disney is putting gay orgies into their children's movies (looking ahead a few years), it's response will be "I don't care."