Democracy And Technology Have A Spoiled Brat For A Child

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/pfeiffer-i-overshot-the-runway-on-churchill-bust-130704.html


The above article has something to do with an apology from a writer about a misguided story regarding the removal of a Winston Churchill bust from the White House.  I'm not really sure of the story, nor why it is important.  What got my attention, and thus made it to this blog, were the scathing responses from Facebook at the bottom.

I have to admit several things before I go further. One of such things is that it is summer, and I am not working. I have time to read these things and get my knickers in a wad.  A second thing (and you may know this) is that it is easy to get yanked into a debate on a Facebook forum or what not and have a whole argument in short sentences.  I've done it, and you may have too.  I'm not faulting the people, but I do have a problem with the system.

I am not old enough to remember politics without the internet.  The world without the internet is something I grasp, but I was not aware of politics until a time when the internet played a role.  I was able (however reluctantly) to see the internet effect politics from the start both in high school and college.  In it's infancy the internet was seen as the center piece of a "new Democracy."  We would suddenly see what people from across the country thought about a policy.  We would have new ways to share ideas, and communicate for the common good.  Then social media springs up as if it were loaded, and it too was going to be the savior of democracy in this new world. In reading the remarks at the bottom of this article, I could not disagree more.

Yes, there have been some successful uses of the internet, social media in particular, in spreading movements like the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street Movement (remember those guys?) but on a daily basis Democracy has devolved into harmful snipes at the bottom of a blog post.  We want to win a debate over complex issues in twenty-five words or less.  We pick fights with people thinking we are smarter than them on no grounds other than what we assume they are.  Democracy (subsequently debate) is about knowing the person you are debating, knowing why they think the way the do.  Carefully thought out counterpoints not smartassed remarks aimed at inflaming the argument.  Democracy thrives when both people are right, and each sees the validity of the other's argument.  In reading the comments at the bottom of the article, I saw none of that.  Lame remarks and cheap shots are far more common than words with substance and valid points. And this is the face of a "new Democracy?"

Any debate is going to have quick lines and come backs, but this is to a new low.  I would welcome anyone to comment on any of my posts, but I would require the be something behind your words.  Think before you type away.