The current political system is broken, and every year intelligent people are asked to choose between the lesser of two evils. Due to the way we finance campaigns and how the media covers politics, there is no hope that the Democrats or the Republicans can escape from the control of millionaires. In this crazy system, politicians need to raise millions in order to pay for superficial television commercials, and not only does this make public officials beholden to the highest bidder, but the media is bought out because television stations are dependent on the revenue generated from political advertisements.
For example, one reason why reporters did not dig deeper into who was funding the Tea Party candidates in 2010 was that the networks and cable channels were getting most of the money. Think about it: rich people give money to fake populist politicians who then give the money to television stations who are the same people who are supposed to pose tough questions to the candidates. Making matters worse, you have an entire network, Fox News, dedicated to promoting its own star, Glenn Beck, who is making the people on the ground think they are fighting a holy war against the elites when they are actually volunteering unknowingly for corporate rip-off artists.
While the wealthy hide behind their false populism and faux Christianity, President Obama mouths his liberal defense of the middle class as he continues to feed billions to the wealthiest Americans through tax breaks, corporate welfare, and bailouts. In one of the biggest ironies of all time, a great enabler of corporate greed is attacked for being a socialist. What is so laughable is that if you look at the details of the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the health care reform initiative, and the financial industry reform bill, you see a giant shift of public funds to private interests. Not only are bankers being fed billions of dollars and no-interest loans, but the insurance companies have been allowed to jack up their premiums as they wait for millions of new customers mandated by the federal government. Only a Democrat could have gotten away with such an extreme level of corporate welfare.
Okay, before you start screaming, let me just argue that there can be an alternative. If the crazy tea partiers were able to run candidates and win elections, surely progressives can start to form their own movement, and my argument is that we can do it without corporate sponsors and stupid television commercials.
Why Change is Possible
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that money is a form of speech, and corporations are people, it is virtually impossible to restrict the amount of money any person or business spends on political campaigns. However, all is not lost, and the future might hold out the possibility for truly free and open elections. Due to advances in new media, we now have the ability to hold a transformative type of political campaign that would be without political parties, political donations, and political commercials. This change is possible because we can circulate on the Web concrete policies, positions, and information without losing ourselves in a sea of fake news and superficial character assassinations. In fact, during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, the leading candidates all had Web sites full of information, and although most people did not read these sites to see where the candidates stood on important issues, the information was out there. The challenge then for contemporary politics is how to get people to use the Web as a vital source for political knowledge.
Beyond TV
New media technologies offer the possibility for a real democratic change in our political systems, and the key to this transformation is the fact that people are relying increasingly on the Internet to gain information, and fewer people are watching television as their primary source for news and entertainment. The reason this shift from television to new media is so vital is that the expensive use of television commercials for state and national political campaigns is the biggest reason politicians feel they must raise millions of dollars to run for office, and because these politicians need so much money, they become beholden to the powerful interests supporting their campaigns.
In short, our current system of campaign finance is really legal bribery, and the rise of new media allows us to shape a world where campaigns are virtually free. Ultimately, the model of digital democracy articulated here helps to solve many of our major political problems, while it functions to restore the public's faith in the U.S. electoral system.
A Digital Revolution
Right now, people who are eligible can run for office and conduct an effective campaign without leaving their room or spending any money. Furthermore, the Internet gives us the ability to hold highly informative campaigns without the need for relying on personal wealth or special interests. By using the option of write-in candidates, it is possible for someone to run for a political office outside of our party system, and by simply organizing an online campaign, a candidate can avoid the entire political system as it is currently structured.
The form of new media politics that I am calling for here represents a revitalization of the participatory U.S. democracy and is centered on the idea that top-down, bureaucratic political organizations are becoming a thing of the past. People now want to be involved in the system, and they do not want to be subjected to a purely one-way conversation where politicians talk at citizens. As so many recent social movements have shown, people need a sense that they can change our social and political systems, and online participatory forums and campaigns offer a method for bringing together people with diverse interests and backgrounds. In this type of bottom-up social organization, technology offers a space for the building of coalitions and the representation of diverse interests.
By participating in a growing network of concerned citizens, people begin to see that policies and programs are what matter, and they begin to resent the superficial politics of personality and predetermined ideology. Furthermore, what is being advocated here is not a revolutionary or utopian movement; rather, as a pragmatic model of social movements, participatory digital democracy does not need to rely on a totalizing view of history or a reductive Marxist or conservative ideology. Instead, through personal and collection activism, people learn that they can make and change history, and there are no hidden forces controlling our destiny.
Taking Egypt as our model, progressives should use new media to organize online and to start a second American revolution. Let the progressive party begin.
That's another thing. One of the major flaws I've seen in attempts to form a truly viable third party is this obsession with the Presidency. I think an all out blitz of state House and Senate seats in maybe a dozen or so key states, along with local races in key districts of those states is more realistic and achievable. We should avoid the national stage until the party at least controls the swing vote in the Congress' of most Presidential battle ground states.
Running out of words. Reply. Tell me what you think.
Perhaps some research into these things would give many of us an idea of the "how" - we already know the "why".
What is very pertinent about this is that it began in 1958 with one of the founding members being
John Koch yes of the Koch Brothers who hosted the secret 200 person billionaire meeting in Palm Springs 3 weeks ago on January 30, 2001. Not suprisingly the US media covered this very sparringly and then slipped it under the rug. It was covered however overseas. It is sad that we can find out more about what is going on in the US from sources across the waters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/obama-richest-enemies-billionaires-summit?INTCMP=SRCH
Disturbing isn't it?
Is the Tea Party a red herring to muddy the waters.
Egypt DC.
Looks like we picked the WRONG week to quit drinking!
Your statement should have read "....using the FOOLS we have right now...." and that means, to me, our administration and Congress. Neither of them are really interested in anything other than election or reelection.
the problem with the idea is it may be "common sense"...something that a lot of americans know nothing about...
the teapots and their cousins the despots....could care less about all americans...just about their own narrow views..and then imposing them on everyone...
and one more thing Mr. Samuels....there is and will always be a 'hidden hand"...guiding this country to destruction...
As far as the "compromises" go - I have always believed that you have to fight for what you believe is right BEFORE you consider compromise. Too many times Obama and his administration have not fought the fight - instead have compromised without a whimper.
You can get any yahoo to show up once or twice or even a few months, as the Tea Party has proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The real trick is getting people to stay in it for the long haul...not just one election, not just one campaign, not just one candidate. When you get enough people together who have that level of commitment, then you'll be taken seriously. Until then, it's nothing better than an angry dream.