Nader's Right About Online Delusion

With each presidential run, Ralph Nader further marginalizes his message, much of which remains accurate and on point. The problem with saying what he does as a declared candidate is that the candidacy itself becomes the media hook; and since Nader has no real chance to alter November's outcome (based on what I've seen so far, anyway), his perennial running is portrayed as a sad joke. To countless liberals, it's not only a joke, but an affront to their sacred belief that all left-of-center votes are pre-owned by the Democrats. So Nader gets it from all sides, while his critiques are either ignored or haughtily dismissed.

Too bad, and probably just as well, especially in this, Our Year of Obama. Despite his perfectly rational, predictable support for the US war state, which alarmed those liberals high on Hope Hype, Obama knows that he'll receive obedient lib support down the stretch, no matter what dreadful positions he'll inevitably take to prove he's imperial manager material. Criticizing Obama from an anti-imperial/anti-corporate position will be a lonely, despised pursuit, however necessary it is. Or maybe not. The strong, early sales of my book, Savage Mulessuggest that there are many people who desire an alternate description of our sorry condition, so you never know. Let's see how it'll play in September and October.

Do I think Nader shouldn't run, yet again? It doesn't bother me. The more the merrier -- or messier, if the political weather's right. Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, whoever the SWP throws up, whatever Bircher-approved minuteman looks sleek with musket and Gadsden flag: let 'em all loose on the electorate. It won't matter much. The corporate stranglehold on American politics is so complete, the propaganda system so rigged, that the very idea of an "independent" candidacy is fit for a bad, comic musical, with fright wigs, peeling scenery, and atonal warbling from the chorus. Amusing to watch, but no threat to the Big Show on millions of screens.

One Nader critique that elicited liberal sneers was his statement that online activism, "as a mechanism of actually getting people to do something ... it's still significantly a snare and an illusion." What an outrageous claim! Has Nader not heard of the netroots nation, perhaps the most vital American political movement since the Underground Railroad? Further evidence that the man responsible for Bush's crimes has lost what's left of his monomaniacal mind.

As with many other issues, Nader is absolutely right about online illusion. Libloggers have created and polished an "activist" simulacrum of such hypnotic power that they truly seem to believe they are an emerging political force to be reckoned with. What makes this even more absurd is their relentless mocking of Nader, behaving as though they are the "realists," while Nader's stumbling along in a Luddite fog. Reading the liblogs is like watching a character on TV watching TV -- the difference being that the TV actor knows that he or she is playing make-believe. Most libloggers have yet to reach such awareness.

Nader's not alone in seeing the limits of online politics. Sally Kohn, a community organizer, wrote for the Christian Science Monitor a genial but precise take-down of the prevalent Web delusion. As Kohn sees it:

"[S]ocial movements are based on collective action. The American Revolution, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and every significant social change movement in between and since has relied on community organizing, building mutually responsible communities to challenge the status quo.

"On their own, for example, none of the activists in the civil rights movement had sufficient power and influence to end segregation. Coming together in local committees, led mainly by young people, they used the tools of face-to-face community organizing, developing shared strategies to address shared problems. And they took shared action; in sit-ins and Freedom Rides, they formed groups that were more than the sum of individual parts.

"By contrast, Internet activism is individualistic. It's great for a sense of interconnectedness, but the Internet does not bind individuals in shared struggle the same as the face-to-face activism of the 1960s and '70s did. It allows us to channel our individual power for good, but it stops there.

"This is great for signing a petition to Congress or donating to a cause. But the real challenges in our society -- the growing gap between rich and poor, the intransigence of racism and discrimination, the abuses from Iraq to Burma (Myanmar) -- won't politely go away with a few clicks of a mouse. Or even a million."

Kohn is correct, but her critique will fall on ideologically-blind eyes. The notion that online liberals get off their asses and personally, collectively, engage, much less remake, the nasty outside world is a fanciful one, a relic of a dead time. Mouse clicks are the New Direct Actions, as any "realist" will tell you, PDF attachment included.

Comments

[princessofnowt]

"The notion that online liberals get off their asses and personally, collectively, engage, much less remake, the nasty outside world is a fanciful one, a relic of a dead time."

I don't think the problem is laziness or unwillingness to get off our asses. I think that the corporate remake of America has succeeded in destroying community, so to quell any grassroots seedlings from sprouting.

If I was a greedy corpster with an evil plot- I would consider this America a great success. Nobody knows their neighbor, so there are hardly any bothersome grassroots fires to put out. I would be very happy with paying all my employees a wage that allows them to spend it all at my stores, while not giving them enough to keep owning their houses. Why should they own something if I could force them to sell it to me on the cheap?
The new soma-- I would let them have the internet, so they can maintain the illusion that they are "doing something,"
Good job, America! Well Done. Now vote for one of the candidates I've given you, doesnt matter which of the two. Pay no attention to the gagged candidates behind the media curtain.

That would be my evil plot. I think that pyramid scheme is now closed.

[CharlieMarlowe]

"By contrast, Internet activism is individualistic. It's great for a sense of interconnectedness, but the Internet does not bind individuals in shared struggle the same as the face-to-face activism of the 1960s and '70s did. It allows us to channel our individual power for good, but it stops there.

That is the key point. It is pseudo-communication. Take for example this post. It is discouraging and disheartening to read, almost on a daily basis, angry responses to postings which are clearly meant to be parodic, satiric or sarcastic. Postings which are meant to be humourous and to make us think are misunderstood as serious, and the poster is then belittled. Internet communication is an inefficient way to discuss and exchange ideas and almost impossible to use as a forum for legitimate debate.

[athy]

Good article. You raise good points.

Also, I wonder what people who do not have access to internet do with regards to activism in this day and age? Is their input obtained? If so, how? How do these people stay informed? How do THEY stay connected? Are they involved in the process on the 'front end' in any way or do they merely follow orders? Have these people become dis-empowered with regards to fighting for issues that are truly important for their families? Is someone else with internet access acting as a surrogate citizen for these dis-empowered Americans -Americans who have NO CLUE what the heck a netroots community is...
If these people are holding two and three jobs to stay afloat do they have the time to do research to collect facts?

They may not be able to research anything presented to them as facts (by those who want to get these people's money or votes) and may be quick to side with anyone who promises them the world.


I can't wait to read your book Dennis.

Also, I have nothing but the highest respect for Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez...P.S I am a registered Democrat...

[NABNYC]

The only way our political system will change is if money is taken out of it. Unfortunately the people who would have to write those laws (Congress) are the same ones who profit from the current system of bribery and corruption.

This presidential campaign is an example of how insane the system has become, with politicians stopping work for years, PR scum, handlers, goons, spouses, kids, friends and professional liars being paid millions to be on a candidate's "staff," and the multi-year campaigns with dozens of candidates on each side will likely piss away a billion dollars of our money by the time it's finished. And the citizens are told if they want a voice, if they want the candidate to work for them, they've got to somehow match the corporate bribes: it's a bidding war.

The internet serves a valuable role in educating, and getting people connected. From there, groups have sprung up across the country to get involved in politics. Anyone who doesn't see that, or chooses to ridicule it as minor or pointless, just isn't paying attention. Things have reached a critical point of corruption, the war is a disaster, the economy is about to collapse. The only reason we don't have mass suicides is because the internet is educating and connecting people, explaining that this is all the intended consequences of the Bush regime. We have hope, and maybe not much else. But it's something.

[alejo]

HuffPost's Pick

I agree with strifeknot...this is the best blog on this site ever. Dead right on.

[Cathexis]

A very misleading argument, Mr Perrin.

On one hand, you make a good point, in that whenever a political party's primary attraction is merely to "Prevent 'THEM' (whomever 'them' is) from winning and screwing up the country," there is a tendency for people to forgive or ignore a LOT that they shouldn't (e.g., the GOP from 1999 through 2008).

On the other hand, I believe that you baselessly belittle the "online activists" because their activity, alone, is insufficient to cause change.

All by itself, it may not effect change. But that doesn't mean it is useless, unneeded, or ineffective. It is one (important) part of an ongoing mopvement ... that, admittedly, would benefit from additional factions/actions.

[davidly]

Mr. Perrin is not belittling online activism. He's just reminding us that it is not a revolution until someone applies his activism to the physical world. The only evidence I perceive of any major change is that establishment candidates are getting rich online now.

By using the crimes of the GOP as an example of what is forgiven or ignored, you belittle the deeply-rooted nature of those crimes. Dem pols weren't mislead, they were compliant; and anyone in the electorate unaware of this fact is also unaware that they were lied to by their own representatives, Dem or GOP; all of this despite the online activism.

[strifeknot]

Thanks for trying to enlighten the gutless Democratic Party loyalists on here, Dennis. Unfortunately, they is no limit to the number of betrayals they are willing to suffer and have no interest in learning form history. They will unquestioningly vote for the (D) every time and pretend all will be OK. Their cowardice and self-delusion knows no limits.

[popecorvo]

I have read some time-wasters before, but this one wins whatever's opposite of a Webbie, or whatever it's called.

[strifeknot]

This is the best blog ever to appear on this site.

[wayoutleft]

as regards the left bloggers, obama has kept his promise of change. he changed them from advanced political thinkers into saps.

[S1m0n]

The problem with Nader's point about online activism isn't that he's wrong, it's that his critique is half truism and half strawman argument. He's 'refuting' arguments that no one's made but him, while trotting out banal truths that contribute nothing to anyone's understanding, because we all understand them already.

In other words, his critique is both valid and apt--only never at the same time.

[jvarga]

"[S]ocial movements are based on collective action. The American Revolution, the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and every significant social change movement in between and since has relied on community organizing, building mutually responsible communities to challenge the status quo."

Well no shit they didn't use the internet to organize the american revolution.