From: EpPrint@epnet.com
Organization: EBSCO Publishing
To: rwash@eagle.ca
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 17:44:07 -0500
Subject: online democracy (LOYALIST COLLEGE account)

      _________________________________________________________________
      Record: 9
      Title: Open arms for online democracy.
    Subject(s): GINGRICH, Newt; GRAMM, Phil; REPUBLICAN Party (US) --
    Platforms; UNITED States -- Politics & government
    Source: U.S. News & World Report, 1/16/95, Vol. 118 Issue 2, p10, 2p,
    1c
    Author(s): Roberts, Steven V.
    Abstract: Suggests that the Republican triumph in November 1994
    elections was not just about ideas but about technology. Long belief
    by Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen. Phil Gramm that they could defeat
    the Democrats only by funneling information around the established
    media and feeding it straight to the voters; How they have changed the
    way Americans think and learn about politics; How the same techniques
    will be used to pass legislation; Two competing theories on democracy.
    AN: 9501107827
    ISSN: 0041-5537
    Note: Alternate full text sources may be available. Check periodical
    catalogue or ask staff if assistance is needed.
    Database: MasterFILE Elite
      Section: Outlook; One week

                          OPEN ARMS FOR ONLINE DEMOCRACY

    As they took control of Capitol Hill, Republicans opened committee
    meetings and briefings to television, made documents available on
    computer, invited radio talk show hosts to broadcast from the Capitol
    and launched a national advertising campaign to promote their early
    achievements. Welcome to the Wired Congress.
      The Republican triumph last year was not just about ideas but about
    technology, not just about crafting issues but about communicating
    them to the public. GOP leaders like Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen.
    Phil Gramm have long believed that they could defeat the Democrats
    only by funneling information around the established media and feeding
    it directly to the voters. In the process, they have changed the way
    Americans learn and think about politics. Said Gingrich last week:
    "Without C-SPAN, without talk radio shows, without all the alternative
    media, I don't think we'd have won. The classic elite media would have
    distorted our message."
      Now, the same techniques will be used to pass legislation. A
    commercial urging support for the balanced-budget amendment started
    running the morning after Republicans took power. Friendly radio
    talkmeisters will have regular access to the speaker and the Capitol.
    GOP leaders are producing their own cable TV shows--and thus avoiding
    embarrassing questions from probing reporters. Gramm outlined the
    strategy: "Go over our moderate members' heads, go over the
    president's head and go directly to the people."
      The Republican campaign has been highly successful, tapping new wells
    of opinion and reviving confidence in the political process. But the
    Wired Congress poses dangers as well. There have always been two
    competing, and complementary, theories of democracy. One says that
    lawmakers should reflect the views of their constituents. The other
    urges legislators to exercise independence and leadership, even when
    that is unpopular. As the British parliamentarian Edmund Burke said in
    1774: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his
    judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to
    your opinion." Democracy works well only if both approaches are
    respected, if popular will is balanced against personal wisdom.
      But it has become harder and harder for Congress to exercise
    considered judgment in this era of online, direct-dial, drive-by
    politics. The Capitol can be instantly inundated with unbridled
    emotions--and unlimited E-mail. Technology will soon make it possible
    to do away with representative government altogether. Just push a
    button on your television set and register your opinion on the budget,
    or Bosnia.
      But direct democracy is inherently unstable. Government by plebiscite
    is too vulnerable to passing passions and devious demagogues. The more
    the public knows about Congress, and speaks its mind, the better. But
    Burke's admonition should not be forgotten. Courage is as critical as
    communications. Temperament is as valuable as technology. Leading is
    as virtuous as listening.
      PHOTO: In charge. In his first address as speaker, Gingrich urges
    colleagues to "reach out" to the people. "We are going to be online
    for the whole country--every amendment, every conference report."
    (Charlie Archambault--USN&WR)
      ~~~~~~~~
      By Steven V. Roberts
                              _________________
      Copyright of U.S. News & World Report is the property of US News &
    World Report and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
    sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
    written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
    articles for individual use.
    Source: U.S. News & World Report, 1/16/95, Vol. 118 Issue 2, p10, 2p,
    1c.
    Item Number: 9501107827
      This email was generated by a user of EBSCOhost who gained access via
    the LOYALIST COLLEGE account, user loyalist.main.web. Neither EBSCO
    nor LOYALIST COLLEGE are responsible for the content of this e-mail.

Alan Florence
Mental Blocks
<multimedia imagination & design
mailto:alan@mentalblocks.com

Rob,

I'm struck by the discussion of 'direct democracy' missing the
built-in constraints of the US Constitution. Many of the opinions
of plebisites are unconstitutional and fail if taken to the Court.
Unfortunately, it's easy with technology to gather 'mass' opinion
but not any easier to gather and apply expertise as the high Courts
do. Both Canadians and Americans like to complain about the role of
their Supreme Courts in limiting the right of the people to govern.
Yet this very self-imposed limitation is the only thing that gives
the majority it's legitimacy once the King & God is dead.

Alan

Robert Washburn wrote:

Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:36:11 -0500
To: Alan Florence <alan@mentalblocks.com
From: Robert Washburn <rwash@eagle.ca
Subject: Re: Fwd: online democracy (LOYALIST COLLEGE account)
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

Alan:
I'm not so sure we are talking about direct democracy in terms of
this project, nor am I about to wade into the deep waters of the US
Constitution. What I am interested in is the ability of individuals
to impact directly on the democratic process. That may not
necessarily be obtained through the use of plebisites. These may
merely be reflection of the popular will (and there are some serious
questions about its vailidity because these can be manipulated
easily). However, I am interested in more direct contact between
decision-makers and the public. There is an important role for media
in this dialogue.

We need to expand our role as educators, informers, advocates and
entertainers (in a very non-commerical use of that term). Let us
also become facilitators. Let us engage our audience to a point
where the only reaction they have is to respond, directly to what
they are experiencing in our products (newspapers, web sites etc.)
Let's us help them do that. We will not take sides (our roots as
objective journalists), but let's engage them. this empowerment
could be described as a return to direct democracy. Let us define
direct democracy as a citizen's ability to directly affect
decision-makers. There can be no greater legitimacy, since the
voters will make the ultimate decision.

How does that fit with your thought?

thinking out loud,

rob w..