Still Waiting For The First Real Particpatory Presidential Administration
from the this-ain't-it dept
Like many folks, I was certainly intrigued by the way President Obama ran his campaign in 2008, using various online tools to actually empower his supporters to be proactive and play a real role in the campaign. Many suggested that this was a facade, and that it would be politics as usual once he took office. While it's still early, there does appear to be some evidence that this is, in fact, the case. This isn't surprising, but that doesn't mean it's not disappointing. Last year, we saw this with the various stimulus proposals, where the plans were worked on in backrooms with the usual political insiders and then presented to the public afterwards. There was no real participation from the public. And since then, we've see the same pattern repeated over and over again. On healthcare, certainly, and (of course) on the secret negotiations on ACTA. This is not participatory democracy.Micah Sifry has a great article at TechPresident exploring this "disconnect," and suggesting that while it was true that the campaign really did enable thousands upon thousands of volunteers to step up and contribute, it may have been more of an accident of the techies who were involved, rather than an explicit plan by the Obama team. And, as a result, after the election, the team really didn't know what to do with the mass of supporters it had built up, and they did (of course) the same old political thing: believing that it was a broadcast list, rather than a group of committed folks who wanted to actually participate. It's hard to argue with this. The campaign still sends out emails, but they're never about asking for input or participating in a larger discussion. They're almost always about supporting the President.
I know that there are still many folks involved with the administration who are trying to build up the tools that can enable the public to be more involved, but it really looks like the administration totally dropped the ball on using the giant community it had already built up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: participation, president obama, social media, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not going to happen
Obama has found out, like pretty much everyone who went before him, that they just don't have the time or the desire to put everything they do up to a long and pointless debate. They also don't want to turn every move into a shouting match, there the 1%ers at each end dominate the discussion and leave everyone else out.
It's a nice idea, but completely non-functional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not going to happen
Yes, if participatory government were about letting everyone debate, you'd have a point.
But it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not going to happen
For those who complain about ACTA, example, consider the groups that want to represent the consumer. Do they truly represent all the consumers, or only a narrow group who wants something specific opposed to what the ACTA agreement will likely feature?
Do we invite the public in to discuss peace treaties? Nuclear arms agreements?
Where do you draw the participation line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
Only if you have bad filters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
I'm sure there is a range of opinions on this. But how can it possibly compare to the carte-blanche access granted to industry reps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
Would you let all consumers in? How about 1 person from each consumer group in the country? Would you allow new groups, or only established groups? Would you allow individual consumers who don't feel they are represented also be part of the process?
Too much freedom and too much openness is about as bad as too much communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
If you look at the things that that argument has been used to justify in the past you will be ashamed of having made it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
While there are constraints on democracies of modern (or colonial) sizes, the founding fathers would choke on that sentiment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
- and joe public does not ...
"Consumers are at the other end of the deal, either paying for or not paying for products, which is their method of approving or disapproving of the system."
- Wow, you have a very simplistic view of the economy
"Too much freedom and too much openness is about as bad as too much communism."
- so let them eat cake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
Then why hasn't he? The examples in the article are specific examples of where this has not happen. Nowhere in the article does it demand online polls. Nice strawman, but a bit too lacking in substance to create the distraction from the real argument that you wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not going to happen
the 1%ers is a concept that says that 98% of the people are in the grey. It's only the extremely noisy 1% at either end of the issue that make the majority of the noise. When you open up the floor to discussion (even on this website) you are more likely to get 1%ers rather than average people, because average people don't have an extreme enough opinion to argue for it with any true passion.
1%ers love strawberry Quik, or hate strawberry Quik. Everyone else is somewhere in between. Those who love or hate it will tell you so with a passion. Everyone else who sort of likes it or can live without it won't have the passion to express their quik-feelings.
As for the icon, well, I figured the name needed an appropriate logo, it makes it harder for that one schoolkid to keep trying to put words in my mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
Again, you seem to fail to comprehend what is being discussed here. No one is saying to open up the floor for "discussion" on every issue. This is not about opening up comments on every gov't issue. It's about participatory democracy which is something entirely different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not going to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not going to happen
Interestingly, I believe that you can reduce the size of corporations quickly by reducing the size of government influence they wield, and one way to do THAT would be to reduce the size and scope of that pesky federal government...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The political system
Therefore it is predictable that he would have trouble following through. However he seems to have made no effort at all in some areas - most of the ones that concern us here as it happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The political system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still Waiting.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still Waiting.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big fan of Obama, not of his web presence
I still get emails from Obama and staff, but for the past year they've gone directly into the bit bucket. The broadcast political pablum holds no value to me. Had they gotten me involved, it would have been a very different year.
Someday I will enjoy reading the article about how/why they dropped the ball on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could've had soldiers.
Obama seems to want to make this country better, and he's fighting a tough battle with the media making controversies out of every little thing the White House does, even perfectly innocent things. That can't make the job easy. A participatory system could be a tremendous asset if used properly. Health care for example is something Americans want to a large degree but Congress being in the pocket of big business, they wont pass a good bill without being made to.
If Obama were to recruit us as soldiers and help us fight for what we want, and he wants to get us, together we could effect some real change. And Americans want to be soldiers, it's just that we don't feel empowered. I know that if he were to lay it out for us plain and simple and propose a plan, we could band together and get some shyt done! Don't you agree? We have to figure a way to be more powerful than the corporations with their lobbyists. The country belongs to the people, not the companies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could've had soldiers.
"A participatory system could be a tremendous asset if used properly"
and
"Health care for example is something Americans want to a large degree but Congress being in the pocket of big business, they wont pass a good bill without being made to."
others statements you make might need a closer look..
"Obama seems to have changed that to some degree"
"Obama seems to want to make this country better"
Your insight to the personal motivations of a politician are amazing and could get you well paid if you actually had such a power...
Seriously though, Obama is "the good cop"...Bush/Cheney was "the bad cop"...both are still "cops" out to trip you up and get you into a jail cell..both answer to the same criminal/organized crime elements that have hijacked our country for over 100 years and who doesn't have the peoples best interests anywhere near to their motivations.
The dichotomy of the two parties is theater and a sham. Read "The Creature from Jeckyll Island" to start you off..and you can freely read General Smedly Butler's war is a racket for free here http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm.
Be careful when you use verbiage like "And Americans want to be soldiers" as it is very similar to that of oppressive regimes throughout history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Could've had soldiers.
The fundamental problem with both your assumptions about the motivations of these folks and the poster you were responding to is that they are absolute and too simplistic. Motivations vary within the population...some are beneficent, some malevolent, most somewhere in between. The complexities of individual motivations require institutions that are flexible, growing, shrinking, adapting as necessary.
I, in my undoubtedly flawed assessment, would argue at this very point the growth of society's institutions is exactly what is necessary to reign in a seemingly lost, divided, frustrated, scared group of individuals who are struggling to come to grips with macro-level changes in the economic, political, social, and spiritual spheres.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Could've had soldiers.
Nothing glossy about it at all, just a few pointers to the proverbial water...i cant make you drink.
"The complexities of individual motivations require institutions that are flexible, growing, shrinking, adapting as necessary."
It is you who is glossing over my point, which was never a contention that institutions, in and of themselves, are intrinsically evil. Nice strawman. Try reading again very carefully. I know my history well and American political history very well. It is so replete with examples that support my previous statements that there is really no need to point you to the examples. Google for yourself...read a few well researched books, etc..
"is exactly what is necessary to reign in a seemingly lost, divided, frustrated, scared group of individuals who are struggling to come to grips with macro-level changes in the economic, political, social, and spiritual spheres."
Dude..gimme a break..the human race has been fighting culture shocks all throughout history..
Some biggies describing your conditions include..
the fall of Rome
Crusades
Industrial revolution
and for the 20th century especially..World War 1
and it's continuation in World War 2
etc,etc..
again, however this comment ignored the point i made entirely. Indeed, I would counter your strawman point by asking if you feel it necessary for institutions to become oppressive for the problems you mentioned to be handled properly, since you did mention the current corruption of our institutions, which you describe so eloquently as "growth", as "exactly what is necessary."
let us not forget that this American experiment in freedom is a blip in terms of overall human history. Civil Rights even more so. For most of recorded History, most of the Human race has lived in oppression. So our current concept of liberty is a fragile and precious thing indeed to be vigilantly cared for and nurtured. We, for the most part, are failing in this sacred task due to ignorance, spectacle, and indoctrination. A very few people have hijacked my country, and Im pissed about it, as should everyone be. I dont want my children growing up in a world-wide version of China thank you.
Raybone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]