Meaningful Political Dialogue
In all my PDF posts, I neglected to discuss my presentation. My panel addressed embracing voter-generated content. I presented with Josh Marshall and representatives of MySpace (Jeff Berman) and MoveOn (Eli Pariser). A synopsis of my points:
1. The fringes control the present system, disenfranchising (or at least discouraging and disgusting) most Americans.
2. Solutions elude us because a functional democracy requires that the majority, not small groups on the fringes, control the process.
3. The political process needs to be changed, rather than merely plugging new people (typically of good will and intent) into a system that will eat them.
4. Politicopia and this blog attempt to provide a forum to improve political dialogue.
5. We should work to encourage more participants in the process, not merely stir up the fringes. To that end, I’d appreciate thoughts on what a political site should have/be to encourage dialogue.
1. The fringes control the present system, disenfranchising (or at least discouraging and disgusting) most Americans.
2. Solutions elude us because a functional democracy requires that the majority, not small groups on the fringes, control the process.
3. The political process needs to be changed, rather than merely plugging new people (typically of good will and intent) into a system that will eat them.
4. Politicopia and this blog attempt to provide a forum to improve political dialogue.
5. We should work to encourage more participants in the process, not merely stir up the fringes. To that end, I’d appreciate thoughts on what a political site should have/be to encourage dialogue.
posted by steve u. at 6/06/2007
Subscribe
7 Comments:
Interesting post. #3 reminded me of a famous quote from James Madison: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." People are self-interested, and that doesn't change once in public office.
#5 gives me pause, however. Your point assumes that the political process would be better off if more people participated. I'm not sure that's the case. Perhaps lack of political participation is a sign of a healthy democracy and a vibrant civil society - not a cause for concern.
I'd love to see and audio/video blog where the posts were brief (<20 minute) interviews with informed people, possibly where people of differing viewpoints discuss their differences in a civil way. The comments section to follow up the post would employ slashdot style moderation so that reasonable people could drown out the flamethrowers that tend to poison discussion in many online political forums.
Thank you, both.
Bradley, I'll do it. How'd you like to be my first guest? You can pick a topic or we could simply talk about political involvement.
Anon, I hope you check back and provide more detail on what you're saying. In the meanwhile, I'll give my interpretation and ask for feedback on the topic: does lack of broad political participation signify that we're doing a good enough job politically so that citizens are free to ignore the process and spend that time on other worthwhile endeavors?
Steve
Your efforts to inform and involve citizen imput is appreciated. Although an informed and involved citizenry is desirable, the increased participation of the uninformed is not necessarily benificial to the republic. I believe that your efforts to inform is the critical element. Increased, constructive participation usually follows interest and the flow of good information. Voin Campbell.
Voin, well put. I would bet most citizens in Utah(or any state) do not understand even 50% of the political process, or how they could even participate in anyway other than voting. Education and Transparency in the process would go along way in increasing involvement, and Like Voin put it "Increased, constructive participation usually follows interest and the flow of good information."
Thanks for the invitation to come as as a guest, but I'd prefer to hear from someone more expert in some of the particular issues. Maybe the inaugural episode could be a discussion between you and one of the voucher opponents. The goal of the discussion wouldn't be to persuade each other necessarily, but to help each other fully explain your respective positions, especially as we are coming up on a statewide vote on the issue.
Steve:
We are working on something very similar. Check us out at www.calltoliberty.net. My book, Call to Liberty: Bridging the Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives, focuses on the same things. Yes, we need more dialog. But we also need better ideas so the dialog isn't just diatribe of name-calling. I suggest that a renewed identification of our shared principles might be a good place to start.
If you do your video as bradley suggested, I might be a good guest. Please consider.
Post a Comment
<< Home