Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Many citizens, including large numbers of Christians and conservatives, have spoken out extensively about the direction of morality in American culture. And many others have responded with aversion to these voices and any semblance of imposing Christian morality on America. Some have called this the culture war.

The easy thing for Christians to do is blast moral relativism in our culture and those who advocate so strongly for it (though relativism is typically advocated for negatively, as against intolerance). As I have said about Sarah Palin and the coverage of her in the news, I think the wise thing for all of us to do right now is take a fresh look at the culture wars in American politics, a step back to see beyond the conflict between liberal and conservative. Much more is at stake than we may think.

The present Internet-driven social network media ecology should make it clear that we are more connected and interdependent than ever, than we may have ever thought.

There is a critical need in today’s ecology for finding common ground to communicate effectively. This does not mean leaving our deepest convictions aside. As a student of communication and media ecology, I am convinced this discipline of stepping back indeed gives us new eyes to see, and to communicate together.

I am deeply concerned that if we each do not step back and learn to communicate together, we will not be able to withstand the subtle domestic threats within and the growing international threats abroad. I think Daniel Henninger gets it right when he insightfully called this the “Dumbing Down of Democracy,” with the stakes evident in the recent in the Iran election:

Letting genuine democratic aspirants in places like Iran and Honduras lose in front of a watching world will exact a price. The United States and the other John Locke democracies are in an active, long-term competition with fake democrats over whose politics governs the next century. And they will presume to choose which parties should run other countries.

Stepping Back

This stepping back that is required is not easy. In somewhat technical terms, it requires what I call Contextual Dexterity. Basically, this means humbling ourselves to listen to those of diverse worldviews, setting aside critical judgments, discerning the background context behind another person’s convictions, thinking critically about our own assumptions, and understanding others’ perspectives on their own terms. It is very similar to what Ken Sande has argued for in terms of charitable judgments, but this goes deeper still.

As I hope to describe here and in future works that elaborate on Contextual Dexterity within the context of The Handoff from Boomers to Gen X in American society, this idea of Contextual Dexterity connects directly into the traditional concept of prudence, which leads to conscientious, timely action (SO: JFV).

Action. That’s the key part. You need to be careful, circumspect, dispassionate when you act. It’s about the application of wisdom (great message here on King Solomon and wisdom by Joshua Harris). It’s the hard work of doing all you can to test your own biases and assumptions before acting. And it’s about not naval gazing all day analyzing. How do we do this? First, by stepping back.

Conscience is critical. For many on both sides of the so-called culture war are acting honestly on the basis of conscience. And this is a critical point of convergence that should not be overlooked in the pursuit of common ground. When we seek to impose our sense of conscience on another–even if there are legitimate grounds to do so–we run a great risk to effective communication. Contextual Dexterity for the preservation of conscientious common ground protects us at exactly this point, without personal compromise.

Is there not much room for common ground between liberals and conservatives? I believe there is, in what I call the “Solid Center,” and it is nothing new. It is diverse interests working together on the basis of conscience, unity, and love for the next generation. It is working against the forces of tyranny, division, and control–even if we disagree on certain key points. For from the Solid Center you can see the forces of division at work that make it very difficult to step back. You can begin to respond with prudence to those whose cries against intolerance aim to institutionalize a new intolerance.

These are times that try men’s souls. We need perspective to avoid fear and our own forms of sinful intolerance. We need others to help us look beyond this life, beyond the present challenges, to something and Someone transcendent, Someone involved in our community life.

Seeing as Bonhoeffer

One way to step back is to look at other cultures, leaders, and historical periods for a fresh perspective. And one character that emerges for us is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, lover of his German people and the community of faith around him. We can learn from his words in his book Life Together about true Christian community, specifically in how the sin in our hearts intends to isolate us from community (SO: BC):

Sin demands to have a man by himself. It withdraws him from the community. The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation… This can happen even in the midst of a pious community. In confession the light of the Gospel breaks into the darkness and seclusion of the heart. The sin must be brought into the light. The unexpressed must be openly spoken and acknowledged. All that is secret and hidden is made manifest. It is a hard struggle until the sin is openly admitted. But God breaks gates of brass and bars of iron (Ps. 107:16).

Our own sin within us, not immorality outside of us, is the biggest problem facing our culture. That is the unique Christian perspective to the culture wars. And from this perspective, we critique both conservative and liberal outlooks at certain points, and we can at other points align with conservatives and liberals. For our point of contention is not with either system, but with sin, expressed in things like the idolatry of political power; the abdication of a leader’s sworn duty to the Constitution; tyranny against other nations, the individual, and the family. And what we uniquely offer as a remedy for sin is the gospel of Christ, which works its way through us in faith, obedience, and community life in the church.

It is crucial also that Christians call Christians in leadership to Christian standards of conduct. We need to be hardest on each other, not on the perceived immorality of others. And this too is fighting sin. Bonhoeffer is crucial here, showing how to fight the isolating power of sin in our lives. We fight by first recognizing what sin is at its most fundamental level and how it works within us, we can use the tool of humble, specific confession of sinful actions and habits to another trusted Christian:

The root of all sin is pride… I want to be my own law, I have a right to my self, my hatred and my desires, my life and my death. The mind and flesh of man are set on fire by pride; for it is precisely in his wickedness that man wants to be as God … In the confession of concrete sins the old man dies a painful, shameful death before the eyes of a brother. Because this humiliation is so hard we continually scheme to evade confessing to a brother. Our eyes are so blinded that they no longer see the promise and the glory in such abasement…Since the confession of sin is made in the presence of a Christian brother, the last stronghold of self-justification is abandoned. The sinner surrenders; he gives up all his evil. He gives his heart to God, and he finds the forgiveness of all his sin in the fellowship of Jesus Christ and his brother… Now he stands in the fellowship of sinners who live by the grace of God in the Cross of Jesus Christ.”

Sin is something that wants to possess us. When we sin, we pridefully reject God. We do not become neutral, but we give up our God-give freedom in exchange for a lie. Christian community in the church is God’s idea. Man did not devise it. And God promises us in Matthew 18 to be with us in this community life together, whenever even 2 or 3 of us are gathered together.

Community and Conscience

Community is powerful. It gives an individual a platform and a group of followers to accomplish broad social objectives. This is another reason why Bonhoeffer is such a crucial character for us today. In his love for community, he did not give up his individual conscience for groupthink. He saw that to outsource one’s own decision-making to the peer pressures of community is a grave error. Grave indeed.

Bonhoeffer’s clear conscience recognized what can happen when a community of people within a nation exercise sinful pride by seeking elevation over other nations. The rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany happened. Bonhoeffer is crucial for conscientious people today because he saw the preconditions of this–the media ecology that allows this–starting not with the grievance of wrong done to you (as the Germans believed in the Treaty of Versailles following WW1), but with simple pride in the heart.

In seeing clearly the movings of pride in the German community, and by maintaining his own conscience as an individual before God, he could see the wolf in sheep’s clothing for what he was, the man preying on the pride of the German community promising to establish a new vision of the future that elevated the German people above the present shame.

Diabolical. And all of us have these same inclinations.

When pride is in the ascendancy, Nazi Germany shows us that even a historically religious people will suppress the truth and become “possessed” by those who tickle their ears. Do you see that?

Stepping Forward

We can be encouraged that Bonhoeffer recognized what was happening. He wrestled with the hard questions in his own conscience. From a Christian perspective, this discipline would involve looking at his own weak convictions and sinful shortcomings first and foremost. This discipline also means not first looking at the shortcomings of others, even Hitler. From that perspective, he could come to a conscientious decision, even as a pastor, that Romans 13 (the call to obey civic authorities) did not apply in this case. No doubt it took a great wrestling and conscientious decision to speak out against Hitler and be willing to give up his life in defense of freedom, against the tyranny of Hitlerian lies and Nazi controls.

All of us should be mindful of and inspired by his example. Bonhoeffer stepped back. He loved his community and preserved his conscience both from prideful isolation and abdication via groupthink. He sized up the risk. He consulted his Bible. He did not know what would happen. But when he knew he must, he acted. And he did so for others.

Christian or not, can I ask you to consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Get one of his books and read it. Start with Life Together. I will too. For I believe this especially applies to Christians like me, who love the life of my community. We all need to see beyond our present confines, especially to how the larger community of our nation effects ours and other local communities. Conscientious, self-sacrificial thought and action are needed more than railing against immorality by Christians (in my humble opinion).

Please watch the video below, an intro to the documentary Bonhoeffer, noting especially the speech of Bonhoeffer at the end, the generational shift entailed, and the reference to the notion of idols in his radio address against the Fuehrer:

May each of us, liberal and conservative, have a conscience like Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Updated 7/9/09

As I have mentioned before, this is the kind of penetrating analysis I have come to appreciate from Rich Lowry. Commenting on the gap between Sarah Palin’s argument for saying goodbye to Alaska to serve Alaskans, versus the clear opportunity for her to serve her family with her national platform, he simply says, “In all likelihood, Palin is going to embrace her political celebrity with gusto, freed from the burdens of the geographic isolation of the Alaska governorship and its (relative to national politics) petty distractions.”

I have not been following the Palin situation carefully, but this narrative does seem to hold the data points together, at least those that I have heard. But this post is not about Palin per se. I don’t want to assume I know about her motives or rationale behind the decision to resign and the odd rationale she used to explain it.

This post is about what I think Sarah Palin says about American politics at present. Lowry is right to assert that Palin’s ascendancy show that the culture wars are not over, tjhat they “still burn hot.” I think Lowry is also right to see her as an affront in the eyes of the liberal elite, because of “who she was: a working-class, pro-life woman with decidedly red-state mores. Conservatives loved her for the same reason. She had a true magnetism. The more she repelled one side, the more she attracted the other.”

Because of who she was? From the liberals? Those who have argued so effectively against any form of discrimination? Could it be that equality is not actually their end game, and that the wave of popular support for Sarah Palin last fall revealed that more than any other type of person could?

I think most people who supported Palin would agree with Lowry on this point, and that the the drivers on the left are not fundamentally about equality, but using arguments for equality to suppress conscientious opposition. And if that perception from the right is right, then that says a lot about liberals in America, and where the progressive agenda is taking us right now.

But more than that, the deep divergence between love and hatred for Palin is itself an important indicator of where U.S. politics is today, and why the current polarized ideological political environment is more than about the different ideas held by liberals/progressives vs. conservatives. It’s about two massive social movements that feel they have a claim to the crown, who want to take all of us forward into certain visions of social life that the totality of Americans will never agree to.

The word the comes to mind is possession.

The culture wars are not over. There remains what Thomas Sowell described as a conflict of visions, one that pits the constrained vision of human nature against the unconstrained vision. If you want to really understand that, read Sowell’s book, and then look at the culture war with new eyes. Unpossessed eyes. Conscience-driven, not fear-driven, eyes. Eyes to see a conflict that will persist until a new narrative emerges that can contain and constrain the two. (FYI, I think Dennis Peacocke is right to be pursuing a new narrative, and someone to watch for what that new narrative may be.)

Sarah Palin seems to get the current war. And perhaps she is, as Lowry suggests, experiencing the temptation to financially capitalize on her unique position in it. That is a matter of conscience, ultimately between her and God. It is unfortunate that we simply expect such behavior from our public leaders. If true, that would be utterly common, and unfortunate in every way. But that is the world we live in. Maybe someday we will get past “the old narratives,” but not yet. This generation seems to radicalized and committed for that.

This gives us a glimpse into the future: If Sarah is positioning herself to do battle, that means her haters will position themselves to oppose her. And that means more drama, more money given to political candidates and campaigns touting themselves to be saviours, a continually divisive political media ecology, and very likely all that means bigger and bigger government.

Damn it all! There is so much more common ground that we give ourselves credit for having.

My prayer is that a new narrative will emerge before then. Otherwise, I am concerned that this conflict may play out in a way those of us in the solid center do not want.

Read this. Fantastic piece of analysis from Vanity Fair. Good take-home reading. And great political intel on great political intel. (SO: JW)

For my media ecologist friends, you’ll greatly appreciate these paragraphs.

In the Marshall McLuhan prescription, the demands of the medium—for ever more information about actions or events or thoughts nearly simultaneous with their occurrence—change the message and, likely, politics too.

For two generations—since Watergate, let us say—politics has been about opposing Washington. The true modern American ideology was to believe that the federal government, if not evil, was grossly ineffective and pathetically out of touch. Practicing politics, or writing about it, was a job not for the best and brightest but for the narrow-minded and obtuse. Even Washington reporters, once the zenith of the trade, became stodgy relics. Washington was not even the center of power—finance, media, and technology had much more immediate effects on people’s lives than government did. A whole language grew up to characterize the oddness, and the emotional limitations, of the Beltway-centric: “wonks” or, their own, self-loathing favorite, “political junkies” or, that most merciless characterization of Washington, “Hollywood for the ugly.” Even cable television, with its left and right divide, was not interested in politics per se, or in Washington, but in the clash of opposing sides. Nobody, except the wonks, was interested, except to deride it, in the civics-class culture of insider relationships, horse-trading, and compromise that most obsesses political professionals.

But, all of a sudden, the politician as player, politics as the art of the astute, Washington as the true Hollywood of billion-dollar deals and iconic careers, are back. This is because of Barack Obama (not just a star, but the first senator—i.e., Washington insider—to be elected president since J.F.K.), and because the economic crisis has centered so much wealth in Washington—and because of Politico.

There is much predictive value in understanding the dynamics and variables involved here…media-mind shift of Internet; generational shift to those raised in immediate media ecology; massive societal shift to Washington politics leading the centralization of American commerce, if not social life.

For those with eyes to see emerging possibilities and ways to leverage them–which means setting aside seeing only paths to certain desired outcomes–there is much to see here.

The Transforum is a website launched by a group called Strategic Christian Services, which was founded and is still run by Dennis Peacocke. He has a very unique and interesting story, and he is unapologetic about his Christian apologetic:

“Reformation requires the building of a critical mass of non-Christians who recognize that Biblical truth properly applied is the only viable long-term solution for the problems we are critically facing today.”

That is a bold vision. Think about that.  As always, Dennis’s boldness provokes me to think critically and carefully. Agree or disagree with him, I consider him an important voice because he has been engaged in critical analysis since the 1960s, first as a Marxist radical, and then as a convert to Christianity.

As a student of the Bible and world events, and as an independent philosophical mind, he is explicitly not looking for liberals or conservatives to provide answers to the issues of the day. Instead, he is after deeper cultural transformation through critical reflection, starting with these six questions:

  1. How do we build strong relationships?
  2. How do we prepare our children to succeed in life?
  3. Which values both preserve our freedoms and unite us corporately?
  4. How do we create long-term prosperity for the largest number of people?
  5. What is the proper balance between national centralized government and local government?
  6. How do we balance the need for global cooperation and national sovereignty?

I took Dennis’s Strategic Life Training 2-year course in 1999-2001. I found it to be uniquely formative and foundational for learning how to use Biblical assertions as analytical tools. More personally, had I not taken his course when I did, I probably would be either hopelessly dogmatic as liberal or conservative–or as a total rebel to both–instead of appreciative of the unique contributions of each to exposing certain key questions. And from these questions, one can then look deeper at those ancient Biblical truths that truly represent the wisdom which is available to us now to solve our greatest problem.

For the wisdom of the Biblical God is redemptive when rightly seen. In solving our greatest problem “before the foundation of the world”–the problem human sin and God’s wrath against it–we see the solution to all subsequent problems. This solution is Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, the one mediator between God and man, sent to set all aright (Ephesians 1:9). This redemption in Christ is the unspoken meta-narrative that is unfolding slowly beneath all the headlines.

Dennis is eager to bring these things to the public conversation in a “Great Debate.” I believe this is an outstanding starting point for critical but redemptive geopolitical analysis.

Embedded in Dennis’ vision is the idea that the eternal Biblical truths can be incarnated and demonstrated without the use of exclusive institutional thinking or religious language.  These truths, from the Christian perspective, have proven themselves time and again in the affairs of non-Christian nations.  Indeed, every system based on the rule of law, and not on control by the strongest, is a reflection of a law-giving Creator.  To follow this kind of thinking through, if you believe there is harmony between God the Creator, the inner workings of the human mind and conscience, the natural functioning of the universe, and the proper coordination of human activity, then one can see why Dennis is so passionate about his vision to bring these truths before non-Christians in ways that serve them and their proper roles in society.

This will not be without opposition of course, and that opposition has been functioning to this day.  But like Dennis, I believe any man-made system of thought is ultimately oppressive of men, women, and children.  And like Dennis, that is why I an not ashamed to argue from Christian values, even as I use logic, history, scientific data, and other processes of inquiry to seek winning insights into the challenges of the day.  This is about liberating the conscience of any person who will listen from bondage to various controls and deceptions.

Following Dennis’ lead, I hope that every other worldview with its own ancient claims comes out into the public square to have the needed depth of discussion about the issues of the day, rather than keeping us locked into the narrow liberal vs. conservative debate.

For I believe in this process of open scrutinizing of all truth claims and all forms of wisdom, we will indeed find new solutions and opportunities to serve the next generation, and I believe this can take place without expecting the world to convert to any one worldview, but instead to accept a coexistence of scrutiny-in-plurality among many worldviews, with the shared goal of passing on what’s best to the next generation.

Foolish utopian vision? Maybe. But if we can’t unite out of love for our children, while accepting diversity among equals as humans, what other peaceful coexistence can we expect? And if we can, then perhaps there can be transformation that lasts, for the betterment of all.

Updated 7/7/09.

“Obama’s number one task in Moscow in to show Vladimir Putin that he is as tough as Putin is, and that’s not going to be easy.”

That is my main take-away by Dr. George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor from this very helpful framing of the Obama-Medvedev talks:

It will be interesting to see what Obama gets from his Russian Counterpart.  I hope Obama is tough, but like most leaders on the liberal side of American politics, he strikes me as far too  agreeable to the politics of American grievance, a view that would likely leave one more aware of the guilt and shame in America than of the moral conviction needed to protect her.

If you think America deserves to go down (remember Rev Wright’s “God damn America, it’s in the Bible” and “America’s chickens have come home to roost”), how does one find the base to defend it?

I think Dr. Friedman in The Next 100 Years provides compelling data to support his assessment of Russia as the greatest strategic threat to the U.S. in “a host of issues” and the Russians read Obama as weak.  If he holds to the American grievance view, it is hard to disagree with them.

And that’s no small risk to us as American citizens, irrespective of the facts there are supporting the American grievance position.  I think if America is ever to come of age and become the dominant power Friedman expects over the next 100 years, it will require satisfactory resolution of this tension of American grievance vs. American strength (or exceptionalism, as some may prefer).  Self-loathing and self-defense cannot coexist long in the face of a stron adversary.

For those following the Obamacast hypothesis, I find it interesting that Friedman references the challenge Obama faces between his campaign promises to remove the ballistic missile defense system from Poland and the strategic need to keep that system in place to project U.S. power there and help deter Russia’s expansionist attempts.

The frame is starting to take shape around this President.  As much as he likes to avoid being pinned down, events and other geopolitical actors will not let him do so forever.

Then again, if plays on a distracted public, the media keeps his weaknesses out of the spotlight, and uses his words to carefully direct attention away from his actions in support of a Statist agenda, he may keep that frame from surrounding him in the minds of the voters.

And that tension between these two narratives–the one the world would impose on him vs. the one he wishes to sustain and amplify through his popularity–seems to me to be the great emerging drama of this Presidency.

Unless, of course, you believe all he is doing is carefully orchestrated to bring the U.S. into a system of world government.  Then these meetings with Medvedev are probably only a cover.  And the real narrative that matters, in this view, is what is going on in and through the Bilderberg Group and others, with Obama and Medvedev being two implementers of one common vision.

Interesting theatre, without a doubt.

Many have made the case for the existence of collusion between a biased mainstream media, business (especially banking) executives, and government leaders, outside of the visibility of the American people.  That argument received a new piece of evidence on July 3rd with Politico’s revelation of lobbyist-funded off-the-record dinner parties at the home of Washington Post’s publisher.

Wow.  Not sure what you think, but in this environment, I think this is big news.  So, for the next few weeks I am going to leave this poll and post at the top of my blog, so that people can respond to this poll and direct others to do so.  Thanks for responding.

The lead paragraph on this story by Michael Calderone:

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

Before jumping the gun and passing judgment, please note the response by Executive editor Marcus Brauchli:

“The flier, and the description of these things, was not at all consistent with the preliminary conversations the newsroom had,” Brauchli said, adding that it was “absolutely impossible” the newsroom would participate in the kind of event described in the solicitation for the event.

Fair enough.  But it seems this may be exacervated by the Post’s position of financial weakness, which of course only makes it harder for the paper to stand firm against the political tide of rising Statism.  Calderone goes on to say:

[Weymouth] made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source. “We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do – cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”

Will this story and its serious implications stay in the news?  Will there be further inquiries into the back story here, and into any other off-the-record activities by the elites in Washington that are funded by lobbyists and other special interests?

If not, that raises serious questions in my mind about the integrity of the whole mainstream media industry.  This is big news, especially in the context of rising centralization and broader economic dependence on the government.  I could see tremendous pressure on any leader of a media outlet, financial firm, or other business “kissing the ring” of the Obama administration.  And what are the interests of those who stand behind these lobbyists and write these checks?  What are they after?  Who in the media is bringing before the American people these important interpretive keys to geopolitical events?

As any good investigator is taught, “Follow the money.”  So where is the money from these lobbyists coming from, and what are the objectives of those sources of funds?

To me, this highlights why one must see different levels of mainstream media bias.  It strikes me as logical and even understandable for leaders in the press to be more ideologically aligned with the political left (which is more anti-establishment, as the news must be to some degree).  One could measure that by the ways these outlets cover (and don’t cover) stories, what their editors deem newsworthy, where stories are placed vs. other stories in a publication or newscast, how the headlines read, etc.  Bernie Goldberg’s book Bias has brought much of this to light.

I don’t struggle with this kind of bias.  Indeed, I see it as rather inevitable.  And this kind of bias could be happening while the leaders of these news outlets genuinely believe they are not being biased in the least, only standing on the side of the truth against the powers of the establishment.  Such is the reality of human self-government.  We all have blinders in some way.  We are all biased.

But it is another thing entirely to hold private events off the record with the establishment, funded by the establishment.  And it strains credibility to have another news organization find you out (especially the Politico, launched by former Post reporters), and then assume your integrity will not be called into question.  This is the bias that I am most concerned about as a citizen–colluding with those authorities a media outlet should be checking.

I am pleased to see other news outlets that are more characteristically considered left-biased to be picking up on this story.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “For generations, the Washington Post has been a scrupulous watchdog over the capital’s cozy world of power networking. For a short time, it almost became the network’s host.”

Is the press a scrupulous watchdog today?  To what extent are these off-the-record events taking place to bring together elites from areas of influence across American society?  This is no small question for us to consider on this July 4th.

I’ve recently been trying to objectively research and analyze the possibility of elites in government, finance, and media colluding together, purposely avoiding visibility before the American people. I can say at this point is that there are many data points that could fit into that meta-narrative of political events.  I can also say that many more of my friends and readers of my blog than I would have expected have investigated historical and present-day events and have found compelling evidence for what many call “conspiracy theories.”

Admittedly, this is mind-bending stuff.  It is appropriate to be extra cautious and anti-sensational in investigating this, because the implications are so serious.   But given the human heart’s tendency to control, and the potentially corrupting influence of ever-increasing authority, it strikes me as foolish NOT to accept the possibility–even the likelihood–that elites across media, government, and business would work together for their own designs and objectives, and not make those things known to the people.

I have no final conclusion in my own mind about this.  I am not rabble-rousing.  I don’t want their to be any elitist collusion, to be honest.  I just want more data.

Underlying my recent string of posts is an increasing awareness of individualism and collectivism battling for supremacy in the American ethos.  Collectivism makes the group primary, individualism (obviously) makes the individual primary.  The history of America is rooted in a rich individualistic tradition, but there are new collectivistic trends that we see in our political developments that point to something more foundational.  The field of Media Ecology provides helpful insights here.

Because we live in a communication environment (“ecology”) that famed media ecologist Marshall McLuhan recognized as networked (he saw this before the Internet), we see popular social discourse in many ways shaped by the characteristics of the Internet.  This involves short bursts of information,  global integration of communicators, broad information sharing to “connect the dots” on various topics, and real-time awareness to those in the network.  What this does not involve is an emphasis on careful thought and reflection, which is the great tradition tied to that traditional medium, the book.

If one generalizes a bit to see the book as a tool more in line individualism, and the Internet as a tool more in line with collectivism, then one should not be surprise to see the political rise of collectivism correlated to the rise of the Internet in political communication.  Seeing this distinction is a helpful tool for analysis fortified by some compelling data points, perhaps most notably being the statistic by Pew Research that in 2006, the majority of Americans went outside of mainstream media as their primary source of political information.  In the subsequent presidential election, it was the Internet candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to win the electoral majority, surprising the expected establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton (remember the “Stop Hillary Express”?).

The 2008 Obama campaign raised $770 million dollars, with a large portion coming via a nearly 4 million donor database.  The Internet has created many opportunities, and collectivistic leaders have stepped forward through these openings.  Individualism, by its nature diverse and fractured, has yet to respond with anything as cohesive and sustained at a political level.  But that could change.  And when it does, I suspect the opportunist who breaks through will have the chance to spark a new movement, or counter-movement, to the present collectivism.  For America’s individualistic roots should not be expected to be surpassed so easily, no matter how compelling the collectivist leader and movement.

Investor’s Business Daily offers some crucial insights and data points on media bias and the popular knowledge gap created by a lack of transparency in government, which the media is supposed to provide. (SO: Bernie Goldberg)

This is highly concerning.  But if one is dismissive of the idea that there is media bias, check this data point: TV network like ABC’s employees gave 80 times as much in financial contributions to Obama’s presidential campaign as they gave to his opponent’s.

That’s concrete.  You put your money where your mouth is.  Or where it is not.

All this only underscores my concerns about Faction and the present Knowledge Gap and the present mainstream media bias, and it gives credence to those who believe Obamacasting is real and designed to provide cover for the advance of American submission to a structure of global government.

I am not drawing conclusions on such developments here, only saying these developments give more support for those inclined to see planned tyranny behind the present government, finance, and media establishments.  And as I have found in my research over the past few months, there are many people who do perceive geopolitical events being purposely moved in this direction.

On the flip side, The Wall Street Journal has reported on draft legislation by U.S. Treasury to create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would have broad powers to write and enforce rules related to a range of financial products, including mortgages and credit cards. According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, “This agency will have only one mission: to protect consumers.” But, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), “The financial-services industry is expected to oppose the measure as stifling to innovation.”

Stifling innovation?  Hmm.

To paraphrase my friend Kerrin in these comments, insight is highly dependent upon one’s perspective.  It is hard to know what is happening around us.  Some would say that the confusion itself is purposeful, and that steps like this by Treasury are nothing more than head-fakes on the way to the hoop.  Still, there is an inevitable knowledge gap to which we are all subject as humans, and I want to use prudence and careful testing before making any firm determinations.  But that’s just me.

What say you?

Obama: Pied Piper

; )~

This is not a politically partisan post about Obama as much as it is an observation of the present news media environment.

But, if my hypothesis around Obamacasting proves correct, the Pied Piper imagery may prove prescient.  And unfortunate for all Americans.

Thanks to my the folks at the Independence Caucus for the image.  FYI, Independence Caucus is a grassroots organization aiming to bridge the gap between the government and the people by focusing on bringing to light the permanent money interests’ contributions to both parties’ candidates.

Personally, I think people of all political stripes should welcome more bottom-up grassroots accountability like this.  The founders were concerned Faction and mob rule on the one hand, and overreaching tyranny on the other.  I don’t think we have the balance between top-down and bottom-up right today.  And that is exacerbated what I perceive to be a strong left-liberal media bias.

I look back and am thankful the founders were right to establish a representative model of government–not direct democracy.  This seems most sustainable and effective.  And a potential source of elite control and manipulation with a check-and-balance from the people.   Furthermore, I would like to see the balance of power move more towards the people, through more well-planned (uh oh, liberal term!!) use of the present tools of technology and debate available to all of us organically today.

In a system founded on “consent of the governed” we should take a close look at this.  Maybe such developments are inevitable, given the declining state of the old school media business model.

Any innovative ideas on ways to use social media within the legislative process?

Older Posts »