In Federalist 39, Madison speaks of the very nature of republicanism by speaking
in terms of Federalism. He lays out the rules by which our national government will
function, and by how the States will participate in the republic with the national
government. The first and, arguably, most important means by which the people of the
States contribute to the national government is by ratifying the Constitution, a document
that the people of America will entrust all authority and power related to the governance
of their lives. He says:
“…the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of
the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special
purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be
given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation,
but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they
respectively belong.”
The so-called Madisonian definition of Federalism is the one we will use in this essay:
our national government gets its power through the people, not of the nation, but of the
several States.
Our examination of Federalism and the Internet will begin with something
prominent as of this writing: presidential campaign web sites. Midway through the
previous century it became clear that two things will win someone the presidency: have a
good platform and look good on television. Prior to television the only forms of massmedia were newspapers and radio; while newspapers offered the people a static glimpse
of the man running for office, radio only gave us his voice. As televisions became a
fixture in every home, national debates became televised and the people of the several
States could really see for whom they were casting their ballot. And so the question du
jour is: If fifty years ago the candidate that looked the best on television was the one who
got the presidency, is it today that the presidency goes to the one with the best web site?
A laughable meme to be sure, but had we told our ancestors that leaders of the world
would be picked on the basis of their presentation in a moving picture would they have
not laughed?
I examined three campaign web sites in preparation for this essay: Democratic
Candidate Wesley Clark’s campaign site, Democratic Candidate Howard Dean’s
campaign site, and President George W Bush’s re-election campaign site. I compared
and contrasted the three, and these are the most pertinent observations I made:
First, all have an almost identical color scheme – some variant of red and white
and blue. Graphics wise, Clark chose to feature Uncle Sam while Dean and President
Bush went with displaying Old Glory.
Second, I found the biography of each candidate on his site and tried to see what I
could glean from reading just the first few paragraphs. I learned (or would have learned,
rather) the following: that Clark was NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander and is a
retired four-star general; Dean is a medical doctor and governor of Vermont; and
President Bush was formerly the governor of Texas before taking seat in our nation’s
highest office.
Third, I performed a strict analysis of content. What I discovered, much to my
surprise, is that all three web sites may as well have been made for the same person
minus a tweak here or there. They all follow the same basic form of cross-between a
matrix and a drilldown site, containing the same content subheadings with slightly
different graphics and font families. Without scrutinizing every page of each site I
cannot really say which site is the most informative, as each site seems to present the
same information about its candidate.
Final assessment? It seems that the internet is not going have the same affect on
the presidential election that television had. It may have more of an indirect effect
though: the three sites I visited had many common threads, but the most prominent
feature on each site was a way to donate to the campaign. So, while it is unsafe to deduce
that the presidency will go to Clark in 2004 (he does have the best web site, after all) we
can see that all candidates have found a new way to make money – which, it seems, is
the primary function of the internet (but we’ll save that for the Globalization essay).
The other area of Federalism I wanted to focus on involves both the Legislative
and Judicial branches of the national government. Specifically I want to examine a piece
of legislation that led to changes in the judiciary yet is right at home on the internet. That
legislation is the Freedom of Information Act, and it blew open a hole in the internet and,
as some have argued, took away a person’s right to a fair trial by severely limiting the
availability of an uninformed jury of one’s peers. The Act was originally intended to let
the public have access to any information in any branch of the government but recent
updates, including President Clinton’s e-FOIA, have made it easy to access any
information about any booking, case, or hearing. One web site that makes clever use of
the Freedom of Information Act is The Smoking Gun: any time a rather humorous
misdemeanor or felony occurs, especially involving famous persons, will inevitably end
up The Smoking Gun’s web site.
Maybe "blew open a hole in the internet" was a little strong for what the Freedom
of Information Act really did, but some people's worries about its online effects are not
unfounded. Other people saw the e-FoIA act as a blessing, allowing them to access
information in almost every branch of the government. What this means for the average
person is that if there is anything going on that has the government involved, including
the last booking that occurred at the local police station, we have access to it. Does this
limit one’s privacy and anonymity in regards to a fair trial? That I’m not sure of, as the
FoIA has been active for my entire life and I don’t know what it was like when
newspapers couldn’t print all the details about a suspect or about something the FDA did
behind closed doors. I do recognize, however, that Clinton’s amendment enacting the eFoIA does make it quite simple to find information on government processes and actions
very easy. Let us just say if the e-FoIA leads to the downfall of the Republic, I’ll be quite
surprised.
In this section I want to focus on the global implications of the internet. While
this at first does not seem like it goes along with my analysis of the internet’s effect on
the republic at large, with the growing rate of globalization we are seeing I feel this is a
very relevant topic.
To begin with, let us find an appropriate definition of globalization. The
American Heritage Dictionary defines it simply as:
To make global or worldwide in scope or application.
This definition does not exactly fit our purposes, as it offers no theory as to the
repercussions of globalization. I feel a better definition would be:
The homogenization of and growing participation by the many worldly
bodies, including their governments and economies.
Our question, then, is whether or not globalization is leading to a more
homogenized internet or if the internet is leading to a homogenized world. It is my belief
that the latter statement is true, although the effects of both can be seen everywhere
around us. Consider the many technologies available today. If I so choose, I can log on
to a chat room and discuss politics with someone in Finland. Or if I wanted to buy
something from Denmark, I could find any number of international marketplaces and
spend my American currency on their Danish goods. Harmless as those two activities
may seem, it is not irrational of the isolationists to want us to slow down The United
States’ march towards a homogenized world.
I think peoples’ real fears about globalization in the real world are not unfounded.
It makes sense to worry about one losing his or her culture to a giant, foreign corporation
– primordialism is undeniable. Also, there were ups and downs to the North American
Free Trade Agreement as there are ups and downs to everything. To worry about
globalization in the cyber world, though, is different. Globalization in the real world is
just that, real. If we wanted to we could turn off every computer on the planet, and the
cybermarketplace would cease to exist. Is the cybermarket also not real, though? We
can define the cybermarket beyond eBay and Amazon.com, extending into financial
institutions. I can trade stocks online, in Japan if I so choose. I can transfer money from
my checking account to my savings or to my credit card and not have to interact with one
living being. To say that the cybermarket is not real would be false: just because the
interactions do not occur in the real world does not mean they do not occur at all. And so
we have a working definition of the cybermarketplace, yet we still don’t know if online
globalization is the same as real-world globalization. To better solve that problem, let us
find an example of globalization online, using the definition of globalization in its most
basic sense. When a computer virus originates overseas, it takes about a day or two to
spread to us here in the United States. Sometimes we are ready for it and other times we
are not; when we are ill-prepared for the virus, we become infected along with the rest of
the world. Now we have a global problem: a malicious cyber attack, taking place
completely in the other, non-real world, leaving all developed nations under fire. When
someone eventually comes up with a solution to the problem, it is usually distributed
freely to everyone who was infected even if they are overseas. Now we have a global
solution, and everyone has participated in a global process. So indeed, globalization can
originate in both worlds and spread to the other.
The new question, then, is whether or not globalization (on or offline) is a good
thing. Opponents of NAFTA and the like would say that globalization leads to things
like big corporations taking advantage of smaller, less developed nations (like WalMart’s recent move into Mexico); others argue that globalization is inevitable and we
should accept it, like it or not. The impact of globalization in both worlds can and is felt
on a daily basis in the United States but, as a fully developed state, we rarely feel the
downside of the homogenization of economic superpowers.
Civic life is on a decline in our fair nation. Too few people participate in clubs or
local assemblies, or even have friends over to play bridge or canasta. On the rise, though,
is the participation in online events. It may be the case that people are no longer taking
time to sit and chat with their friends in person, but partaking in conversation with
strangers in chat rooms is becoming commonplace. Chalk this up to sheer laziness on the
part of the citizenry, but it seems that the growing idea behind online civic life is “Why
go out when the people I really want to talk to are right here?” Is it the case that people
no longer feel an obligation toward their civic duty as a citizen of the United States? I
don’t think that is the case, but rather people are feeling more comfortable with their
family and staying in their own home. It is hard to recognize the idea of community in
our lifestyle, though, when people just no longer make the time to commune.
So let us now come up with a suitable definition of community. Our discussion of
community in this course led us to two suitable classifications of community:
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. The former we said was an extension of the community
to which we feel the most belonging (namely our family and close friends). The latter
was taken to mean the impersonal relationships that we have with others on a day to day
basis, like our coworkers or one’s mechanic. Alternatively, we could say we choose
those with whom we associated in Gemeinschaft and we accept that we must associate
with those in Gesellschaft.
It will be the focus of this essay to determine if the Internet offers a valid form of
community and, if so, which of our classifications of community the internet best fits. Is
it the very personal like Gemeinschaft, or the impersonal like Gesellschaft? The most
pertinent question of all, though, is whether anything in the cyber world is worthy of the
distinction of community.
In his essay “The Impact of the Internet on Civic Life: An Early Assessment” in
the book Governance.com, William Galston quotes an opinion that almost perfectly sums
up the majority’s view of internet relationships from one J. Snyder:
“Newsgroups, mailing lists chat rooms – call them what you will, the
Internet’s virtual communities are not communities in almost any sense
of the word.
A community is people who have greater things in common
than a fascination with a narrowly defined topic.”
While I appreciate the dry tone that Snyder takes in his approach to defining
communities, I do have to disagree with his definition. Is a community not anything
more than a commonality that brings a group of people together? Galston goes on to
defend internet civics in his essay so although I may parallel his sentiments I do not
intend to offer an explicit summary of his essay.
Think for a moment about how many message boards in which you are an active
participant. For myself the number is two, which is equal to the number of real-world
clubs that I am affiliated with here at Marquette. When I am interacting with these
people online, I feel a sense of belonging regardless of the fact that the only thing I have
in common with these people is one narrowly-defined topic. One of my main objections
to Snyder’s criticism is that although all of us in this online group were brought together
for one purpose – to talk about the news or Apple computers in my case – the discussion
rarely sits on those topics for too long. In fact I cannot remember the last time that I sat
and had a long chat with people about either subject; instead, the conversation meanders
through the topics of politics, sports, entertainment, and any of the other normal thing one
sits down and discusses with his or her friends. While I am doing this, do I feel like I am
fulfilling my civic duty as a citizen? Not exactly, but I do feel a sense of belonging, or
perhaps the sense of satisfaction for actively participating in a discussion.
So if we accept that online discussion forums and chat rooms are indeed
communities, it then becomes appropriate to determine which type of community they
are: Gemeinschaft of Gesellschaft. Since Gemeinschaft is the more personal of the two,
we must evaluate how personal the relationships are that we form with people online. If
the relationships are very personal, then Gemeinschaft becomes a great working
definition of community for the online world. If, however, the relationships are more
impersonal, then we must go back to Gesellschaft. Examining the relationships I have
with people in the two discussion forums I visit, I feel that although I choose to sit and
chat with them, without this commonality between us there would be no reason for me to
associate with them. We differ so much in terms of background, political stance, and
taste that although I appreciate their differences, I would be hard pressed to go out to the
bar and have a drink with them if I was expecting the same level of discussion.
Alternatively, it is not the case that I merely accept that I must associate with (most of)
these people online – after all, it was my choice to begin spending time there in the first
place. So now we have a bit of a paradox: although these people are only real in one
facet of my life, they do have an impact on me and I choose to continue associating with
them. We see the contradictions of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft play out right in front
of us in this online situation.
The question becomes, then, Will peoples’ participation in online communities
contribute to the greater good of the state as does civic life in the real world? I believe
the answer to that question still eludes us, as Civil Society Online is fairly new. I think
that although we feel our participation in events online do have an effect on other people,
these effects are not the same as fulfilling our civic duty in the real world. The hope of
many of us is that people will be inspired by their online civic lives to join clubs and
organizations in the real world, so we can slowly move away from this almost anti-civil
society that we have become.
As for online communities, there is reason to believe that we will never have a
working definition of online community, instead just accepting that the community is
there. We have no word to describe it, being that it is fairly new, yet we all understand
how online communities work. It is clear, though, that the true nature of community is
present online: a group of people, coming together under one common idea, sharing a
part of their life that they do not really get to share otherwise. I could talk my father’s ear
off all day long about Macintosh computers, but I think he’d rather talk football instead.
There are two things that all members of the human race covet: liberty and power.
For most of us, liberty is a natural right without which we could not imagine living. For
others, power is something to be strived for, earned. There is undeniably a balance of
power in this world, with the United States holding the bulk of it, and that balance of
power seems to shift between those with more of it and those with less in a cyclical
fashion. Even going back to the colonial times of America we see the balance of power
between the governors and the governed ebb and flow so much like the Atlantic that
separated the too; in today’s time, though, the seeds of revolution are not as often sowed
in the real world as they are in the cyber world.
First, though, let us ask: What is power? Is power the ability to impose one’s will
on others? Or is the most power simply in the hands of those who have the most
information? If the latter is the case, then I could rightly say that Condoleezza Rice is the
most powerful person in the world, as she is also the most informed person in the world.
That doesn’t really sit well with many people though, as they would prefer that the most
powerful person in the world have their power derived from the most powerful people in
the world – President Bush was the person we elected, Ms. Rice is the person he
appointed.
Going with the definition that equates power to information, we will look at China
as a paradigm of how new technologies help mold and shift the balance of power in
society. We will see that through the information superhighway the voice of dissent can
be heard, and movement for change can be seen.
In an article published in The Economist, an anonymous author said the
following:
“New communication technologies have long been thought of as
unequivocally on the side of political freedom. Authoritarian regimes
invariably go to great lengths to control the flow of information, and
are especially obsessed with communications between individuals.
Surely, then, increasing flows of information will undermine the power
of such regimes?”
That about hits the nail on the head – regime change and/or revolution brought on by new
technologies is almost always mediated through the people, and the people do not usually
think revolution until they become more informed. The article goes on to talk about
China and its efforts to curb the availability of information to its citizens. But, as we
discussed in class, when the people’s access to information was limited they cried out as
if cut off from some addictive drug.
Who is to say that information is not addictive? We can easily say that power is
addictive, but when equated with information it becomes more difficult to make such a
claim. Yet we can see before our own eyes these so-called information junkies rallying
support in oppressed societies as governments try to curb their access to it. In China,
activists such as Liu Di (or “stainless steel mouse” as she is known in the cyber world)
have become poster children for suppressed freedom fighters for information.
Does this mean that a revolution is expected in China? Maybe not in so many
words, but if they continue to clean up their act in regards to human rights and allow
people access to information, maybe China will be able to become an active participant in
the real world even more-so than they are now (you don’t get Most Favored Nation status
for nothing). Hopefully the government in China doesn’t see giving its people more
access to information as a sign of losing power, but rather as a sign to the world that they
recognize the natural rights of the people. Right now, though, it seems that revolution, on
or offline, is still a few years away.
Let us now summarize what we have learned from this analysis of the Republic
and the Internet: first, the internet does indeed have an impact on the Republic in terms
of federalism and civil society. As information becomes more available online to we
citizens of the United States, it becomes easier to both make informed decisions about the
political process and participate actively in an online community. Secondly, we have
learned that the information superhighway is a global entity, stretching across the planet
and affecting us in almost every facet of our lives, both in the real world and the cyber
world. We have learned that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the
cybermarketplace from a market in the real world, as they inhabit both worlds in equal
parts. Finally we have learned the internet can be a tool of empowerment and that
through its steady supply of information the peoples of some nations have found their
voice.
Now the question is, To what extent is the internet really affecting the Republic as
a whole? Have the changes in federalism and civil society really affected my life as a
citizen of this land? Alternatively, do the global implications of an information
superhighway affect me in my day to day life? The answers to all of those questions is,
simply, Yes. The internet has had a profound affect on my life, from the way I access
information to the way I take care of my finances. It is such an easy tool to use and
offers so much to the users that it is hard to imagine life without it. I don’t really like the
thought of being addicted to anything, but it is hard to deny the fact that my life without
the cyber world would be drastically different from what it is now. And living in a nation
that has over 182 million internet users I believe I have some support in making that
claim.
Realistically, though, would a world that existed entirely offline really be so
different than a world that is split into on an offline parts? If the cyber world ceased to
exist, newspapers and periodicals would still hold all the up-to-date information I would
need; historic facts could still be found in text books; I could do my banking in person;
the value of the dollar would not depress at all; power would still be the difference
between having more information than the person next to me.
The problem is not so much that the information wouldn’t be there, or that power
would be ever more in the hands of those who already have it, it’s that the information
wouldn’t be as easy to access. It would require more work for me to be an informed
citizen, more work to contribute civic life, and more work for the oppressed to change
their way of life.
That in and of itself captures the true essence of the information
superhighway: easy access to anything one wants. In the cyber world it is easier to have
power because it is easier to be informed; in the same manner it is easier to give power,
or to enlighten others.
While the answer to the question of whether the internet has affected the Republic
is indeed Yes, it remains to see to what extent the internet will continue to affect us. It is
my belief that the internet is not an end, but a means: the means to ever more
information, relationship, financial gain, and indeed power.
Works Cited
Galston, William A. “The Impact of the Internet on Civic Life: An Early Assessment.”
Governance.com. Ed. Elaine Ciulla Kamarck and Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Harrisonburg, VA: Brookings, 2002
Madison, James. “Federalist No. 39.” The Federalist Papers. The Library of Congress,
May 20 1996. <http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_39.html>
“Survey: Caught in the net.” The Economist. London: Jan 25,
2003. Vol. 366, Iss. 8308; pg. 18
“Raising a red flag.” Howard Fineman. Newsweek. New York: Nov 17,
2003. Vol. 142, Iss. 20; pg. 42
Wired News. Dec 01, 2003
<http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61420,00.html?tw=wn_polihead_6>
The CyberAtlas. September 22, 2003.
< http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_151151,00.html>