As citizens of the 21st century, we have never held back when lauding the Internet as a democratic force. Surely, we believe something that has destroyed so many barriers to information flow will do nothing but enhance our democracy. That is, after all, what democracy is about, right? We should embrace a mechanism that destroys artificial monopolies on information and makes that information accessible to all. Plus, the Internet will contribute to a well-informed citizenry, a prerequisite for democracy. It then seems natural to assume that the Internet, if unleashed upon the political process, will carry us toward a more egalitarian society. Well, we may be wrong.
In actuality, the Internet is beginning to create a number of problems for citizens of democracy. For instance, the added burden of sifting through the massive amount of new content gifted to us by the Internet makes it even harder, not easier, to separate truth from trivia. Even when we do seize credible information, we are easily distracted.
Reading an article on the latest happenings in government is difficult when one is constantly being peppered by ads specifically tailored to the reader, or being linked away to related stories, or even tempted by raw video footage of a candidate being glitter-bombed.
Is participation really up? Social media is especially dangerous because its greatest power is in creating the illusion of political participation while simultaneously promoting apathy. This stems from the fact that we are able to freely link ourselves to as many political figures, causes and movements as we like. If so inclined, I could brand myself a Romney supporter with the click of a button. With the move of a mouse, I become a committed Libertarian, or worse – a Democrat. Expending next to no effort at all, I can craft my own political persona, back mass movements and adopt religious views. Why would one be tempted to actually participate (i.e. meetings, rallies, actively campaign, etc.) in democracy when you can pretend to on Facebook? Human beings, and especially young people, are notorious for doing just enough to get by, and if we can feel validated by clicking a “follow” button, you can bet we’ll do just that and nothing more.
What about those views that we supposedly care so much about? With all of that meaningful human interaction aided by the web, surely we are becoming more empathetic and moderate in our beliefs. Might we even become more willing to compromise, given that we are being exposed to more and more foreign viewpoints that contrast with our own?
In fact, the opposite is true. The vastness of it all allows for a kind of escapism – the ability to cower in our own political corner and surround ourselves with users who hold the same views we do. This positive reinforcement of prior-held views, combined with the freedom granted by anonymity, tempts us into becoming hardliners. We can say what we want, to whoever we want and not be asked to identify or explain ourselves. Rather than coming closer to consensus, the Internet seems to be driving us apart.
An environment like this is not democratic at all – it is anarchy. This fact is reflected in the Middle East’s Arab Spring of last year. Right or wrong, this brief episode now serves as the poster child for massive political action fueled by internet communication. But as any Egyptians present at last week’s violent Port Said riots will attest to, the Internet hasn’t helped much in restoring order. Online social networks may be useful in tearing down your government, but they don’t seem to be all that helpful when trying to run one.
The Internet has greatly improved certain aspects of life and will continue to do so through its ability to facilitate the rapid spread of information. However, this feature alone will not raise the level of our democratic discourse. That would presume the most fundamental problem facing America’s political system – that its citizens don’t have access to enough information. This is simply not the case.
No, the greatest problems facing our political system are moral ones. These problems include questions on how to handle our nation’s mounting debt, how to best care for those who cannot care for themselves and how to ethically draw to a close our mismanaged wars in the Middle East. The issues are complex and require every active participant to carefully consider their implications before communicating his or her conclusions with civil restraint. Unfortunately, careful consideration and self-restraint are things the Internet doesn’t seem to value.
Evan Ward is a senior majoring in history. His column runs on Wednesday.
