Qualified Support

From the BBC, an interesting story out of New Zealand:

New Zealanders have been given the chance to write their own laws, with a new online tool launched by police.

The "wiki" will allow the public to suggest the wording of a new police act, as part of a government review of the current law, written in 1958.

Police say they hope to gain a range of views from the public on the new law before presenting it to parliament.

I have two opposing sentiments about this - hence the post's title.

Sentiment #1: This is a good thing; it's open, it's collaborative, it allows people to respond without fear (mostly), and did I mention it's collaborative? In terms of public policy, this is a great move.

Sentiment #2: The idea of public policy is predicated on a small number of folks making rules for the whole - and that there is a mechanism for enforcement of said rules (which is almost always violence). In this case, I'm sure the results of the wiki project will be vetted and edited by some official committee somewhere. So the idea of public policy depends on an assumption of a hierarchy at least of power, if not one of knowledge or expertise.

All that said, I offer - to no surprise - qualified support for this move. It's better than the status quo of making up policy behind closed doors and then asking for input, but not as good as deciding that having fewer policies on the books is a good policy.

The New Politics

The funny thing is, I'm pretty disillusioned by the American political system, even in the abstract form that I learned in Advanced Government in HS. I don't think the structure of that system really matches my values, and I think it preserves hierarchies that need to go. (And, of course, I think it's royally corrupt and only exists in the abstract to boot.)

That said, I feel I can still realize when the system is breaking down, and that such a breakdown has very real consequences, especially since the 'breakdown' is largely being spun and covered up by the highly distorted values of the corporate media:

You have to give these Republicans credit, you really do. They are changing the rules of the game right in front of our eyes and daring the Democrats to do something about it.

...

I'm specifically talking here about the executive privilege claims, although it applies to virtually everything. Traditionally, there would be some posturing and back and forth, negotiations and perhaps some court involvement.Presidents may push the envelope, but they try to maintain the relationship with the congress in order that we not push these things into litigation which might go the wrong way (from their perspective) and therefore codify congressional prerogatives. Some presidents might even actually respect the notion that oversight is a necessary part of the balance of power and believe it's important to preserve it without creating new laws and rules that make it more difficult. The balance of power between the branches is actually quite a delicate thing that requires a certain amount of good faith to keep that going. The Republicans have thrown that good faith into the trash bin.

There is a great opportunity for sociological and/or political science-based analysis here: What happens when one of the (two major) parties to an essential and long-standing social contract rips it up and throws it out the window? What are the consequences? How deep does trust in the system run for today's Democrats that they don't even see that one party has decided to no longer abide by the previous set of agreed-upon rules? It's really quite amazing, and sort of terrifying, and a major reason I have little to no respect for the Democratic Party; I think the extent to which they are beholden to corporate donors and the existing (and disappearing) system has severely blinded them to the danger they are in, and their saving grace is that people who don't like Republicans feel they have no other viable alternative than to vote Democratic. The Democrats are winning not on their own strengths (I mean, they've got nothing at this point), but solely on the fact that they are not Republicans.

And perhaps more importantly, at what point will the system reach equilibrium again, if it does? What will the governing political structures of America look like then?

I think this is a very important question, maybe the preeminently important question of the day for political scientists and political philosophers, and most them just don't get it, and I have no idea why not. My faith in academia is taking another hit, and I'm not sure how much more it can survive.


UPDATE: I don't mean to suggest this is an aberration, not really. I think it's actually quite logical if one wishes to gain power - the tipping point, as it were, was the Republicans' decision to value the acquisition of power over keeping the playing field intact (the idea being that once enough power was gained, there was no danger of the tables turning and Democrats using the amassed power against Republicans, since the plan was for Republicans to never lose another election). I also think it's an example of the movement of capitalist values into the political sphere, or perhaps a result of the pressure placed on capitalism by globalization, an increasing world population, and decreased natural resources.

Blogging Hierarchy

From Matt Yglesias, something I've also noticed about the liberal blogosphere:

A [blog]caste system is solidifying and a new establishment is crystallizing.

I suspect lots of folks are going to pin this one on human nature. I think that's both wrong and dangerous. Instead, I think this reflects existing socialization and the existing nature of (mostly American) society: hierarchy is promoted all over the place, and it stands to reason a whole bunch of more-or-less (mostly white) liberal folks are just going to replicate what they know. Just because the potential for more democracy exists with the physical infrastructure of the Internet doesn't mean the social development is going to be hierarchy-free. In fact, if that were the case I'd be floored.

That said, I'm reminded of Michael Albert's point that not taking advantage of talent is just stupid - but I think the consequence of a blog caste system or hierarchy is that new talent or developed talent now has some pretty serious barriers to entry, and that's not very democratic, now is it? Especially of the liberal blogosphere is tilted toward highly educated white men, as seems to be the case.

Look at me - it's almost cute, how much I rely on the assumption that people are rational animals (even if it's learned rationality). Sigh.