Introduction
This paper is an overview of one aspect of the debate surrounding the internet and its influence on present society. To be precise, it is an overview of the influence of the internet on our democratic system of government. As it turns out, there are at least two schools of thought on the matter. I will be considering two of those schools: the optimists (these are my own terms), who hold that the internet will in some sense “revive” democracy in America; and the pessimists, who feel that the internet certainly won’t help, and may even make things worse than they already are.
It should be apparent right away that both the optimists and pessimists share an assumption about the state of democracy in America now, and that assumption is that there is a kind of crisis in democracy.[1] Low voter turnout, the increasing role of money in elections, a general erosion of accountability of elected officials, unchecked cronyism, a greater interest in campaigning than in governing--these can all be seen as symptoms of structural problems in the system. That is, they are not to be blamed, as they often are, on one party or another, but on the way democracy in general is working these days. The thinkers we will be considering believe, in fact, that the problem does not lie in the government per se, but in the political culture of the voting public. To put it another way, they see the crisis stemming from a change in culture that has undermined the institutions of democracy. This means that changes in the system of government are not an adequate response to the crisis--what is required is, in fact, a change in culture.
That the internet is changing culture is indisputable. Whether the change is for the better is an open question. For deliberative democracy, the question is more specifically whether the internet is enforcing or eroding the institutions that ensure a healthy rule by the people.
Next: Deliberative democracy--a definition
Notes
1. This paper is not an examination of whether or not there is such a crisis, and there are many thinkers who deny that there is. George Will, for example, sees low voter turnout and middle class apathy as signs that the “best” people are being left to run the country, and the role of money is thus just about exactly what it should be. See "Money in Politics: Where's the Problem?" Jewish World Review, online, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will101199.asp, (Accessed 4/7/08). This is a view that one could reasonably hold--he is certainly not alone in holding it--but it is not our concern here. We are concerned with the division within the ranks of those who have recognized a crisis, some of whom see the internet as a boon, perhaps even a salvation, and others who see the internet as ushering in more of the same or something even worse.