An Image Problem

The United States Government has an image problem. As I write this primary elections are underway for the 2016 presidential election. In both parties there are candidates battling for the nomination who defy the status quo, and whose shocking popularity seems to be driven by a distaste for the state of operations in the current government. Congress has all-time low approval ratings, and general faith in the government to do anything right is stunningly poor. This is driven by a now lengthy track record of mutual obstructionism and arguing among the parties, along with increasingly invasive systems of domestic surveillance and persecution. Regardless of the finger pointing that could be done from here, it's a mess, and the simple fact is this: the people no longer trust the government, and what's more they feel helpless. This is a big problem in a system that purports to be a government "of the people." In a democracy the greatest power one citizen has is meant to be their vote. Yet we are now watching a democratic primary in which one candidate is consistently carrying fewer delegates in spite of winning the popular vote in any given state. Systems that were meant to normalize are starting to seem a bit more like rigging of the system. This marginalizes the idea that a vote counts. Numerous among my peers have expressed to me this year that they do not intend to vote simple because, "what does it matter?" This is both understandable and disappointing. It is my hope that by the end of this discussion we will have developed the framework of a system by which a voice might be given back to the people on a level greater than just the vote, and the shouting that can be done in the streets. But, here it is not my intent to continue to prod at the flaws I hope to improve, but rather to understand and help to cast off the baggage which any reader or contributor might bring, and must set aside in order to move forward.

With this in mind it seems worthwhile at this point to step back from the mechanical conversations of the previous section to discuss problems of the government as a whole. The very reasons I feel the need to discuss this topic, briefly laid out in my introductory section, are also problems that may cut at the ability to discuss the underlying concept of democracy. This means they cut at the ability to build toward tools to better facilitate that democracy. It will be important as we move forward with theoretical and philosophical conversations to discuss how we move past a number of ever-present sticking points that will be a waste of time to deal with repeatedly. Ultimately it is my hope that the discussion of such possible evolutions of government and the process of lawmaking will help with a great number of these struggles. But until we've gotten to that point there will be many junctures at which a philosophical train of discussion could be derailed with thoughts akin to 'yes, but congress is NOT making laws that reflect the will of the people.' Or one might be inclined to point out the stunning lack of popularity of certain laws passed near the time of this writing (2016.) These laws seemed to go into effect at the behest of a minority agenda toward "religious freedom" or something similar. To point this out is not unwarranted, and yes, it does make the theoretical discussion of the tools of democracy being "of the people" lose weight. In the effort to move forward constructively this section is an attempt to need only say this once in depth. The following difficulties are both the reason that the system must evolve in order to achieve the most perfect democracy, and the reason that the foregoing discussion, as it pertains to the law, may sometimes seem out of tune with the way things actually function.

The first, and primary sticking point is wanton corruption. I mean this not to point out that there is such corruption within our government, but rather wanton corruption as a broader idea that will always be an answer to discussions of the function of a system of government. Politically corruption is the equivalent of a broken piece in a mechanical system. If we are trying to discuss the function of a linkage of some sort 'well, what if some piece is broken' will always disrupt the conversation. Of course with broken pieces the system won't work, but it shouldn't keep us from learning how a linkage would or should function without that broken piece. And it shouldn't keep us from from trying to conceptualize a better linkage. Throughout this piece we will try to discuss ideas of democracy, and topics like the motivation for following a law. In such a discussion it will always be a refutation to say that the criminally insane will never follow a law, or simply "what about the assholes?" Similarly the question of corrupt lawmakers and representatives, or lawmakers and representative that do not do their positions justice, will always make it difficult to ask questions like "why do we follow a law?" Here the struggle is not to let the baggage of the real world, or our distaste with the current government push us to apathy, or cynical thought. We must proceed with the discussion on the idea of a true democracy, or at least a better representative democracy. That is to say, a government of the people. Would this system of government most likely be disrupted by the corrupt? Most certainly. Will there be corruption? Most certainly. Is it possible to evolve a system of government that increases the ability of the people to keep this corruption in check? I think so. But first we need to be able to talk about how the system would be in the absence of said corruption.

So I return to the United States government's image problem. Currently, in the United States there is a sense that the government is particularly corrupt. That sense fueling the popularity of extreme candidates from both sides of the aisle. That sense also breeds the disenfranchisement within the people that could, taken to its furthest end, be the collapse of democracy. Of course, this collapse is unlikely, but it may still get worse before it gets better. I return to this increasing voter apathy only because it is at the core of a crisis for democracy. If the people don't vote, then there is no democracy. As discussed in previous chapters the vote is meant to be the expression of the will of the people. Perhaps it is difficult in times of such turmoil not to assume that disengagement and apathy is part of the system, but to have a fruitful discussion about how to change a democratic system of government for the better we assume that this apathy can be counteracted. That it can, via better technological or ideological systems, be manipulated. And so we hit the next of the broad sticking points in the conversation to be had about the evolution of democratic government in the decentralized age: "what if no one takes part?" Similarly to the question of corruption this is both a valid question and one that if asked consistently will merely keep the conversation from moving forward. We must proceed on the premise that people will take part in a democracy if given that chance. If they do not then we do not have a democracy. But in all sincerity I don't worry about this because... cat videos. Clay Shirky talks at length in his book "Cognitive Surplus" about the value of cat videos on the Internet. The point is that the chaff of cat videos ride along representing a wave of voluntary use of the collective free time the scale of which we've never seen. Lots of people use that time for cat videos, but some use it to make Wikipedia. The premise of the theoretical discussion is both that people want to be heard, and that given the platform, via vote, or more thorough involvement, they will take part. As with the example of corruption, I now attempt to dispel this concept broadly. Yes, any system I propose will not function in the absence of engagement from the people. Democracy will not function in the absence of the engagement of the people. To hold this as a consistent argument as we move forward will only hurt your ability to maintain the conversation about how to craft a better system. The question of engagement is fundamental because the answer is that if no one will take part -- we do not have a democracy, or even a republic.

Away from sticking points, and the effort to broadly frame the discussion of theoretical democracy, there is a key aspect to the image problem of the government yet to be discussed. This relates to the themes of my introduction, and is more broadly an argument in favor of new ways of doing things. Or at least the appearance of a new way of doing things. The government's image problem is a big deal exactly for the reason that I dispelled the disengagement argument so broadly: if people do not take part then we have no democracy. But there is something else here in the respect that we must have for that image problem. That is to say, if there is an image problem it does not even matter if the underlying system is doing just fine. In a democracy the function of the government and the people's perception of the function of the government are intrinsically linked. If people perceive that the government is not working they may disengage, or they may engage further in the effort to drive change. This system of perception is, though, a two way street in the sense that when people see that the government is, to their taste, doing well they may also disengage for the fact that they do not see that their action is needed. So there is a balancing act to be performed with regards to the perception of a democratic government. The people must feel that they are part of the system, and they must see the fruits of any efforts come to pass. This is why the presidential election holds such significance in US politics although there is arguably more power up for grabs in congressional elections. Certainly the selection of our prime diplomat and our commander and chief is important, but the real reason we make so much of the presidential election lies in the simplicity. The country votes, one winner is chosen. When it comes to people seeing the impact of their engagement the results are easier to see. In a democracy it is important for the people to feel that they are part of the system, that they are at least heard, and even better, able to engage.

Important in the above are notions of transparency, and surely transparency is another point where US democracy has a problem, and an image problem. In an age of increasing ability to share, and to do so not just quickly, but in real time, it becomes increasingly difficult to accept a form of government ideologically intended to be "of the people" that then fails to assent to certain degrees of transparency in their actions and operations. The need for this transparency is well established, and largely built into our government. Most government documents, certainly those pertaining to legislation and taxes are public by law. That said, they are difficult to obtain, and this becomes an increasing image problem. The perception of this lack of transparency grows increasingly dim as sharing tools proliferate and become ingrained in our culture. As it gets easier to share in everyday life, and our Government doesn't keep pace it gets easier to think they don't care. The 2008 election brought many promises of transparency that eight years later are still merely churning their way toward implementation. With our current election we are seeing even greater discontent no doubt fed on some level by the increasing sense that the government exists apart from the people. What transparency we do have does not take the form of open sharing by the government. It takes the form of begrudging assent to Freedom of Information requests, submission to the demands of journalists, or whistleblowers. Without the resources or knowhow to file their own FOIA request the average person must rely mostly on the journalists. This information, if obtained, is then spread to the people through increasingly non-standard media channels. Those media channels, dealing with their own struggle with decentralization, have leaned further and further away from reporting. Their turn toward editorial has, in turn, pushed anyone hungry to actually know what is going on to further diffused sources of information. This is problematic once the source is ultimately so diffused as to be suspect. And so the government has a transparency problem, which deepens the image problem feeding the disenfranchised.

It is with a view to these sticking points, and these problems of transparency and perception that I advocate broadly for fundamental changes in the mechanical processes of government. Changes to harness the growing ability of technology to provide transparency. Changes to harness the growing ability to maintain accountability. Changes to harness the growing ability to coordinate massive teams of people to solve problems. We do this by pushing government to evolve further in parallel with the trends of decentralization seen in the realm of computing. By these systems we may make government inherently more transparent, inherently more accountable, and by these changes begin to build a system in which the people have more faith. A system that facilitates, invites, perhaps even requires greater involvement of the people can, by the nature of the system, itself be more transparent at all levels. It will, by the nature of the system itself, breed accountability for actions, decisions, and changes. The goal is to begin redesigning the processes of the government not only to better match the modern world, but to incorporate what we have learned from centuries of design thinking. We can continue to be concerned about how things should be, and we can continue to tell other people how they should be, or we can simply design a system by which there can be no other way. This is what the Framers of our US Constitution once did in response to their own struggles. It is with this goal that I proceed from my introduction of technology, government, and decentralized systems to an explanation of the tools by which we will build such a systems, and ultimately ideas of how that system itself might function.