The latest post on the Daily Kos, GOP hate-monger testing presidential waters, raises the issue of illegal immigration as a major issue in the President 2008 race. I agree with Kos, some. I have learned during my short life that my stepfather has any almost uncanny ability to relate to the common man, although he is far from common.
He told me four years ago to keep an eye on immigration. He believed that immigration was going to dominate the political landscape within a handful of years. I must say that it appears that he was right again.
This issue is complex, and I am trying not to have any more super-long posts. Therefore, I may have a series of writings that address immigration.
For this installment I would like to point out how the internet allows single issue voters a medium to communicate. In several places I have read that the political parties are going to loose strength as the gatekeepers of political information. The internet allows groups to form that hold ideas that are not supported by either political party.
Immigration is a of perfect example of this. Neither party wants to address the issue of immigration. The Democrats are afraid of upsetting their minority base, while Republicans are afraid of upsetting businesses that employ illegal aliens.
I am interested in seeing how citizen groups use technology to promote their issue. The Minute Man Project is a good example of the use of a website to gain nationwide support and portable devices, mainly cell phones, to communicate rapidly between members.
Other immigration sites:
Wake up America
The American Resistance
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
Other sites that address immigration:
Negative Population Growth (NPG)
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Illegal immigration: Part One
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yet again I'm frightened for the future.
If the Internet allows for more single-issue voters to communicate with one another (and thus likly creates more single-issue voters), what happens when these types of voters make up the majority of the electorate? I'm not saying we don't have single-issue voters right now (generally those who vote regarding their views on abortion rights, religion or any other number of personal beliefs), but I have a hunch that the Internet will allow their numbers to swell as soon as they see they are not alone.
I guess this approaches the same issue of how the Internet contributes to polarization of the electorate in general. We no longer have any hope of being a "renaissance electorate" of sorts, but I'd settle for voters who can look beyond their single issue to really weigh the interests of society as a whole outside their little sphere.
Hegemon,
While the issue of immigration is certainly not at the top of my priority list, you raise an interesting point about single issue voters.
However, I must dissent from politiae's opinion.
I believe the Internet is a tool.
In the right hands, it can promote discourse, spread love, or raise awareness.
In the wrong hands it, strangles free speech, promotes hate, or spreads lies.
I will argue that it is the parties use of this tool in such a way to intentionally increase polarization that is to blame, not the Internet itself.
Afterall, as many on the right have claimed for years...computers don't kill political discourse, people do.
I should have been more clear above. I don't actually think the Internet is single-handedly to blame for a polarized electorate; I was simply referencing the argument that's been made time and again by so many people: "Internet, Bad!"
I generally think we do the Internet a disservice by overestimating the power it has over the voting population (or society as a whole). Among those overstatements what I said above, that the Internet is to blame for the state of political discourse in this country.
Don't get me wrong--the Internet is a very, very powerful tool. Just not in the way we think it is right now.
Post a Comment