I have a metric ton of reading to do this summer for my AP courses coming up (European History, English, Biology, Calculus). However, I’ve been so busy that I haven’t really had the time to get through much of the work. Despite this setback, however, I’ve been brushing up on my political reading. It’s quasi-reading, really, since I’ve been listening to Audiobooks while driving to and from the Academy.
My selections thus far have been Al Gore’s, The Assault on Reason, and Barack Obama’s, The Audacity of Hope. The two works shouldn’t be treated as a single unit by any stretch of the imagination; although I’m grouping them in this post, they’re vastly different in purpose, content, and style.
I very much prefer Gore’s book, an unapologetic assault of the Bush Administration’s deplorable and undemocratic actions, never resorting to ad hominem attacks. It’s an eclectic piece covering the revolution started by the printing press; the public forum and marketplace of ideas; the foundation of the United States; the importance of the filibuster; the danger of television; the process of votes becoming a commodity; the danger of signing statements; the revolution triggered by wikis, user generated content, and blogs; the climate crisis; net neutrality; and more. Al Gore is a spectacular intellectual, and I wish he was running for the Presidency. I respect him significantly.
One specific point Gore elaborates on is the “marketplace of ideas“, and how the free flow of information is the lifeblood of a democracy. He believes that the Internet will enable us to take back what the wealthy have bought, the media. This point really hit home with me. I don’t watch television, which isn’t to say that I don’t consume media. I do, and too much of it. I choose to listen and watch independent programs on the Internet that cater to my interests and let me give feedback. Usually, these content creators elicit and value one’s feedback, always changing to accommodate their specialized audience. While new media is a refreshing conversation, old media is a boring lecture. I highly recommend dumping the television habit in favor of a more rewarding medium.
The concept of sharing information and spreading democracy through the sharing of information, rather than the dropping of bombs, reminded me of the One Laptop per Child project. The MIT project plans to produce a fully-functional laptop for around $100 for use in lesser developed nations. Many people flame the project with the rhetoric that charity is a zero-sum activity. Rather than produce computers, money could be used to give people food or medication, they say. However, I believe that while one project tries to port technology to other markets, others could be producing such basic needs. How can I justify this? The laptops give Internet access. The Internet informs; it’s a direct combatant against ignorance and oppression. It was the printing press that enabled the protestant reformation, perhaps the Internet can enable (more) revolutions of its own.
Obama’s book is a lightweight in comparison, basically outlining his campaign for the 2008 Presidential Election. A New York Times review sums it up as this:
In a more perfect world, a graduate program complete with a doctoral thesis might be required of all those seeking the presidency. In certain ways, ”The Audacity of Hope” qualifies as Senator Barack Obama’s thesis submission.
Obama takes great pains to seem very personal, and his style is very friendly and human, contrasting to Gore’s stern distance. Barack Obama is obviously an intelligent man with impressive political views and would be an improvement over George Bush in office. Then again, who wouldn’t be? I first became interested in Barack Obama after his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I loved this excerpt from the speech, which inspired the book’s title:
In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!
It was packed with some great one-liners, too. I love this one.
Values are faithfully applied to the facts before us, while ideology overrides whatever facts call theory into question.
I couldn’t help but be slightly fazed when Obama did chapters on his family and his religious stance, typical and christian, respectively. It’s not that I found anything he said particularly shocking, I just prefer matters like these as far away from politics as possible. I can’t fathom the relevance; then again, I’m not the American people. I’m not looking for someone I would consider a friend, I’m looking for someone who can enable me to have the best future possible through intelligent, calculated actions that do not undermine the future of the nation.
I don’t know which Democratic candidate I’m going to throw my support behind. I’ll be 18 years of age in November 2008. The prospect of finally being a participant in this concept I’ve studied for so long, Democracy, excites me. I remain hopeful.
Personal life is intensely important to the voting public. It’s easier to vote for someone if you think you can trust him/her, and you can more easily trust someone to whom you can relate. The chapter on religion is probably a case for those who tend to vote with Christian values in mind (and tend to vote Republican). Most people don’t decide who to vote for (or make many decisions, for that matter) on a purely intellectual basis.
And as for the flow of information, I agree completely. The Internet does have a big potential to spread false information, though. Not that what you see on TV is going to always be accurate, since it’s influenced by giant corporations and advertising, but you can reasonably assume that it’s been at least somewhat checked. (Not that anyone actually fact-checks what they see on TV (besides Michael Moore) so maybe it is blatantly untrue.) Any crazy out there can make a blog and put whatever he wants on it.
I just can’t fathom the American public and their concern with personal life. For example, Barack Obama is a smoker. I vehemently hate smoking, however, this fact doesn’t phase me in the slightest.
The Internet does have a great potential for misinformation. However, its potential to democratize information overrides this disadvantage in my mind. Anyone can put something out there, including people in repressive regimes, like China. Also, the people in said regimes can subvert harmful propaganda.
Yes, any crazy can make a blog and put whatever he *or she* wants on it. Likewise, any consumer of information can choose whether or not to consume this information. It’s as simple as a key stroke or a mouse click. Additionally, with features such as comments enabled, it lets the consumers point out what information is correct or incorrect, or for intelligent debates to take place. You don’t see that on TV.
You write too much to complain about having too much Summer Homework