Horizontal Governance: The Evolution of the Social Mind

So now that the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement seems to have fallen off the major media radar, most of its non-participating supporters are now left to wonder, not only where did it go, but what now? It is very important for OWS to send a clearer message, about what change it wants to implement. If this message is not soon delivered, the movement will deteriorate, and be forever discounted as a senseless complaint.

The first thing that I noticed, as the OWS movement peaked, was a lot of the organizers were talking about it having a horizontal structure. For those, who don't understand what that is, or those who believe that a leaderless horizontal political system is just another phrase describing socialism, or in right-wing perspective, a communist takeover, the horizontal hierarchy finds its strengths in being leaderless. It enables every voice to rise to the top of all decision-making procedures. Unlike any of the aforementioned labels, horizontal-ism is a facilitator of efficient information, for the purpose that leaders could make more effective decisions when drawing up policies, that directly effect society, but with a focus on the needs of the individual.

So, why a horizontal, leaderless decision-making process? When asked, what was the funniest thing that he witnessed during the OWS protests in New York City, Dr. Arthur Chen of Oakland, California, responded with an action by protestors that wasn't as funny as it was purposeful. He noted that the effect of our generation's sense of inclusiveness, while watching the protestors take part in a General Assembly. This inclusiveness he witnessed is what the information age has brought us. Put simply, we have the tools that grant us the knowledge, that we don't have to "screen" each other, when it comes to having our voices heard, and that all of the information we gather from these assemblies are their to better inform us of all of our needs, rather than a pigeon-holed perspective provided to us by the measures of antiquated D.C. politics, and corporate media. The information age demands a place for those venues that would not screen all of our points of view (7).

Well, as complex as the OWS movement's demands are, so is the political process in our modern society, especially when you consider the pace at which information retrieval and gathering is accomplished in contrast to the current method  of implementation of ideas, and policies in current governmental structure on the basis of information acquisition. Basically, there is no political structure in the world today, that is capable of keeping up with the mobility of information. So, it is incompetent in providing a highly informed society with the necessary laws and leadership that will improve lives across the economic spectrum. "The style of communication, decision-making and planning taking place in Zuccotti Park, and in Occupy protests across the country, mimics much of the way we have learned to talk to one another online." (1)

As a society, we are all psychologically geared to consume and produce information at a much faster rate today than in the past, when the only avenues to the most current information were institutionally supplied media. Now the flow of information, being less authoritative, and more unrestricted, enables the general populace to shift opinion and consensus through its own mechanism of verification and truth (i.e. mic checks, tweets, Facebook statuses, etc.). Take for instance Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's statements back in March 2011, where she stated that the U.S. is losing when it comes to information distribution (3). She was saying this even at a time of the greatest usage of the internet as an information sharing resource. With the rampant sharing of information, and the low cost to produce it, media centers have propped up elsewhere, globally, while the U.S. makes cuts to major propaganda facilities, it is apparent that the U.S. government even recognizes its failure to effectively create or even maintain an effective infrastructure to inform on a new playing field.

The pattern of rapid information sharing, and the shift away from powerful or concentrated information centers, is beginning to find its way into politics and governance. If there is any debate contrary to this concept then, that thinking is as archaic as the political system that exists today. It is a failing system, slowly collapsing under its own weight, because it is either resistant, or incapable to changing its structure, in order to meet the needs of the people it is supposed to represent, and coordinate with those who are more aware of the concordance of the highly informed public.

What we're missing today in policy making is a leadership machine that runs efficiently, and that efficiency should stem from its ability to easily discover consensus among a representative body. Horizontal-ism was born out of the political leadership's incompetence to connect, network, or even embed itself within the ranks of a more informed and people, that exists within a nexus of economical, and political awareness. If we are to successfully regain economic and civil control of not just our own nations, but to assure that in the future there exists a global mechanism by which all informed voices can be heard at the level of the representational parts of our governing structures, then horizontal governance must become a compulsory branch of government.

Political leaders remain indifferent, well, at least those who support it. Those that don't support a new amendment to the governing structure, simply understand that they exist in a system that isolates them from common needs, while symbolically upholding that they are representing the people, when in fact they have latched onto a more concentrated, financially apt body of constituents: corporations. Since the decision of the Supreme court to classify corporations as persons, our representatives have shut the true people out of government, and even governing themselves. Through well financed lobbying, it is extremely easy to market popular opinion that is biased in favor of business' agenda, and marketing is not necessarily fact or even truth. The rate of information is faster, because it is smaller, concise, concentrated, and easily facilitated. Instead of having to wait for the true popular message, from veritable people, senators, congressman, and statesman, refuse to recognize the time, the patience or the capabilities to hear an ever-growing population's demands. So through corporate person-hood, the ears of representative governing have only been listening to the minority of the population. Even if it isn't a minority below the surface, it is a highly concentrated, single body, that portrays skewed data, information, and opinion to our leaders, and has basically hijacked the democratic process. If our leaders were competent enough to embrace new technologies as tools to reconnecting the bridge of representation to their people, the need to consolidate information through the pipe of false person-hood, the corporations, then OWS would have never had the need to exist.

I bring all this up not to belabor the issue of corporate person-hood, but to emphasize one aspect why our politicians turn to corporate lobbying first, instead of the mass of people they are really supposed to represent, if they are even doing so at all. It is really a matter of "voice" as information, and a conflict between that and the speed at which it flows into government from the people, and the amount with which they are inundated. Ask, any successful businessman, if a business grows beyond its capacity to produce, the business' production infrastructure needs to change, in order for it to satisfy that growth. The same thinking should be applied to governing. What OWS is attempting to offer up to its leaders is governing system by which the people can regain their voices in government, and "produce" policies that directly stem from that voice, and not from the concentrated minority of voices that are isolated from the people by financial means and sheer totalitarian information marketing committed by the corporations and wealthy elite.

The most important thing to recognize about the corporate person-hood and its new found tight relationship with political leaders is that it is authoritarian in nature. This convenient relationship is severely evident in the doctrines of right-wing politicians, who have plenty of private interests lobbying them, and also support an extreme version of capitalism that caters to the corporate person-hood status. Instead of gathering consensus from veritable persons, the information pipe is diverted, and the flow of information into government has become unchallenged, simply by changing the definition of a person.

In education, the lack of leadership's capacity to adapt to the information age is strongly evident in its complete ignorance of improving the learning environment in general education. In the U.S. classrooms still contain the educational tools of 50 years ago. How would our leaders expect students to compete on the global playing field, if the real world expects learning and skill gains through an information highway, while the primary learning environment is only stocked with only #2 pencils and dry erase boards? If the leaders in the U.S. need an answer to why students are not ranking higher in the global education standings, they should ask themselves, "why hasn't there been a massive R&D effort to understand how to use computers to develop customized reading-learning strategies for kids with different learning styles." (4) If our leaders realize the technology is more about a new way of thinking, and decision making, and less about entertainment (i.e. video games, and Tweeting), then they would discover that educating our kids along these lines would enable them to govern themselves better, teach each other more efficiently, and basically share ideas in order to effectively innovate.

There is a concerted yet unspoken effort to suppress this new mode of information sharing by only the most powerful elements of our society, and their political cohorts, that realize the benefits of not just guiding media output, but excessively controlling it. If schools are not funded adequately enough to utilize the technological tools of now, if legislation is written in order to selectively expose our privacy, take away our right to free speech, and prevent us from seeking out the right information, then it is absolutely evident that controlling the masses comes in the form of authoritarian restraint. If gaining information is a race, those capable of buying policies, and those making them, are slowing the greater majority of people down with uncertainty and unprincipled policies. If ordinary people are adapting successfully to information exchange, and that progression is being even slightly restricted or presided over, then it would suffice to say that not just media, but also the flow of free information is controlled.

In order to paint a picture of the entities that control the flow of information, it must be emphasized that the avenues by which we receive information are highly restrictive because of two factors: 1) the private industry's inability to embrace change;  and 2) the failure of policy makers to stimulate change (5). It's all about speed really. Not about the ability of businesses and politicians to keep up, really, but more about their reluctance to change, even increase, speed at all. If the flow of information is sped up, then change in any system is inevitable, and to ignore it for the sake of security, or preservation of pre-existing systems, is simply put, a failure. Here's a scenario that makes no sense, in this matter, when Google Health (a resource for users to store and analyze their health information) decides to discontinue it's service. Within the same month, Qualcomm Life plans to sell a health device hub, that connects up to servers, in order to continuously share a patient's real-time health information with medical professionals via the "cloud" (6).

Now, you read that last paragraph, and say, "so what, it's the nature of the market, and it's competition for these companies to make changes". But, if looked at from a non-business perspective, and more so from the information architect, it would make sense to have multiple arenas of data, that could be used in conjunction, in order to create a larger data pool, which in turn would enable medical doctors and patients as well as healthcare insurers a more efficient tool to analyze medical risks and factors. Basically, business, because of profit loss, has taken away one source of health data aggregation, and isolate it via a paid for service, that limits the flow of information. The argument here is, why not have it in multiple ways? Why not just have a horizontal information structure, like the format that the OWS's movement has instituted for the purpose of sharing information among working groups?

It is second nature for us to produce information. In fact we produce information as fast as we interact with one another, yet most of it goes undocumented, or is placed in a data-accessible format. Discovering the point at which human interaction on the social level transitions into information provision to those who need to analyze it, or use it as a way to make sound policy decisions, is most likely the intention of the horizontal political structure, that OWS intends to implement. Most people may think, that polls or surveys may be the tool by which all of this is done, but often surveys can be too specific to a certain research need, and cannot be easily digested by the average person, and polls are either too biased or skewed to provide a non-partisan assessment of any policy stance. This, in no way, is a justification for the gathering of information of individuals, but rather, having our political structure take a more determined approach to gathering a sense of what the public needs are.

1. Occupy Wall Street’s ‘horizontal hierarchy’ seen through prism of the Internet
2. The Authoritarian Personality
3. Hillary Clinton: US Losing Information War to Alternative Media
4. Miller, Matthew. The Tyranny of Dead Ideas: Letting Go of the Old Ways of Thinking to Unleash a New Prosperity. New York: Times, 2009. Print.
5. Arndt, Rachel Z. "Google Health to the Guillotine." Fast Company Dec. 2011: 32. Print.
6. Box Sends Health Data Right to the Cloud
7. Why I Protest: Dr. Arthur Chen of Oakland, California

Voter Dissuasion

The trouble with dissatisfied voters is they never vote. If they never vote, there is an element of effective representation lost on the part of the people. The main argument expressed by opponents to voting is that the system in which they participate will never change regardless of how much their vote truly counts. To make this kind of justification for not voting is absurd, and it is the equivalent of saying the best way to heal the wound is to let it fester and become infected.

Young voters, especially, are those so opposed to voting, as if it was their own unique form of snubbing the establishment, but in their lack of presence at the polls, the establishment could wish for nothing better than to have a larger number of voters against it to simply not show up. Consider the 2008 presidential election, where a record number of minorities and youth turned out to vote, and the result was creating a significant lead for the Democratic candidate, a gap so large between the winner and loser, that was seen in neither of the two preceding elections, that elected a Republican president. One could argue that it was simply the people being utterly dissatisfied with what the former administration had done to the economy and how it handled conflicts overseas, but there was a significant increase in voters that created a voting lead so large, there was no need for a recount (Blacks, Young Voters Not Poised for High Turnout on Nov. 2 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/142877/blacks-young-voters-not-poised-high-turnout-nov.aspx). In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the turnouts were significantly lower, and the election results were difficult to decipher, because the balance of the votes were almost even. Fast forward 8 years, add in the factor of a large turnout, and it was apparent that in former elections, there was a closeted majority not utilizing their votes. If these voters were not dissuaded from voting in the past, it is quite possible previous elections would have created a different historical course. In other words, the second-guessing that occurred in 2000 and 2004, and in one election, where the Supreme Court overrode the votes of the people, could have been avoided altogether, and a true majority would have selected the president in a way that was constitutionally correct.

Money and steep financial funding of political figures is another factor. Political endorsements create or foster a false majority. When so much money is concentrated on a particular political faction mostly by way of media, and the most effective form being television, because that is the best way to facilitate political information to the general public, who needs something simple to digest, in order to understand who they are voting for, or which political platforms to which they can relate. In a complete irony of how the media currently plays out in relating political viewpoints upon the general public is that of comedian Jon Stewart, who is by all means a comedian, and not what most suppose an authoritative news source. The irony stems from the fact that most serious news and media gurus look to his satirical news show as respectable form of news dissemination, while Stewart consistently emphasizes that it is anything but that, and that his show is meant to point out the facade that most media giants (as well as politicians and pundits) construct, in order to cater to some element of the establishment. Stewart was even so far as questioned by genuine news reporters, seeking some form of empathy from Stewart, by stating, "Boy, I wish I could say what you're saying." And Stewart's response to that is why can't they ask the question they want to ask? What could possibly prevent a professional newscaster from breaking from the script, and generating thought provoking or objective questions or statements...? Wait! That's the problem. The mere evidence that something as amendable as a new story or policy expression is not authorized by the main people responsible for asking the question, but instead some external as well as partial element. (1)

This external element is the point at which media begins to deteriorate the foundation of Constitutional representation of U.S. voters, because this element exists, disabling journalists and newscasters from approaching policy making and legislation with a investigative mindset that is not inhibited by whatever mysterious interests are out there heavily influencing or reshaping the content by which most U.S. voters get their information. What is it that reporters, journalists, or newscasters cannot say? Who or what is placing restrictive measures upon the free flow of news information? Some may perceive this as a product of strict editing, and that most effective sources of news are watered-down, in order to meet the certain formats, but that is a naive concept. Most editors of news may only answer to the owners of the news agency, and that alone is a private interest, that is generating a diversion of information for the purpose of gaining capital or favor from related interests. In other words, the general public is immediately receiving a biased viewpoint from self-interested parties, and that is why reporters or journalists cannot talk about the politics they genuinely wish to talk about.

So, the voter is constantly misinformed, or is receiving information about candidates that is manipulated by partisan forces, and quite possibly private interests. Through mediums like television and internet news feeds, presented by media conglomerates, the information is very easy to digest, and a much larger percentage of the population will accept the less complicated presentation of voter information, that is simply too filtered. More intellectual sources will be less appealing to the general public, and leads to disinterest. In Jon Stewart's case, the news and opinions may be simple, yet thought provoking, and offer the public an intimate perspective of political realities, but one must consider that this can be viewed by the intellectual elite as simply satire, and therefore not accepted as an authoritative source.

Most of the current news sources are seeking ratings through sensationalist stories. These are stories that play off of people's emotions. Stories that evoke emotion, a lot of political figures embrace, in order to gain more votes through those elements of an incumbent's background that may either be questionable or lacking in performance in the bureaucratic realm. Sensational news is also non-authoritative, because it places too much emphasis on characterization of a topic, and covers less of the intrinsic content, like the ethical, moral, historical or philosophical aspects of the content. Granted, the latter type of coverage may be boring and unacceptable to the average user, but how hard would it be to present the facts in a simple form, rather than have to listen to endless and repetitive stories based on slander, failure, complaining, and simply uninformative context? Emotional dialogue lends voters to turn away from voting because it fails to provide firm answers, and aids in avoiding the facts behind a certain platform or politician.

In this case, voter dissuasion is a product of discontent with how politicians and current leaders are portrayed on all sides as baseless, incongruous, and failing to meet society's needs. A society of voters needs to embrace political leaders, and by being provided a public image through the disintegrated lens of popular mass media, it is fair to say, that this relationship never comes to its fruition. It may be possible that by portraying political leaders in a sensational light, that presents negativity and apathy towards public servants, the voter feels, in a sense, betrayed, and instinctively turns away from participating in realm of politics, especially voting. It's like being a bystander in a room full of arguing people. Who would want to participate in something of that nature? If individuals weigh in the current political sphere, it is a horrendous two-party system in which one side is constantly criticizing the other, and policies take a back seat to sensationalized bickering, puritanical morality hunts, and self-fulfilling character jostling. Voters grow weary of this inane behavior, especially when the source of it is supposed to be leading by example, and not distracting the public with irrelevant communications. The voters are seeking solutions to social problems, not elaboration on faults.

Take for instance Robert Reich's recent article (http://robertreich.org/post/1285369087) on the Democrats building up blame upon China concerning the reasons for economic fallout in the U.S. and its assumed cause of high unemployment domestically. What the politicians are beginning to do is tout a platform of fear and anger against China, as a means to grasping more votes come this November, conveniently only a month away. Mr. Reich states that in no way are the Chinese responsible for the high rate of unemployment in the U.S., and that the politicians that are using this type of rhetoric, are simply utilizing an external component of politics to place the blame outside the realm of American society.  He goes on to state that the real cause of recession was that the middle class was no longer able to support the economy, after experiencing an inability to borrow. So, the true cause of the recession is internal, and closely linked to the failures of domestic financial institutions, and not foreign entities. This is geographically isolating the voting public from information about the true causes of the economic downturn, and it fosters emotions, in order to get the vote out against those politicians that support Chinese foreign policies in any form or manner. If the voters cannot assess the causes of their economic problems, because the information exists beyond the capacities of international citizens' rights, and therefore the focus of inequality, like Reich notes as being domestic, has now been placed out of the control of the voting citizen base, and placed upon a global insignificance.

American voters live within a democracy, but fail to vote like citizens of one. It is not a democracy if the larger number of voters are not turning out, due to varying forms of dissuasion (whether it be intentional or not). If the people of a democracy are not voting in large numbers, then reaching the identity of the majority is never grasped, and it would lead voters to question whether it is ever possible to have their greater voices heard in Washington D.C.. This factor in itself is a form of dissuasion, and shows that there is a tremendous underlying psychology at work against the American voters, where it is acceptable to have a smaller number of people voting, and therefore, successfully disguising the minority within a smaller collection of votes.

References:

1) Smith, C. (Sept 20, 2010). America Is a Joke; The worst of times for politics and media has been the best of times for The Daily Show's host--and unfortunately things are getting even funnier. New York, p.NA. Retrieved October 08, 2010, from General OneFile via Gale:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=orange_main

Just Leave: Liars in Office Not Wanted

Well they're at it again, the Bush administration has there thumb in yet another conspiratorial pie. The Associated Press reported today, that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan claims that the Bush administration went to any length to propagandize the efforts to go to war in Iraq. Now the popular media, instead of questioning the administration, instead sweeps it's short nets out to grab some Bush political insiders to downplay McClellan, in not only his claims, but also his character. I mean, really people, who would sit down to write a book in order to destroy their character, and what publisher in his ir her right mind would publish such garbage.
It's an utter outrage that the Bush administration can walk away from so much controversy, and not only have nothing to say about it, but go out and deface everyone who's against their policies, immoralities, and corrupt agendas. Writing a book is not easy, and writing a book about the corrupt behaviors of one of the most powerful men in the world is no laughable matter. Yes, most people would claim that it's political insanity/suicide to do so, but McClellan really doesn't have much to lose. Did Bush forget that Mr. McClellan jumped the administration's ship, resigning as press secretary back in Bush's midterm race. He left the Bush administration. Ask yourself why anyone would leave such a prestigious position, when there were no fingers pointed at him, and he wasn't involved in any scapegoat plot. Yet to this day 5 years later we still don't know why he left. Maybe we'll find out in the book. Wait, I know why! He left because he realized that as long as he worked for a war mongering liar of an administration, he could not sleep at night, nor live with his lies to the public. He was the mouth of the president to the press and the public. That's a lot of people to relate a lot of lies and propaganda to.
McClellan was the press secretary who had to deal with the question of whether Lewis Scooter Libby and cohorts (including Cheney and Rove), exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Every time this question was put forth, the secretary and staff agreed not to discuss it further. That was his job to discuss it with the press, not for the president's staff to block that transaction.
I applaud McClellan for putting forth this information; a true firsthand account of who the real president is, a liar and a thief of American freedom. Fear lies at the root of Bush's campaign for freedom. Fear of terrorists, and death. What is so free about that, and what does any of my freedom have to do with a bunch of in-fighting extremists of whom I never hear about or see, or feel threatened.
Today, I then discovered that CNN's Jessica Yellin, reported (here also) to have experienced pressure from her executives at ABC News and MSNBC to promote press that would boost Bush's approval rating, and support the argument to go to war with Iraq, even though, in her words, she was reporting things contra to what her executives were pushing for, and that she was not allowed to publish anything that was against the Iraq war, and slandered Bush's political reputation. This goes beyond propaganda, and says to any person in their right mind, that corporate media executives have an underlying agenda to scam the American public. Even if they aren't linked to Bush's media monster, they still have been associated with his policies of persuasion through controlling the free press. Not every single news network in the country could possibly propagandize in favor of Bush's policies just as a favor.
Also worth noting is McClellan's interview today on the Today show, where Katie Couric kept asking him repeatedly, why the book was released now, one week before it's planned release. His response was atrocoius and yet another right-wing plant to destabilize the Democratic candidate Barack Obama. In summary McClellan responded to the question stating that he wanted people to learn from prior historical mistakes, and then he went on to compare Bush's entrance to the White House was representative of Obama's platform of change. He said, that Bush had the intentions of change, but instead was swayed by the political whirlwind of Washington. Sound like old GOP bridges never burn, and this book release is yet another GOP undermining of what the people really want in this country. Don't tell us what we want, give us what we need, and get out of office, Bush!