The Internet and the Anti-War Movement: The Jury is Out

The very fact that you are reading this blog means that at some level, I have faith in the power of the internet to affect positive change. But lately I am beginning to question this belief. In North America, internet penetration approaches 70 %. But maybe this very fact is partially to blame for the lack of concrete citizen action in areas of global importance, such as the war in Iraq.

How on earth, in this incredibly informed and interconnected world can we still put up with the Bush administration calling the shots? The internet is awash with sites outlining the high crimes and misdemeanours of this administration. There is even a book on the topic written by former Nixon White House counsel John Dean of Watergate infamy. Dean spent four months in prison for his role in the Watergate cover-up, so he ought to know a thing or two about corruption and high crime. The fact that there have been no impeachment proceedings launched in the United States, a country built upon the rule of law, speaks volumes about the current political culture. But more to the point it says something about *virtual* power -- or lack thereof.

The web is a great information gathering system, but it sucks at getting people to actually do something with all this knowledge. Fear, of course, is a great motivator to do the following: Keep your mouth shut and mind your keystrokes. According to the OpenNet Initiative, "With respect to online surveillance, the United States may be among the most aggressive states in the world in terms of listening to online conversations." Rebels take note: it is a fact that they are not just listening to Jihadists.

Just because bloggers and internet junkies find the time to write and do research on the internet, not everybody does. Nor do they care to. For most people, computers are a way to forward silly emails to their friends, play games, plan a trip, download music...oh, and let's not forget the all pervasive perusing of porn. Have I missed anything? Check your Inbox. Believe it.

But even if the internet is the new “majority media” there are plenty of sites out there that make the mainstream media look downright sane. There are legions of people who loyally read neo-con and racist blogs. The only saving grace is that they are no more noticeable in the real world than anyone else. Their impact is felt mostly in their acquiescence to power.

Meanwhile, folks everywhere are still glued to CNN (or whatever TV networks in whichever country). The reasons for this are complex, but that’s the damn straight truth, and the advertising dollars tell the story.

What's more, there is an elitist tone, detectable among some lefties and libertarians as they preach to their converted flocks online. The assumption is that anyone who is anyone no longer watches the mainstream media. But the mainstream media, (which they call MSM and expect everyone to know what that stands for), is not all the same and it is not all bad (I say that as a bona fide media critic). Where I live there are some great programs on TV and radio, you just have to sift through the garbage, which is everywhere (but then that’s the way of the internet nowadays as well, perhaps even more so).

Nevertheless, possessing information on government corruption, lies and hidden agendas is apparently not enough to make people act decisively and collectively. The recent resignation of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan tells the story. Writing about her son Casey, whose death in Iraq galvanized her into a life of real anti-war activism, she states:

Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

Is all this permeative multi-media--TV, radio, video games, phones with ring tones, downloadable music (which I love), and yes, the blogosphere -- actually a vast, luxurious distraction for us First-Worlders? Even those times when we are getting a good dose of important, inspiring media, our failure to act upon such information means we are really just amusing ourselves--or more likely, others--to death, in some cases quite literally. There's no shortage of hunting and gathering going on. But to what end?

Part of the problem is that it is impossible to be doing two things at the same time.

Occupying real, physical space and taking real action to challenge systems of propaganda, coercion and illegitimacy is more difficult than *virtually* doing it from the confines of one's bedroom.

The old Russian socialist query: "What is to be done?" rings as true today as ever. Strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, massive street demonstrations--yes these are old-fashioned, but they may stand a better chance of actually having an impact than what is happening in the wired, atomized world. They are also more risky and more public for those involved. In countries where the stakes are much higher, citizens appear to have no problem pouring into the streets, and at much greater personal risk. In North America, despite all the internet networking, it still takes months of organizing. Perhaps then, what is needed most, is courage. Courage to use the old methods as well as the new technology more effectively.

In the meantime, punditman says (with more than a touch of irony): *They* have got us right where they want us: seized up in cyberspace, gazing at our navels.