As the Populist Party of America grows in size, we are faced with some challenging obstacles and difficult decisions to make regarding the future of the Party: i.e., What type of structure should be given to the Populist Party of America? Should we strive for a strong national organization? Or, contrarily, should we stress decentralization, choosing to focus on the development of state and local parties without any overbearing emphasis placed upon the integration of the various pockets of Populist America into a monolithic formation? Thus far, I have been exposed to two contrasting visions for the future organization of the Party, as it continues to grow in size.

There is an argument that maintains the necessity of an organization to possess some kind of integrated structure, which would include members who would participate in planning and problem solving. This managerial core would contribute to the development of different actionable plans that could later be introduced to the membership at large, providing some options that have already been delineated, from which the membership might select to adopt and implement as a Party platform. This proposal calling for the Party to possess a kernel, consisting of more active members, who would be inclined to offer centralized planning for the Party as a whole, stands in stark opposition to the other conception for the appropriate structuring of the Party, as it continues to expand.

This proposed design for the Party - which stands in opposition to proposals for centralization - would not provide for an organization with a centralized nervous system. Alternatively, the Party would be allowed to proliferated along lateral dimensions while failing to create an integrated hierarchy of offices.

To relate this ideology of decentralized politic to contemporary sociological literature, the jargon that has come into fashion, as a result of the studies upon the Informational Economy, which were initiated by Manuel Castells, uses the reference, Networked Politics, to designate instances of decentralized patterns of political praxis.

This new form of political mobilization often transcends the geographical boundaries imposed by states and governments. Furthermore, Networked Politics are understood as a by-product of what has been termed by Castells as Informationalism, which simply designates the technological paradigm underlying the expansion of Internet communicative infrastructures. However, the type of sociopolitical opposition that is formed through the networking of diverse agents and groups via the communication channels provided for by the Web - despite the transnational character of these network configurations - fails to negate the embodiment of geographical locality and the coalescence of interests among advocates who reside in physical proximity to one another; thus, allowing for embodied interaction.

This condition, where localized concerns are situated and understood in the context of larger geo-economic and geopolitical social forces, has been referenced under the neologism, glocalization. This concept fits in well with the social theoretical framework that has been introduced by Castells, who discards with the global democracy thesis propounded by Habermas and Rorty - which was founded upon the notion of a cosmopolitan culture - in favor of an understanding of the globalizing trends, facilitated by Informationalism, where multiculturalism will be preserved; only such cultural differences will become circumspect within a global forum of manifold cultural identities, who will participate in a world representational space in order to express their uniqueness as well as discover the peculiar attributes of others.

It is here, in the conception of glocalization, that I propose as a guiding post serving as an indication for the appropriate trajectory in which Populist America should transverse, as the Party enters into its future stages of development, as it continues to grow larger.

[Future installment: the concretization of glocalization in the praxes of Populist America]

Russell Cole

Tags: centralization, communications, community, decentralization, Global, government, National, politics, populist party, populist party america, Populist Party organizational structure, Social Change, society, third parties
Categories: Commentary, National, Global, Society, Populist Party, government, Decentralization, Politics, Third Parties, Social Change
No Comments »

I have been a member of an organization for several months now, which operates on a national basis and performs the task of assessing the accuracy of journalistic content delivered over sources of mass media, such as newspapers, television, and radio, called Media Matters, which can be found at the following URI:

http://mediamatters.org/

I suppose this organization does a valuable service by rendering those who distort information accountable for their dissimulations. However, more fundamentally, I wonder: Does traditionally mass media matter, in the sense that it is something that should be the target of activist resources implemented for the purpose of making these corporate institutions who monopolize, currently, sources of mass communications and the discourse they distribute more accurate and non-partisan?

As empirical research repeatedly demonstrates, the content distributed through mass media that pertains to sectors of American society is - more often than not - supportive of conservative views. This, of course, is at odds with the political ideologies possessed with the majority of journalists who - according to the survey research that is conducted - possess leftist political leanings. Nevertheless, the actual products of their work, that make it through the corporate establishments responsible for rendering the news, are often endorsements of conservative policies; especially with respect to the economy and the proffered descriptions concerning the health of the economy; reports of which often only integrate into the analyses indexes that reflect the state of the economy for investors while neglecting to include aspects of the economy relevant to laborers, such as wage growth; or, contrarily, wage stagnation, which happened to be an aspect of the economy stretching back to the 1990’s that was, more times than not, omitted from reports and analyses introduced by sources of journalism.

Conservative elements in society have for quite some time complained that journalism in this country was liberally biased. In their self proclaimed effort to counteract this ideological slant, they have created institutions serving as media outlets, which are decidedly conservative, despite their professed devotion to the dissemination of journalism that is, ‘fair and balanced.’ In fact, for many of us, who suffered through the prelude to the war with Iraq, the conservative slant to journalism prevalent in mass media has become a matter that is increasingly noticeable and, even, vexing to the point of agitation.

Consequently, advocates for more responsible journalism - which fails to bow down to those in power; or ceases to understand itself, and operate accordingly, in a modality that reflects a particular sociopolitical ideology’s interests by reverberating talking points and other forms of communications that qualify as propaganda; certainly not journalism. Subsequently, major national affiliations, such as Media Matters, have been created by the Left in opposition to the present state of journalism, which seems to be increasingly the conduits for press releases by conservative institutions in society.

However, returning to the question originally posed in this brief essay - does media matter? - I have to question whether these types of strategies oriented toward affecting the corporate institutions responsible for the dissimulation of conservatively slanted journalism - in some instances, blatant propaganda - is the best use of resources. We, here, at the Populist Party of America have taken a different route toward publicizing our cause - differing from other groups that attempt to reform and penetrate through corporate mass media - that effectively bypasses the traditional institutions that serve as clearing houses for descriptions of sociopolitical reality permitted to be distributed through devices of mass communications. In fact, we have been doing it to some degree of success, as our Internet based forms of content distribution are growing rapidly and now bordering upon the quantity of audience members and contributors - a role that we attempt to encourage among all of our audience members in a strategy that has embraced Web 2.0 and social media - that rivals more mainstream sources of information and editorial.

Therefore, reflecting upon the success that has been garnered by Populist America’s refusal to submit to the authority of the traditional brokers of media space - spaces which would never have offered any coverage for our political sentiments with which to begin - we have cultivated an audience, whom we hope to make contributors, through opportunities to publish and distribute their thoughts concerning social and political events and issues; (after all, in a democracy we should all see our selves as participants, not merely consumers).

So, I suppose, in response to the question; does media matter? the following answer is best suited: It only assumes significance if you make it matter by continuing to treat it as though it has legitimacy and supremacy over all other forms of communications. However, if you attempt to make your own media matter, then - in this age of limitless potential for publicity, ushered in by the expansion of the Internet - you can acquire an audience despite your refusal to submit to the old guard of communicative forms that are quickly becoming obsolescent, anyway.

Russell Cole [send him email]

Tags: communications, Internet, journalism, mainstream media, media, media matters, Net Neutrality, politics, populist party, power, Russell Coles Blog, Social Change, society, web 2.0
Categories: Commentary, Society, Populist Party, Russell Cole's Blog, Web 2.0, Power, Politics, Net Neutrality, Social Change, Media, journalism
2 Comments »