The revolution may be happening without anyone noticing.
The modern
coup d'etat need be neither bloody nor particularly overt. The technological revolution has, quite frankly, modernized the revolution. Perhaps the most poignant (and recent) example occurred in the
Phillipines, when hundreds of thousands of protesters, prompted by a series of mass text messages sent to their cell phones, converged on the ESDA Shrine to protest, and remove from power, President Joseph Estrada.
Instant communication, here in the United States, has begun to revolutionize how political wars are waged. This very blog to which we Kossians write is a prime example. Grassroots movements have become more widespread, the "root" network being able to talk more effectively. Support for Howard Dean found its beginnings in the internet, as did the "Draft Clark" movement.
For every revolution, however, there is a counter-revolution. Republicans, and conservatives in general, have begun to strike back with their own initiatives to use technology to their advantage. The fundamental difference lies in that Democrats have largely used technology to spread ideas, while Republicans have largely appropriated control of technology to staunch that flow.
Republicans undoubtedly have control over the AM band of the radio dial, and are exerting influence over the FM band as well. Now, radio is by no means a new technology, but, even in this day and age, no other form of communication holds so vast a captive audience. Millions of American commuters tune into the radio to hear the afternoon traffic report and stay tuned in after that report is over to listen to the news, brought to you by commentators with a conservative bias. Efforts by Republicans to change the rules of media ownership would have caused even fewer opinions to have been heard.
Another area which they are trying to control is television, much in the same manner. FOX News Channel had the highest ratings during Gulf War II. One also cannot discount the control being exacted over the daily papers, which are still a primary source of news for many people. The companies with a controlling interest in a newspaper more and more have loyalty to the conservative agenda, making that paper less likely to bite the hand that feeds it.
One can also argue that there are more insidious forces at work. The Total Information Awareness Act had (and has) many concerned about their freedom to disseminate information via the Internet. Diebold's infamous touch-screen voting machines have become the target of those concerned about stolen elections and partisan control of the ballot counting.
Yes, the modern revolution may be happening right before our very blinded eyes. The candidate whom we Democrats put forward should acknowledge technology's positive influence in conveying ideas and its uses in promoting participatory democracy, and should take measures to insure that influence is not turned into a negative one by those who would quash opinions other than their own. A light should be shown on those potentially sinister movements, least that light be taken away.