Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The American contraction

The ideologization of the American political debate —what makes it worse— may have start with Bill Clinton; setting a pattern, where middle class enrich with political practices, providing them a moral justification.  Until then, rhetoric was important, but in the United States it shied away from the ideological fields;  to the point that politicians of both parties always had been interchangeable, and even retained the ability —better among Republicans— to vote outside the party lines.
The authoritarian tradition, moreover, is no stranger to the Democratic liberalism; which being unable to align all its members, subordinate them in a system of superdelegates;  whereby the elite party no longer needs consensus to elect new members to governmental positions, turning away from its popular base. This problem could be the root of the political debacle of the 2016 elections, with the imposition of Hillary Clinton's candidacy; in which they not only lost the presidency but also sufficient legislative seats, leaving the Republicans to govern almost alone.
In this context, the figure of President Donald Trump is rather erratic and casual, profiting from the democratic debacle;  no only winning the presidency for the republicans, when their own tendency is towards the democratic liberalism. What is not understood here is that this disaster was caused by the excess of the democratic liberalism, which is not even traditional anymore; activating in their incontinence and arrogance, that reserve of evangelical traditionalism, which acts compulsively on the defensive.
The list of horrors from that evangelical extremism is broad and burdensome, covering all the aspects of the political spectrum; from health to tax code, as an inevitable defeat in an ideological confrontation. Ideological contradictions are not rational, it works as religious doctrines, and are only solved with war;  the unwillingness of Americans to fall into that kind of conflict, demonstrates that this culture developed by Democrats has not roots on the country, although wielded as a moral blackmail. In any case, this destruction of the Republican Party in the power means just a contraction in the development of the country’s political culture;  but that setback can be reversed at some point, no matter how far it has come.
What would not be reversible is the state of dystopia that the Democratic elite would have imposed with Hillary Clinton;  starting with Obama's health mandate, which did not solve the serious problem of the health system, and actually was a concession to insurers.  That same problem of Obama's health mandate, illuminate the other of governmental authoritarianism; which instead to set a real measures, simply impose its authority over the population, taken its sovereignty, and making its own mistakes as moral dogmas.
But that is not the only nor the most important problem, outside this revelation of the compulsory character of their actions; worse yet and more serious would be the populist culture, ruled by media barons like Facebook, Google or Amazon;  that depending on regulatory subtleties such as the so-called net neutrality, hijacks the entire network of the national market, at almost monopolistic levels. As an example, it is thanks to that popular measure that Adobe binds its customers in a subscription, as is trying Amazon; at the same time, it gradually homogenizes collective thinking, with addictive and superfluous services such as those of social networks.
It should draw attention the peculiarity that none of these services have a policy or culture of costumer services;  a characteristic developed even by the big corporations of liberal affiliation, to apologize with simple formulas for the problems they cause to their clients.  This kind of management of internet was even what allowed Obama to draw attention of the party leadership;  imposing himself over Hillary Clinton, for his charisma and youth, but making it clear that he would correctly fulfill her functions, instead of the change he proposed to the public.
Trump administration will pass, and perhaps left the country in worse status that it had when he assumed;  but none of that is unrecoverable, and perhaps even promote a popular revolt within the Democratic Party against its elitism.  Better still, it may get such a development of political practices, that the bipartisan system is overcome by a truly plural one;  for it must be admitted that even this desideologized calm of interchangeable politicians only leads to the creation of a cynical elite with its very own interests. 

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Net neutrality? (english version)

Internet regulation as a public service has returned to the fore, but it does not seem that the current state undergoes modifications; it is a tension between two modes of economy, with their respective principles, and one does not manage to overcome the other. The problem would be in the popularity of the service, that drives the new economy, of electronic base but equally determined by the consumption; so that regulation of the service as private rather than public, would eliminate a large sector of consumers. That explains that conglomerates that depend on this consumption base, such as Google or Amazon, fight the treatment of the service as strictly private; since that would grant greater authority to direct suppliers, and decrease the public, discriminating with the escalation of prices.
Curiously, the arguments here are above all moral, although they point to practical problems; as is the case for the access to information and consequently sprayed, which would be controllable by the various interests at stake, especially politicians. This argument is spurious, because the information has always been manipulated; and not only because of the dark government agencies that supposedly threaten all individual freedom —as if they held real power— but by the same private agencies that originate them, with their interpretation of the facts.
Of course, anyone who wants knows that the government only manages the interests of the elites who support them; and worse, that these are economic, extending their influence across the political spectrum, which is thus subordinated, no matter the discourse. In that sense, paradoxical as it may seem, the deregulation of the Internet would have a beneficial effect both politically and economically; since it would slow down the development, allowing the horizontal extension of the economic structures, now totally subordinated to the big conglomerates. Really, technological accessibility is only a fantasy bubble, which chains people to frantic consumption through the exaltation of the ego; which makes them weaker and manipulable at individual level, resulting in their greater subordination to immediate and mediocre interests such as the feeling of success.
Still, this natural (economic) restriction of media power would return to the press the initial preponderance in news moderation; that although not more reliable —it never was— would return to have a professional character, and probably more careful, given the experience that took her previous arrogance. In any case, none of this is likely to happen, because the weight of commercial conglomerates is stronger than that of the companies that supply the service; but with what this factor of the purchasing power is lost as an incorruptible regulator of social development, keeping us in the mediocrity of the sensation of success ... which is what makes the service so popular.

Net neutrality?

Ha vuelto a la palestra la regulación de internet como un servicio público, pero no parece que el estado actual sufra modificaciones; se trata de una tensión entre dos modos de economía, con sus respectivos principios, y uno no consigue sobreponerse al otro. El problema estaría en la popularidad del servicio, que impulsa la nueva economía, de base electrónica pero igual determinada por el consumo; de modo que la regulación del servicio como privado antes que público, eliminaría un amplio sector de consumidores. Eso explica que conglomerados que dependen de esta base de consumo, como Google o Amazon, combatan el tratamiento del servicio como estrictamente privado; ya que eso otorgaría mayor autoridad a los proveedores directos, y disminuiría el público, discriminando con el escalamiento de precios. 
Curiosamente, los argumentos que se esgrimen en este sentido son sobre todo morales, aunque apunten a problemas prácticos; como es el caso del acceso a la información y su consiguiente difuminación, que serían controlables por los diversos intereses en juego, sobre todo políticos. En realidad, este argumento es espurio, pues la información siempre ha sido manipulada; y no sólo por las tenebrosas agencias gubernamentales que supuestamente amenazan toda libertad individual —como si estas detentaran el poder real— sino por las mismas agencias privadas que las originan, con su interpretación de los hechos. 
Por supuesto, cualquiera que quiera sabe que el gobierno sólo administra los intereses de las élites que los sostienen; y peor aún, que estas son económicas, extendiendo su influencia por todo el espectro político, que así le queda subordinado. En ese sentido, por paradójico que parezca, la desregulación de la internet tendría un efecto beneficioso tanto política como económicamente; ya que ralentizaría el desarrollo, permitiendo la extensión horizontal de las estructuras económicas, ahora totalmente subordinadas a los grandes conglomerados. En realidad, la accesibilidad tecnológica es sólo una burbuja de fantasía, que encadena a las personas al consumo frenético por medio de la exaltación del ego; lo que las hace más débiles y manipulables a nivel individual, redundando en su mayor subordinación a intereses inmediatos y mediocres como la sensación de éxito. 
Aún, esta restricción natural (económica) del poder mediático devolvería a la prensa la preponderancia inicial en la moderación noticiosa; que aunque no más fiable —nunca lo fue— volvería a tener un carácter profesional, y probablemente más cuidadoso, dada la experiencia a la que la llevó su arrogancia anterior. En cualquier caso, nada de esto es probable que pase, pues el peso de los conglomerados comerciales es más fuerte que el de las compañías proveedoras del servicio; pero con lo que se pierde este factor del poder adquisitivo como regulador insobornable del desarrollo social, manteniéndonos en la mediocridad de la sensación de éxito… que es lo que hace tan popular el servicio.