Isn't the central government growing bigger and more powerful particularly in modern technological societies such as the U.S.?

As information decentralizes the relative power of governments decline. As communication grows more powerful people grow more powerful —governments lose power.

In a communication-intensive environment government leaders are more exposed to public scrutiny and censure than ever. More vulnerable to public pressure.

This is particularly evident in telespheral societies such as the United States where the government increasingly reacts to pressures for change that build up outside the political arena.

Since the early 1960s the most profound transformations in the United States have been spearheaded and sustained by people outside govern­ment. For example the civil rights movement—the women's move­ment—the sexual liberation—the consumer crusade—the biological revolution—the environmental movement—the leisure ethic—the workers' participation movement—the peace movement.

These and other movements have generated vast social—economic —political changes.

No less noteworthy is the fact that these upheavals unfolded during successive conservative administrations of the 1970s and the 1980s that were largely opposed to these movements. The point here is that government no longer always sets the pace and is less and less effective in stopping or slowing down the massive recontextings going on everywhere.

Those who still look to government as the principal driving force for progress do not understand the new realities of postindustrial society.

There have been no "strong leaders" in the United States (and West European countries) in recent decades mainly because the decentralized environment is not hospitable to "strong leaderships."

The U.S. presidency may be more visible than ever and there may be more pomp and pageantry surrounding it. But this must not be confused with power.

The American presidency is slowly evolving into a ceremonial position—like the monarchies in West European countries. By the sec­ond or third decade of the new century presidential elections in the U.S. will probably have about as much significance as today's Academy Awards. Thanks to national television presidential elections will prob­ably grow more glitzy—but they will have less and less substance.

In fact national elections in the U.S. and other technologically ad­vanced nations are already less and less reflective of the ideological mood of the country.

The long-range direction is toward electronic democracy: public opin­ion polls—referendums—"direct legislation" via ballots and propo­sitions. In other words voting on issues—not for individuals. (For more on this please see Monitor 20: Ideology. Also my book: Telespheres.)

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 789