Greasemonkeying with Reality - Questions

Some thoughts on world views triggered by SF writer David Edelman's essay on greasemonkey scripts. These are FireFox browser extensions that change the content of web pages. One greasemonkey he wrote is called Brockify in a twisted homage to David Brock, the conservative to liberal media spinner. Brockify changes every use of "conservative" to "liberal" and vice versa. He is sure that greasemonkeying won't stop with the web. Relatively soon you will be able to alter your own phones or televisions to bleep or convert objectionable words. Later on you will be able to biochip yourself and run your own reality scripts. Greasemonkeying will bring all of the words you read, things you hear, and scenes you view into your own reality zone.

How much is this different than people self-selecting what they watch and listen to? The mass media has splintered and in discussing politics, for example, people don't even agree on facts, much less opinions. Their facts are repeated on their channels, yours on different ones. Your facts don't match the facts in the reality they are exposed to. People tune out opposing facts to minimize cognitive dissonance. This link shows another example of political dissonance and media self-censorship.

One way to break past the self-imposed realities is to dialogue and introduce well-supported facts combined with emotional appeals, to actually promote cognitive dissonance in people. The targets must fit in new facts that contradict old facts.

I try to do this. I also try to periodically balance my reading - to get material that contradicts what I now believe. In politics, creating cognitive dissonance is not a recommended way to get votes because people just tune you out if you contradict what they believe. Politicos should target the convertibles who don't have firmly held opinions. Dialogue can sometimes work but only over a long period of time if you have patience and put the facts in the target's frames.

In political rhetoric, ways of looking at facts that support a goal or world view are constantly provided - spin. Republicans have more people from the advertising world, advertising gurus and market researchers, and are better at spin. Religion uses its own frames and spin and the new GOP also draws on these experts.

Changes over time - Well over a hundred years ago the Republican Party was government, was the establishment, and held that position for decades. It took a world shattering event and mass disruption in people's lives, the Great Depression, for the Democratic Party to become the new establishment. After World War 2, a bipartisan consensus in national politics took hold and again lasted for decades. This was gradually eroded away mainly over two factors - foreign policy and increasingly conflicting world views. I call the world views authoritarianism and discipline versus libertarianism, consensus and nurturing.

Lewis Powell starting in the 70's began rebuilding a media and think tank infrastructure for the Republicans. During Reagan to Clinton we had continued bipartisan policies but increasingly partisan politics. A full authoritarian takeover under Bush II was enabled by the terrorist attack on 9/11. The environment for politics and policies of the preceding decades has undergone a new sea-change.

A change in the political environment should cause changes in politics. However many leaders of the Democratic Party still practice the corporate bipartisanship that had prevailed for decades. Nader in 2000 was half-right, both parties were simply the corporations offering Coke or Coke Light. He was half-wrong in that the parties differed greatly on their priorities.

NOW - The terrorist attacks on 9/11, the advances in personal communication technology, and full control of all branches of government and most media by the Republican Party have torn apart the Cold War Democratic-Republicanism. This has been brought in sharp focus due to the GOP's naked policy failures and their liberty and freedom threatening power grabs. Ironically, in a war espoused as for freedom and liberty they repeatedly restrict freedom and liberty. The GOP uses fear wrapped in the American flag as an election platform. Red and Blue now often seem like views on the rhetoric of freedom versus the reality of freedom. Too bad most of the Washington Democratic leadership and nearly all of the "conventional wisdom" media still wear the old purple shades.

Will greasemonkeying, either explicitly through software or self-directed through media selection, enable Red reality and a Blue reality to coexist with no real communication? Will old-fashioned purple-shaded politics make a comeback as some urge? The American election system doesn't support the rainbow shades of multi-party democracies. It is clear that a third party cannot effectively compete in the United States without political and electoral structural changes.

This ties in to Lakoff frame theories. Are the parties now split based on childhood rearing practices? If the Democrats are biased toward cooperation and consensus will consensus Democratic Blue victories result in purple policies? Will authoritarian Republican victories yield mainly red policies? The Republicans seem much more adapt now at playing majority plus one mandates, the calculus of consent, in their congressional battles.

Using the greasemonkey and shades metaphor, how do you change people's world views that will generate political changes? Are new spins, new words and new definitions of words, the only greasemonkey options? How do we create a better world?

Here in Texas, David Van Os believes you should throw out all the media spin doctors and political consultants. He campaigns on his simple direct forthright beliefs. His anti-corporate power message challenges both Red and Purple views. Many doubt he will get a majority of votes, this time. If he had a bigger megaphone, more media coverage, is this what a majority of Texas voters want? Are signs of growing rural support indicating his campaign is working? Is populism a real option given the corporate money that feeds campaigns? Even in Texas, where corporate donations are supposedly not permitted, populism dries up donations. Is the faux populism on the GOP, campaigns against liberal and media elites, a permanent feature? The Republican Party is now becoming the one split between the populists and the corporate powerful elitists. Populism, people favored over corporations, is probably now the largest bloc in the Democratic Party. The only pro-business Democratic platforms support new technology and small businesses. I agree with this, but how under a current system of corporate financing of elections can an anti-corporate majority get elected?

This is only a post about questions and one way of viewing the future. Let me know if this inspires any useful thoughts.

Tags: greasemonkeying, shades, politics, future