Welcome to Open Source Politics

Last night saw a fantastic shift in the direction of politics with the introduction of a debate involving questions posted on YouTube which meant that for the first time, at least in outward appearance, the country's true questions were answered. The magnitude of this debate is great in that it was the first political debate on a large, nationally televised stage that encouraged the active involvement of common people in the shaping of political policy and the priorities of issues in the coming election.

The irony of course is the fact that it has been quite some time since we've seen such a public display of, well...democracy.

So with the facilitation of such a debate generating a buzz among my peers and I about the concept that the candidates in the coming elections are taking relatively unedited, difficult, and relevant questions on the issues that the public truly cares about, what's next? Obviously, if we entertained every single whim of every joe blow with a microphone and a webcam, the government would become a confusing and disjointed place.

Like Linux?

For those who have never heard about it, Linux is an open-source operating system, which means that as the operating system develops, it does so by the work of anyone who wants to pick up the program and edit it. The concept is that by the collective work on applications and the core code of the Linux operating system, we will end up with a desktop environment that tailors to the true needs of the people who use it: anyone who touches a computer. This means that everyone can take part in shaping their computing future.

Yes, I'm a geek.

As a user of Ubuntu, which is a "flavor" or specific version of Linux, I enjoyed my short trip down an exciting new path in computers. My only complaints with Linux were these:

1. The programs seemed unvarnished. Not as "pretty" as other programs that I had used and so I had a harder time accepting them as quality.
   
2. The support for different filetypes was limited and there was no "one size fits all" program to take care of the problem. This meant searching far and wide for a myriad of software that perhaps clashed with one another.
3. Sometimes the programs I used were singular in that they only worked as long as no other manipulation had occured with the core of the operating system. The programmers sometimes seemed to disregard the universality of the open-source system.

My overall impression was that, though the concept was great that people could have open access to programs and edit them as they pleased, there was no universal standard to govern the programs and make sure that they all worked.

The idea that a universal body needs to exist for individual projects to work cohesively exists in the government of course. Bureaucracies have been formed to iron out the problems, but because of the paperwork and gap-bridging that has to occur for policies to work together, the government can often be slow and cumbersome.

Like Windows?

Windows uses a number of programs that help do just that. Should a program conflict with some component of the operating system, Windows uses several programs that take resources to operate and smooth out the inconsistencies, therefore slowing down the computer.

So where's the balance?

The people that want to create policy in this country have to go through the appropriate channels, and by the time that this all gets funneled into a legislative body, the originally proposed concept may be a far cry from its manifestation on the senate floor. Unfortunately, the people who wish to make change often feel that they have to know the right people (acquire the right licenses), know the code (somehow scrape together enough knowledge of the system to even write a policy), and then try to sell it with pretty packaging.

Let's face it, the system is imperfect and it is absurd to think that it could ever be perfect. But last night, at least for a couple of hours, the tools were given to people to start shaping policy:

1. Questions were asked, unedited, through open submission in a public forum
2. Ideas were presented to candidates so that they can begin writing the "code"
3. The candidates were able to take the suggested idea and translate it into the language of public policy with the eloquence that can help sell the idea
4. The translation took place on a very public stage an in broad viewing of public scrutiny to ensure that the questions were answered
   
5. The whole process was done with the concept that democracy embodies: that the collective thoughts of the public can help create the best America possible

The new age of politics is an exciting one and it seems historically ironic that it should begin now with the open-source movement and the advent of massive social networks like digg.com, YouTube, and Facebook. Ultimately, the beauty of a project like Linux is that through the mass involvement of users, the programs will be released that help deal with these problems. Hopefully, as candidates open their minds to wide acceptance of public interest, instead of licensing conflicts, the idea conceptualized by the constitution will become a reality. The government should never compromise a degree of bureaucracy that streamlines the process, but the true realization of government will only occur when the tools to create policy are made open to the public as they were during last night's CNN debate.

We can hope that this is only the beginning.

The Up-and-Coming Generation Needs Help Taking Down the Roadblocks

The most difficult part about paying attention to the political-sphere is the feeling of hopelessness that can sometimes accompany knowing just how inexorable the system can be. Goodness knows with the "big six" in charge of nearly all forms of popular and "credible" media, it seems like even the voices of people who wish to make a difference have little opportunity to make the mainstream unless the procurer of said voice is some kind of well-connected prodigy of thought.

I personally don't know how people like Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, Tom Vilsack, or John Edwards got into the positions they did where their voice is respected, listened to, and even welcomed, but as a product of the Millenial generation, I'd like to figure out their methods and publish them to my peers since our voices are the ones that need to be heard in this dialogue.

As we sit in the classrooms and read our textbooks, we know that we're their for one reason, to get a better job. Certainly our dreams are forever whispering in our ears, but they frequently pale in the shadow of larger realities like the concept that, though we aspire to it, we individually may not be the ones to revolutionize medicine, journalism, or even our local communities for that matter. While in high school, our fears were of things like social ostracism, I think that the prevailing fear of college students across the nation is the fear of obscurity.

You see, we get degrees, we hit the polls, and we attend protests because the feeling we get of making that personal contribution to a cause that's important to us gives us hope that we too may someday be heard on national television, published in a national newspaper, or elected to national office. In light of ranting, ego-centric pundits and personal Washington agendas on both sides of the political aisle, it becomes increasingly difficult for my generation to see the silver lining in the clouds.

Yet when you consider that the national docket has all but written us out due to low voter turnout, "prevailing apathy", and a supposed disregard by my peers and I toward the important things in life, perhaps the real issue is that the voices of the potentially obscure, are the ones that journalists, talking heads, and especially politicians should be digging for but aren't. This is because, despite a growing feeling of cynicism and reality among those my age, we still believe in the altruistic ideals preached from the highest pulpits of science and philosophy that our opinions can be frequently uplifting, inspiring, and needed in a country that so badly needs a pick-me-up these days. Our aims are often high and our dreams are often lofty, but to borrow a page from Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, the only way to achieve high goals is to aim idealistically and, by such means, achieve highly.

Fortunately, politicians like Barack Obama have begun to tap into the youth culture and conduct that survey of America's future movers and shakers that is so badly needed through My Barack Obama.com. Similarly, John Edwards has begun a similar system of social networking, clearly designed to connect with the nations 18-28 year olds on the networking portion of his website as well as John McCain, something that neither Rudy Giuliani nor Hillary Clinton have done.

So our opinions may be considered under-developed. Then inform us! Give us news through our channels that we can relate to and tap into. Otherwise, believe me, we'll make it ourselves, whether by blog or by social networking website, we're ready to make a difference if you'll just give us the chance.