That is a flawed reasoning. Campaign donations and revolving doors are the plague of democracy. Politicians are here to work for us and to listen to us - they are supposed to be our servants, with all due dignity and respect.
Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the democracy direct, and the system work for us. And so will we.
Your point is intriguing (addressing only your first two lines). I would say that special interest groups are not defined by how broadly the general population agrees their opinion (therefore, both entertainment conglomerate and internet conglomerate would count). Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc.
On the other hand, this week, you had a special interest group achieving its goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
> Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc.
You mean like AARP?
> When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
Some supporting evidence would be nice.
Here's a question - which side of the obamacare debate was "special interests"?
Good point. While there is such a thing as the "general interest," what it is is contested by definition. Also it is often quite difficult to figure out with enough detail to produce action. So it is unsurprising that special interests, who by definition are more organized and informed on the topic, tend to dominate public and political discussion.
Hence the way to political power is to become part of a more powerful special interest coalition. (And by extension, the bigger and more powerful the coalition, the more right it has to speak for the general interest, as well.) In this case, I think the optimism of the Jan 18th actions is well placed. "Netizens" as a whole are extremely diverse, but there are definitely issues which can form a coalition, and it is absolutely crucial that this coalition be recognized as powerful, well-organized, possessed of deliberate and well-connected leadership, and deadly willing to play in heavy contact mode for its beliefs and priorities.
It feels more to me that the reason for the change was due to true grassroots support - not an industry special interest group. Wikipedia highlighted the problem to "ordinary" users and they trusted that Wikipedia was more on their side than movie studios.
Does anyone remember when the NRA was one of the most feared special interest groups? It used to be that if a representative crossed them they would have a tough election fight next time. It seems like "the internet" should flex it's muscles and fight against Lamar Smith's re-election. Getting him kicked out would get some attention.
Indeed. I would argue that the state of campaign finance is such that only special interest groups have the influence required with congress to pass or kill anything. When 100% of your time is dedicated to raising money, you only ever talk to the people who provide that money - for better or worse. Representatives need not be in the pocket of industry shills for campaign finance to be a problem, there's simply nobody else around for them to talk to.
Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the democracy direct, and the system work for us. And so will we.