What the ‘internet class’ tells us about confidence in our systems

Degeneration in discourse reveals deep seated distrust

There is no doubt that there has been a degeneration in our level of political discourse. The ideologies that have safe guarded western democracies are being challenged from within and outside. The election of Trump has challenged the progressive trajectory of liberal democracy and has stumped most analysts. How did this happen? Is it the scourge of ‘populism’? Is it a resurgence of racism? Cataclysmic global events such as ISIS and the refugee crisis? There is no doubt that all have played a role, including the dark possibility that, perhaps, liberal democracies were not as liberal as we thought they were.

This turbulent context has given way to ideological clashes within liberal democratic states, the rise of fake news, and has also lead to a break down in our understanding of ‘free speech’ with accusations of its stifling through a general culture of political correctness.

The rise of the ‘Internet Class’

In conjunction with all of this, we have witnessed the rise of what I like to call the ‘internet class’. By the ‘internet class’ I do not mean those who engage in politics in online circles and the ‘echo chambers’ that come with them. Those are simply reflections of the changing nature of communication which make disagreements increasingly public than they were before the invention of online social networks. It’s still worth mentioning the dangers that come with such dynamics that range from divisive content pushed by foreign parties to radicalization.

The phenomenon I call the ‘internet class’ though, refers to those engaging in political debates and making interventions purely for the purpose of entertainment aka “trolling”.

Two examples jump out that highlight this phenomena. The first, is when internet users used flight paths to helped them track down, locate, and bring down a political art installation by Shia Labeouf. The other is the global dissemination of ‘It’s OK to be White’ stickers.

What brings these two events together is that they are both presented as non-political actions, rather, examples of the ability of people to come together and organize efficiently enough to accomplish seemingly impossible tasks, to the injury of no one, and the entertainment of those involved, both these actions were meant to make light of people who are overly excitable or involved in current political dynamics, or so we are supposed to believe.

Whether this is the true intention or not is besides the point. The acts are outwardly political and subversive in nature. The ‘It’s OK to be white’ subverts a serious discussion that needs to be had in the US about race relations and validates the view that these discussions are the shifting of the tides towards some sort of reverse-racism. As such it was adopted by right wing activists and plastered all over university campuses.

The art installation by Shia Labeouf was titled ‘he will not divide us’ and constituted of first, a live feed of a wall with those words that quickly became a gathering site for members of the far-right. With this, the art installation was changed to a flag with the same words in an undisclosed location. The flag was subsequently found and replaced with a Trump hat and t-shirt.

The fact that there are those out there who find the current political situation farcical should be no surprise, but that this is seen as an opportunity to organize pranks for the benefit of a select few, at the expense of many facing real life detriments, is indicative of something deeper than youthful callousness.

Cynicism and Trust

In 2015, before the start of the US primaries, a series of studies were pointing at a worrying trend. Democracy, in the US was becoming an outdated idea. In this study by a Harvard professor, trust in congress was down to 10% from more than 40% in the 1970’s. Less than 50% of Americans born in 1980 were interested in politics and the idea that it was essential to live in a democracy was also down to around 30% (compared to more than 70% of those born in the 1930's).

This becomes increasingly stark when the numbers are crunched according to income. About 40% of the top fifth earners in the US think a strong leader, not elections, is a better way to run the country.

A similar study by the Washington post in 2016 showed a similar trend. 40% of survey respondents said they had lost faith in US democracy.

In 2017, the US was downgraded to a 'flawed democracy' by the Economist Intelligence Unit siting information from PEW research.

The shocking results don’t stop there. PEW research from 2018 show that 39% of respondents say “voters are knowledgeable about candidates and issues” while 56% say they have little or no confidence in the political wisdom of the American people. 61% believe that significant changes are needed in the design and structure of government.

It’s true that this analysis is largely based on using the US as the primary example, but as the largest economy with the most prominent military presence, the US has been responsible for setting the global agenda in out uni-polar post-cold-war world.

Even if we were to look at the bigger picture, two graphs provide a clearer context around the world where a shocking low number of democracies are rated as ‘full democracies’, this in addition to the shifting mood around the effectiveness of military dictatorships paints a dark picture about the worlds trajectory.

Something to fall back on

It’s no surprise then, that under these circumstances, a ‘class’ of society that shows complete disregard to political engagement and discourse would rise to the top as the idea that the government is pretty much useless extends to the idea of political engagement.

Feelings of elitism and helplessness in the face of that elitism also rise. This makes it easier to imagine how strong men candidates like Trump in the US can easily gain power as a message of strength and unity is a much more attractive message, and one easier to craft, than one that can re-instill faith in the system as it is.

The question remains what caused this massive disconnect between people and their government? Much of the evidence around our current mode of distrust points to the financial crash of 2008, but the decline in trust has been happening since 1965, with ups and down till today but never recovering to what it was. In the US, this could be attributed to the increasingly interventionist and unconstructive and incohesive policies. The US has been jumping from one international war to the next, each with increasingly scrupulous reasons for engagement. It would be safe to say that many of the worlds shift in the direction of authoritarianism is a reactive one to this interventionism. Skepticism over international bodies of law fosters a cautious paranoia and pushed countries to act defensively instead of having a mind towards collaboration.

Younger democracies on the other hand, mostly those from the former Soviet Union, have also suffered some major challenges to social cohesion. Current challenges include the refugee crisis which was dealt with quite meagerly in the EU causing even more confusion. Of course the reality of violent attacks also doesn't help in maintaining open and trusting relations. Inward nationalism provides a handy fall back.

Tying it all together

It’s important for us to understand that the rise of the ‘internet class’ and whatever similar social dynamics that are unfolding are a result of a decline in trust which remains the core of our political problems today. As such, we should ignore these periphery results and focus on building solutions that rebuild trust in our institutions of government thus restoring social cohesion once more.