Friday 6 May 2016

Small Government

I find it very fitting when right wing politicians advocate having small governments. With people like them in the government, it is only fair that it has as small an influence as possible. But they do not actually mean a *small* government in every aspect - social and economic. They are hypocrites who want a *big* government when it comes to social issues like religion, culture, freedom of expression, women's health, and even fueling religious prejudices. The people who actually want a small government in the social as well as the economic sense are Libertarians. Therefore, to do justice to the title of my blog post, I will talk about Libertarians for the rest of the post. 

I have never mentioned Libertarians in this blog site before as I did not meet any of them personally before I came to the US. Libertarianism is a significantly big moment in the US compared to India. I personally know two Libertarians now. I may have a smallish sample size, but I think I have got a decent assessment of them based on interacting with them, and the links they share on their Facebook feed.

For a liberal centrist like me, who is disturbed by the hate-mongering of Right Wingers and by the petty whining of Marxists, Libertarians disturb me in a very unique way. While interacting with them, I feel like a single parent having to take care of an adolescent kid. At that age, kids are able to make coherent arguments, but have not yet attained the maturity to realize that they may not always get what they want in life if it comes at the expense of others. For example, if they play really loud music and the neighbor complains, then they think that the neighbor is the bad guy impinging on their freedom to play loud music. This is because when they are hitting puberty, it is hard for them to think about anyone else except themselves. The concept of living in a society where other people's comfort and well-being also matters is alien to them. Eventually most kids outgrow that phase when they hit their early twenties and create an empathetic view of the world around them. Somehow Libertarians never outgrow puberty and that is what disturbs me.

Considering that Libertarians have liberal social values and conservative business values, they have two choices in a country like USA where none of the main two parties are Libertarian. They can join with the 'liberal' Democrats or with the conservative Republicans (I have put quotes for liberal while describing Democrats because I have realized that they are not that *liberal*, but more on that later). However, they always somehow root for the Republicans. Libertarians like Rand Paul and Ron Paul run for President through a Republican ticket. The fact that they rate the liberty of business over social liberties makes me like Libertarians much less. 

Speaking of liking Libertarians, liberal centrists like me ABHOR, DETEST, and HATE Ayn Rand. She extols selfishness as a virtue. That is why right wingers love her even though she opposes them on social issues. The way right wingers work is that they usually hide behind things like religion, tradition, and culture to do bad things because they are somehow morally justified. The reason they love Rand is because she gives them one more direct reason to be jerks! That reason is selfishness. If selfishness becomes your moral virtue, it is really easy to disregard the social well-being of those around you to do what you want! A minimal government idealized by the Libertarians will have no power to protect the underprivileged from the excesses of the selfish privileged. The counter-argument of a big government itself harming the underprivileged while choking the aspirations of the privileged is also valid. We do not have a perfect solution, so we need to balance between the two concepts until we find a perfect solution. Having absolutist views based on theory does not help!

Except Ayn Rand, I have found other Libertarians whom I personally know and have seen on TV/Internet to be really nice people even though I find their views amusing at best, and cruel at worst. I respect their notion of individualism. What they need to respect is the notion of living in a society and sharing limited resources. They also need to come out of their stubborn pubescent thinking that unregulated businesses and small governments will suddenly make the world a better place. The notion of a small government is very exciting at first just like looking at cleavage is heavily exciting for boys in their early teens. But there is more to life than mere excitement and cheap thrills. Libertarians may want to start looking at nuances to the argument favoring minimal government - because that is what you do as you grow older - start picking nuances.

Thursday 28 April 2016

Authenticity and traditional television

A close friend of mine introduced me to something called "YouTube" back in 2007. This was also a time when we had moved from a dialup connection to high speed Internet. Watching video clips I choose, as an when I please, and with the freedom to skip certain sections was a paradigm shift for me. Of course, at that time, streaming with high speed Internet came at a huge price, and I went so excitedly overboard with the new toy I found that my Internet bill for that month came to be around Rs. 4000.

Watching TV over the Internet was a more obvious paradigm shift. However, there was another deeper, more obscure but more powerful paradigm shift that occurred with the advent of streaming TV. It was that of anyone - I mean anyone who can post their videos that have a chance to go viral. In fact, even I posted my own standup comedy video on YouTube back in 2009, and it got hundreds of views. I was not aware of Internet trolling at that time, so after reading some really mean comments I took it down. Anyway, this post is not about that video, it is about authenticity.

So many of these home-made videos went viral at that time. The one that comes to mind is this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPDYj3IMkRI) which my sister showed me in 2009. Also, YouTube has given so many people the opportunity to have their own online shows which do not require much investment. Comedy groups in India such as AIB and EIC who would have had no chance 15 years back because of packaged and censored mainstream television are great YouTube stars now. Cenk Uygur, a journalist who was fired from mainstream TV channel MSNBC for asking politicians too many honest questions created his own show The Young Turks on YouTube and now has over a million subscribers. And he kicks ass with honest, straightforward news and analysis. There are thousands of other examples of YouTube stars, but I guess you get my drift.

So when everyone has a chance to express their views which can be seen by everyone else, the paradigm of quality videos shifts from professionalism to authenticity. CNN anchors like Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer look very professional and have a great television presence, but after you have watched YouTube news anchors like Cenk Uygur and Kyle Kulinski, the professional look of Cooper and Blitzer means shit! Kulinski, Uygur, Dore, and others bring out a certain authenticity which matters so much more than professional robots. If I want news and an informed opinion, why would I watched packaged CNN and MSNBC shows when YouTube gives me something so much more raw and honest? Also, YouTube shows are not time-bound. So YouTube presenters have the flexibility of time which 24 hour TV channels don't.

I was introduced to YouTube when I was 25. So I had a sufficient exposure to packaged television where everything is pre-planned and scripted. However, think about the millenials who were born post 1990. For them, the Internet and YouTube is all too familiar over traditional television. As soon as they would have got some intellectual maturity, they would have been exposed to more authentic stuff over the Internet than pre-planned, time-bound television shows.

And THAT is why, as they say in Hindi - ज़माना बदल रहा है (things are changing). And things are changing for the better. People younger to me are more receptive to authenticity than pandering rhetoric. That is why they are attuned to Bernie Sanders and not to pre-packaged, scripted Hillary Clinton who seems to know exactly when to talk what and with what tone. Youngsters can totally see through her!

Unfortunately, the population of baby boomers born from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s is huge! Therefore mainstream television still has an audience and will not die soon. Many baby boomers are still averse to the Internet. They have grown up in an era where presentation mattered more than substance.

The medium of television is not as flexible as the Internet, so we cannot hope to see more authentic stuff in it to change with the times. It will slowly die and wither away as the millenials make their presence felt! Till then, inauthentic, pre-packaged news anchors like Anderson Cooper, and loud, shitty comedians like Kapil Sharma will continue to thrive to entertain the blockheaded baby boomers, and certain idiots even from my generation.