By Reyshimar Arguelles
In our times, social media defines how we engage in politics, shapes our future, and lets us avoid making the same mistakes. Political discourse has been made accessible to everyone, so there is certainly no excuse not to keep one’s self from being a part of the conversation.
Then again, engineering the world around us remains a difficult process which is almost exclusively directed by “the people who matter.” It’s the engineers who call the shots, not us. And say what you will about social media being an important factor in political reconciliation. The idea that it could bring about lasting change comes from the same people who praise the feel-good effects of Earth Hour.
Nothing had prepared us for an inundation of falsehood that toppled the very concept of uprightness. But the real danger is not that misinformation is rampant (it always has been); it is that everyone is totally invested in the production of falsehood. That certainly goes for the careerists who pass themselves off as exemplars of decency.
Indeed, there is no apt channel for spreading false charity quite like social networking sites where the most depraved animals compete with each other for bragging rights. Power is vested to those who can make the most outrageous claims online. There is no use for rational arguments. Everything has to have emotional fuel so you can get more people to side with you.
Evidence of this depraved system of political engagement is blatant in the Philippines where people can be gross and horrible and still feel like they are doing the country a good service by pointing out what’s inherently wrong with it.
In light of the continuing drama involving ABS-CBN’s move to have its franchise renewed, people began to talk about how oligarchs screwing the country over and how it’s important to be rid of these dastardly elites once and for all. This is as though opposition against oligarchism hasn’t existed since the Marcos administration. Numerous movements have been very vocal about dismantling the neo-aristocracy and they still continue to do so.
If the people in the side of the current administration were just as angry at oligarchs, they would have joined in these movements that sought to remove this very cancer. Instead, it took someone with no experience in national policy-making whatsoever to talk about how the oligarchy is running and ruining the country. Then again, you have to consider the fact that the current President previously had links to the radical Left, which has always been vocal against the elitist rule.
But now, we are seeing such radical rhetoric being watered down to make it seem like the current administration is working for the national interest. What is clear, however, is that this form of opposition is divested of any radical underpinnings but instead propped up by the need to keep a depraved leader in power.
But this is not always about keeping power so much as taking it away from people who have always been disenfranchised.
In his bid for the Democratic nomination, former New York City and billionaire Mike Bloomberg postured himself as the best candidate to take on Donald Trump. From the surface, it may seem like it takes a billionaire bastard to defeat a billionaire bastard, but if you really take things more seriously, then there’s really nothing in Bloomberg’s campaign that makes him a genuine candidate against the forces of Trump.
After his disastrous performance in Nevada, Bloomberg’s supporters were all out against the frontrunner Bernie Sanders, calling the Senator from Vermont a communist who wouldn’t stand a chance against Trump.
They can rage all they want, but there’s no denying that, among all the contenders for the Democratic nomination, Sanders has the most refined and consistent platform that involves creating a more radical approach to universal healthcare and running after the Wall Street vultures as represented by Trump and Bloomberg.
For sure, if we really want to change a corrupt system, we have to be consistent. This is difficult to process in the age of social media, but we can at least become critical when it comes to political engagement — lest we make things a lot worse than they already are.
