3 ms·

The White House says they established this petition system to increase the level of communication between them and the public. Shouldn't we take them at their

The White House says they established this petition system to increase the level of communication between them and the public. Shouldn't we take them at their word? If they fail to come through, then call them out on it (as some other threshold-breaching petitions already have). Now, they've said that they are swamped with petitions and so have increased the threshold to 100,000. That's not an impossible number, it just requires a broader base of participation - more than say, just the readership of HN and Reddit. I realize this petition system is widely seen as a gimmick, but it's a public gimmick. As the WH fails to properly respond per its own rules, the independent (and perhaps, foreign, but probably not mass-) media can easily write obnoxious stories calling them out. As for the other calls to action: certainly.

philwelch 14y ago
The White House is like any political body--they want to give the illusion of listening to the people without having to actually do what anyone else wants of them. Online petitions are perfect for this. Their "word" is that 100,000 people sign an online petition, and some junior staffer writes an official response restating the administration's position. So in exchange for 100,000 people getting their slacktivism on and having a false sense of accomplishment, the White House gives up maybe an hour of time from their staff. It effectively reduces their accountability to the public by encouraging this false sense of accomplishment.
betterunix 14y ago
"Shouldn't we take them at their word?" Is there some reason we should trust the Obama administration to follow through on its promises? They have repeatedly failed or only half-kept their promises. Like most of America's high-ranking major party politicians, Obama and his administration will say whatever they need to say in order to get votes, and will then turn around and do whatever their wealthy corporate sponsors demand. "As the WH fails to properly respond per its own rules, the independent (and perhaps, foreign, but probably not mass-) media can easily write obnoxious stories calling them out." The media outlets that actually matter are too busy promoting the illusion that the Democrats are a liberal party and that Obama is a liberal president to bother with such things.
- coopdog 14y ago
  All they're promising to do is start a dialogue around the issues their citizens feel most strongly about. It sounds like a good use of technology, and an excellent strategy to stay connected to the people who ultimately decide whether you stay or go. Better than focussing more attention on behind the scenes corporate lobbying at least.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    ...and they fail to start such dialogue, unless the issue is shallow and pedantic (yes, that is a nod to Seth MacFarlane). When people asked for a response to Chris Dodd's remarks following the SOPA protests, what did the administration say? "No comment!" The response to legalizing marijuana was an outright lie -- a claim that the administration's policy was "balanced," when in reality the Obama administration set a new record for paramilitary raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, having engaged in more raids in just two years than in all eight years under Bush. If the administration wants to engage in dialogue with the people, they should do so -- without lying, without avoiding tough questions, without trying to divert our attention to irrelevant distractions.

philwelch 14y ago

The White House is like any political body--they want to give the illusion of listening to the people without having to actually do what anyone else wants of them. Online petitions are perfect for this. Their "word" is that 100,000 people sign an online petition, and some junior staffer writes an official response restating the administration's position. So in exchange for 100,000 people getting their slacktivism on and having a false sense of accomplishment, the White House gives up maybe an hour of time from their staff. It effectively reduces their accountability to the public by encouraging this false sense of accomplishment.

betterunix 14y ago

"Shouldn't we take them at their word?" Is there some reason we should trust the Obama administration to follow through on its promises? They have repeatedly failed or only half-kept their promises. Like most of America's high-ranking major party politicians, Obama and his administration will say whatever they need to say in order to get votes, and will then turn around and do whatever their wealthy corporate sponsors demand. "As the WH fails to properly respond per its own rules, the independent (and perhaps, foreign, but probably not mass-) media can easily write obnoxious stories calling them out." The media outlets that actually matter are too busy promoting the illusion that the Democrats are a liberal party and that Obama is a liberal president to bother with such things.

coopdog 14y ago
All they're promising to do is start a dialogue around the issues their citizens feel most strongly about. It sounds like a good use of technology, and an excellent strategy to stay connected to the people who ultimately decide whether you stay or go. Better than focussing more attention on behind the scenes corporate lobbying at least.
- betterunix 14y ago
  ...and they fail to start such dialogue, unless the issue is shallow and pedantic (yes, that is a nod to Seth MacFarlane). When people asked for a response to Chris Dodd's remarks following the SOPA protests, what did the administration say? "No comment!" The response to legalizing marijuana was an outright lie -- a claim that the administration's policy was "balanced," when in reality the Obama administration set a new record for paramilitary raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, having engaged in more raids in just two years than in all eight years under Bush. If the administration wants to engage in dialogue with the people, they should do so -- without lying, without avoiding tough questions, without trying to divert our attention to irrelevant distractions.