ONE-WAY VS. TWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS

The evolution from one-way mass communication into two-way mass communication makes transformational policy changes not just possible, but inevitable. How well gatekeepers can adapt and respond to the newly popular policy desires will determine whether that policy change has a positive or negative impact on society. 

One-way communication has gatekeepers. Gatekeepers are not only journalists, news outlets, and public relations agencies, but also public and party officials and electoral organizations. Traditionally, a politician, advocate, or organization would need the approval of those gatekeepers to promote their message. In the era of one-way communication, policymakers spoke and listened through newspaper editorials and broadcast journalism. 

Social media enables two-way communication, and politicians have highly-engaged, highly-motivated, and highly-responsive audiences. A single, spontaneous tweet from a President, CEO, or single individual can affect the price of stocks and the values of portfolios, state budgets, and pensions. 

Now that gatekeepers have a reduced role, anybody can garner attention if they generate buzz and hold interest. That fosters a political environment where allied groups of similar-enough interests align to gain power via successful organizing and advocacy campaigns. Where once, policies and voting majorities were crafted (and demanded) for the benefit of the lowest-common-denominator, two-way communication encourages policymakers to govern toward the preferences of noisy interests and constituencies.  

THE MODERN IMPACT

Now, politicians must craft multiple political messages for noisy constituencies with diverse and sometimes divergent interests, where once only a single political message crafted toward the lowest-common-denominator would suffice. In the era of two-way communication, non-aligned organizations and individuals get left behind. Objective reality overturns the traditional political model that preferred politicians who kept quiet while learning—earning experience until they were wise enough to speak with influence. While this model eschewed demagogues, it also trended toward survivorship bias and groupthink, as policymakers also were more homogeneous. 

Today, Artificial Intelligence (AI) can generate wisdom and ideas, and social media democratized communication to the point that competent, responsive policies can be created (or misrepresented) instantly based on popular prevailing sentiments as they arise.  

For example, near-universal calls to “Defund the police” from Black Lives Matter protesters and allies were a spontaneous, new fiscal policy solution from advocates that rethinks the role of police in communities. If successful, advocates say they will have established police as constructive members of minority communities, as opposed to the confrontational relationship they currently have as 21st-century slave catchers. Detractors, however, view this as a misguided policy that will make it even harder to recruit talented police officers. 

NEW THREATS EMERGE

Two-way communication threatens to destabilize liberal government, which spent the entire twentieth century crafting policies that helped the majority of—but not all—people. New, vocal, and media-savvy constituencies appear in a multipolar society, dethroning the traditional society preferred by the lowest-common-denominator and replacing it with the society preferred by the noisiest advocates. There will be political and civil unrest. It is indeterminable whether that leads to positive or negative policy outcomes. 

For that reason, experience is still valuable, if relegated to the spectacle. Celebrity political culture and influencers are the modern political philosophers. They will destroy the “establishment’s” silos of power as people realize they cannot compete with the volume and breadth of crowdsourced reforms generated by the multipolar coalition—and one day aided by AI.  

Political communication in a multipolar society inherently delegitimizes and destabilizes the current liberalist policymakers and governments. It is urgent to find new roles for old gatekeepers. Those gatekeepers still have valuable experience that would improve policy outcomes advocated by new reformers. They can also prevent a newly awakened—but inexperienced—society from falling into predictable traps and pitfalls from the only alternative forms of government to liberalism: fascism or socialism.