The Worst Metaphors Politicians Have Used to Describe the Internet

The Worst Metaphors Politicians Have Used to Describe the Internet

The Worst Metaphors Politicians Have Used to Describe the Internet

Is it a series of tubes or a Coke bottle?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Science-fiction writers have compared the Internet to big and transcendent things. To William Gibson, it was a “consensual hallucination”; to Cory Doctorow, a “nervous system.” But they have nothing on American politicians, who, in an effort to enlighten or perhaps befuddle the public, have produced a challenging series of metaphors.

In 2006, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) spoke in opposition to net neutrality legislation. In audibly frustrated testimony, he complained about congestion online. “An Internet [sic] was sent by my staff at ten o’clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially…. Again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck—it’s a series of tubes.”

Stevens’s analogy, which made him an Internet legend and inspired an army of memes, was arguably scientific compared with subsequent attempts by politicians to explain the Internet. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), speaking at a Senate hearing in 2013, credited Homeland Security officials with teaching her the following: “The Department of Defense is…the Coke bottle cap…. The federal civilian government, which is dot-gov, is like the Coke bottle itself, and the companies and citizens, which is dot-com, is the entire room the bottle is in.”

Most recently, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) put a 2014 spin on the issue when he deployed the GOP’s all-purpose smear, tweeting that “‘Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet.” This comparison has been gleefully embraced on the “tubes,” spawning memes of its own.

More significant than the unintelligibility of the metaphor, though, are the contributions Cruz has received from every telecom firm from Comcast to AT&T. Perhaps some politicians truly don’t understand how “Internets” get to their in-boxes. Or it could be that they’re funded by donors invested in painting net neutrality as too confusing for the public to consider.

We cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x