[[Jonah Goldberg]] take from his [podcast The Remnant](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/man-vs-bear-revisited/id1291144720?i=1000655985917) :Generational political shifts aren’t experiential per se, but technological. That means technology in the broadest sense: man's ability to manipulate his experience of the world, writ large. (ie, marriage or taxes are [[social technology]]) That is, We grow up and experience the application of technological change (in the broadest sense) to how we understand the world In the question between 9/11 and cell phones, it’s cell phones. Which makes sense. Or, take it back to renaissance Europe: growing up in a continent with gunpowder was very different from one that didn’t have such. More wars, more death: that will impact generational evolution far more than simply having fought or not. Growing up in a time when transatlantic seafaring was possible is more impactful than having spent 3 months on ship yourself. So too the World Wars. Yeah, they happened and produced crises big and small. But would they have happened the way they did w/out the howitzer, the steam engine, and then; eventually, atomic energy? No accident we haven’t had WW3 since the atom bomb. Or that the first generation which came of age in the shadow of that change spent its youth not protesting the brand-new state of Israel, but nuclear disarmament. ^dq49um Take that on any extension you want; the point can be made topically at any point in time. So if the observation holds, what then for the #politcaleconomy of our present day? Phew. We’re still finding out. See [[Institutional weakening is more evident in politics with each passing year|institutional weakening]] and McCain-Feingold Radical technological change of our age is principally about not just how information is consumed, but produced. And thusly, how sense is made of the world. Does hegemony of any particular nation-state, let alone the American nation-state, make sense in Thomas Friedman’s flat world? Maybe. Maybe not. Point being, would any social scientist seriously dispute the disruption in early 21st century political economies (Brexit, Trump) is inexplicably linked to adaptions and backlashes to winners and losers in a near-fully globalized economy? Probably not. Careers have been made on such. Are practitioners catching up? Yes, in some places. No, in others. We still vote where we live. We consume information as essentially equal citizens of the world. Jeff Bezos and your gig economy reliant Uber Driver see their news through the same model iPhone. That’s a bit unbelievable. Previously, class meant unique access to information. Now, class means unique access to closed networks, which perpetuates wealth generation. [[Niall Ferguson]] had [a whole book to say about it](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/07/03/book-review-the-square-and-the-tower-networks-hierarchies-and-the-struggle-for-global-power-by-niall-ferguson/). Considerations for the #practiceofpolitics: What information economy are your target voters operating in? Still principally analog world? Still principally digital world dominated by analog institutions? Principally digital world, mediated by those institutions? Some combination of all three. We ask in polls “do you use connected Tv?” Wonder how many voters actually know the difference. Broadcast TV comes through streaming devices. I’m watching a CBS broadcast of a golf tournament right now. Not much different than I did with my grandfather in the late 90s. I remember it. Difference is, I’m also watching on Twitter And, I’m having a live iMessage convo with my friends about it as we watch together. That makes for a different experience. Advertisers can still control the old model - the one I shared with my grandfather. That’s one source of information. You can bet I’m hearing about the Corebridge Financial team of PGA pros in the tournament they sponsor for 8 figures. That’s probably real brand value, even though I have no idea what Corebridge Finanical may or may not be able to do for me. Twitter is a grey area. Do their sponsors have access to my attention? Sure. Are they Impacting the conversation? Not really. Advertisers, ATM, don’t’ touch the third one (my live action, digital and device based interaction with my private social network) But that’s where the real value can be found. Ads still haven’t broken the [[Private vs public attention]] dichotomy. Not really. Otherwise we'd spend a million per race on Search and email acquisition. [[Currently private modes of attention]] - that might be the next frontier. Politics with your sports? Give your email to get free access to Premier League content on Saturday morning? Or culture with your sports? Or sports with a side dish of politics? What a soup; but interesting. God knows we can stuff political ads in a sports broadcast. For now that may be as good as it gets.