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 need your support

What’s at stake this November is the future of our democracy. Yet Nation readers know the fight for justice, equity, and peace doesn’t stop in November. Change doesn’t happen overnight. We need sustained, fearless journalism to advocate for bold ideas, expose corruption, defend our democracy, secure our bodily rights, promote peace, and protect the environment.

This month, we’re calling on you to give a monthly donation to support The Nation’s independent journalism. If you’ve read this far, I know you value our journalism that speaks truth to power in a way corporate-owned media never can. The most effective way to support The Nation is by becoming a monthly donor; this will provide us with a reliable funding base.

In the coming months, our writers will be working to bring you what you need to know—from John Nichols on the election, Elie Mystal on justice and injustice, Chris Lehmann’s reporting from inside the beltway, Joan Walsh with insightful political analysis, Jeet Heer’s crackling wit, and Amy Littlefield on the front lines of the fight for abortion access. For as little as $10 a month, you can empower our dedicated writers, editors, and fact checkers to report deeply on the most critical issues of our day.

Set up a monthly recurring donation today and join the committed community of readers who make our journalism possible for the long haul. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth and justice—can you help us thrive for 160 more?

Onwards,
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x