The Internet and social networking were supposed to bring people together. But could it be that it “disconnects” them in certain ways?

That is what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested January 21 when answering questions after her major foreign policy speech on Internet freedom.

Near the end of her appearance at the Newseum, the secretary took a question about Muslim youth being disaffected from their own governments and that of the United States. In her answer, Clinton suggested that youth the world over suffer from this “disconnect.” The reason: the Internet!

Here’s what she said: “Young people across the world are increasingly disconnected from authority, from government, from all kinds of institutions that have been historically the foundations of society, because they are so interconnected through the Internet….”

She noted that some young people spend more time on the Internet than with their families, and she added that this phenomenon was “something my generation can’t really understand.”

Well, I’m part of Clinton’s generation, and her comment was a real shocker to me! Why? Because, as a heavy user of the Internet, I often feel “disconnected,” too. In my case the disconnect is with what I see as a somewhat befuddling world of social networking.

Clearly there is a generation gap at work here, and Clinton addressed that: “When you think about the power of this information connection to young people, I don’t think it should cause panic in people my age…. We ought to figure out how to better utilize it.”

Here at America.gov, we’ve been working hard at reaching young people via Twitter, Facebook and blogs like this one. How effective do you think these efforts are? What do you think is the best way for government to meet the information needs of and connect with young people?

Although reviewing a budget proposal doesn’t sound as glamorous as creating policy, those who handle budgets are arguably the ones with real power, my husband says. My husband may be somewhat biased — he works as a budget analyst for the U.S. Department of the Treasury — but I think he has a point. Good policies and programs are essential, but they still must get support from those who control the money if they are to thrive. Those who approve budgets also must balance competing priorities.

President Obama’s budget submission to Congress February 1 is no exception to the rule. Although the president has outlined his priorities, it is Congress — not the president — who has the final word on how the federal government will spend money, according to the U.S. Constitution. As one of my co-workers writes, “the president’s budget is simply a recommendation.” Under U.S. law, legislators do not need to adhere to the president’s proposals, and in the past Congress has produced spending bills substantially different from the president’s suggestions.

Until October 1, the public will have a chance to influence congressional debates on what should go into the government’s 13 major spending bills for the next fiscal year. Some people may testify at hearings. Others may organize rallies and petitions. Still others may publish opinion pieces in mainstream or social media outlets. Although Congress will ultimately decide how to allocate federal money, everyone has the opportunity to have a say — from corporations and unions to nonprofit groups and individuals.

Should the government focus more on jobs creation? Should it spend more money on counterterrorism efforts? Should climate change be the top priority? Should the United States work to pay down the national debt? What do you think the spending priorities should be?

A recent Washington Post article noted there are currently 25 female ambassadors stationed in Washington, D.C., the highest number ever.

Some of the women the reporter interviewed referred to what the article calls “the Hillary effect.” Amelia Matos Sumbana, Mozambique’s ambassador, said “Hillary Clinton is so visible … she makes it easier for presidents to pick a woman for Washington.”

The article notes that the number of prominent female diplomats representing the United States has increased in recent years. Three out of the past four Secretaries of State have been women.

But 25 female ambassadors is a pretty small number when you consider there are more than 180 currently serving in Washington. What do you think it will take for this number to rise?

We Americans are used to our watching our political leaders savage each other with bold short statements and sound bytes that seem made to fit in one-minute TV and radio segments. For that reason, I found it refreshing and very informative to watch President Obama and Republican Congressional Representatives engage in a real debate on Friday in Baltimore. Unlike most televised U.S. political debates, the questions to the president came directly from his opponents, rather than through a moderator, and neither side had to stay within the confines of a short time limit.

Peter Baker of The New York Times told PBS Television’s Gwen Ifill that the exchange had been “remarkable,” in both its civility, given the extreme partisan acrimony that has festered between Democrats and Republicans, and also because it was substantive, giving viewers a much clearer idea of where the two sides agree and differ on issues, free of sloganeering and generalities.

“We haven’t seen anything quite like this in a while. I’ve covered a number of presidents. I’d be hard-pressed to remember a time when we saw a president exchange views and debate the opposing party for an hour and a half on live television,” Baker said.

Dan Balz of The Washington Post compared it to Prime Minister’s Question Time in the British House of Commons.

Obama told his Republican hosts to challenge his ideas and said he was prepared to respond in kind, saying a real debate is “absolutely essential” for the well being of the country.

“It’s only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth — that imperfect but well-founded process, messy as it often is — is at the heart of our democracy,” he said.

Let’s end the mutual demonization in the media, he said. While political rivals can energize their supporters by portraying an opponent as an extremist, it also “boxes us in in ways that makes it difficult for us to work together, because our constituents start believing us,” Obama said. “They don’t know sometimes this is just politics what you guys — or folks on my side do sometimes.”

The climate of extreme partisanship plays into the “slash-and-burn-style” that gets a media response, he pointed out. Responding to a question from Representative Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, Obama said if he told him “I think Paul Ryan is a pretty sincere guy and has a beautiful family,” those remarks would not make the news and they would not give the congressman much credit with his constituents.

“And by the way, in case he’s going to get a Republican challenge, I didn’t mean it,” Obama continued over laughter. “Don’t want to hurt you, man.”

Reading the press accounts afterwards, it seemed that spokespeople from both sides were declaring a victory in the debate. But I’m looking at it more as a victory for American voters than the politicians. I learned a lot about how the two sides truly see solutions to challenges like health care and the economy, rather than the simplistic and inaccurate charges of “Bolshevism” and “nihilism” that have been lobbed back and forth for the past year. More such debates, please!

Government officials traveled a long way to count 89-year-old World War II veteran Clifton Jackson. Jackson, of Noorvik, Alaska, is the first person to be counted in the 2010 U.S. census.

The census is an effort undertaken once every 10 years by the U.S. government to get an accurate count of how many people reside in the United States and where exactly they live. The census results can greatly impact citizens’ lives — congressional representation is determined by population, as is federal funding for facilities like hospitals and schools.

“One down, over 309 million to go,” U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said after counting Jackson. He traveled a long way — he even took a dog sled — to get to Noorvik.

Of course, officials don’t count every person by hand. Most Americans will receive forms to fill out in the mail in March, asking them to identify information like their race and the number of residents in their homes. But officials will travel throughout the country to count the hard-to-reach, like homeless people, in every effort to get an accurate number.

You can follow census officials’ counting adventures on their blog or Twitter feed.

I love looking at political cartoons; in my opinion, they sum up the pure essence of any political debate. My most recent favorite shows a corporate titan with a loudspeaker that completely dwarfs that of an ordinary citizen. You can see it here at “Political Irony.” To me, this Steve Sack cartoon aptly addresses the fallout that may result from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that finds no difference between a corporation and an individual in terms of free speech and allows unlimited corporate spending in elections. (You can read the Supreme Court decision (PDF, 2.57MB) on “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” on the court’s Web site.)

In the 5-to-4 decision, the majority of the Justices cite the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. They hold that the government does not have the authority to limit businesses’ right to free political speech. The dissenting Justices, however, say that allowing unlimited corporate money to flow into election campaigns will “buy” politicians and corrupt democracy. The ruling potentially also opens the door for foreign entities to contribute to campaigns.

President Obama quickly criticized the January 21 Supreme Court decision, saying it “gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.”

During his January 27 State of the Union Address — with the Supreme Court Justices sitting right in front of him — President Obama spoke again against the court’s decision.

“With all due deference to separation of powers,” the president said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”

The president also urged Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct the problems he believes the Supreme Court decision will generate. We’ll have to see if Congress will respond to the president’s request.

Freedom of speech is a cherished human right in democracies, but — let’s face it — some people have bigger mouths and louder voices, especially when those voices are backed by significant money. Should the free speech of “big money” be limited to keep elections and political debate fair? Should foreign entities play a role in U.S. elections? Where do you draw the line?

I got an interesting comment on one of my recent blog postings that I wanted to highlight for a little more discussion. In response to the line in my post about my New Year’s resolution a few weeks ago, reader saimatabassum wrote:

“Democracy as said government by the people, but it’s not the exact way to define it. We all know in a democratic election, the party who has maximum support governs the country. Suppose a government is established by 60% of majority, that means the remaining 40% population is against the government. The remaining 40% of the society has to bear that government though they don’t like it. They are helpless for that. Isn’t it strange. So better to define democracy as government by the more or equal to 51% society of community.”

First of all, thank you saimatabassum for taking the time to read and comment. Secondly, I think there’s an important distinction to be made though between just holding democratic elections and having a democratic system of government.

Any campaign manager will tell you his or her job is just to get 50% +1 of the vote on Election Day; but democracies don’t end at elections — they start there. The work of governing is non-stop, and democratic governance is designed to make sure the 50% -1, the “losers” at election time, are still treated fairly and respectfully the rest of the time. The 50% -1 may not always get their exact preference, but even small minorities can have a big impact on policymaking in a democracy.

We have a key example of that in the United States right now, in fact. In both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Democratic Party has sizable majorities, and the president is from this party. Yet key pieces of legislation have been difficult to move through Congress over the past year in part because the Republicans have been a strongly unified minority party. This particularly is an issue in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to end debate on a piece of legislation. President Obama addressed this impasse specifically last night in his State of the Union Address. He said:

“To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.”

The core principles of a democratic society — among them, freedom of speech, assembly and information — provide the tools for expanding the debate and making a position heard; it’s just up to the minority to use them effectively and responsibly. It’s also the responsibility of the majority party to use those tools to be mindful of the dissenting viewpoints in the country to work together for the betterment of all citizens.

Obama also reminded us of the inherently contentious nature of democracy last night. “I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is.”

So my question to saimatabassum, and everyone reading, is this: is it possible to influence your government when you are in the minority party so that you don’t just have to bear what you don’t like? What other recourse might you have?

The scenes of suffering in Haiti are heart-wrenching, but one finally made me cry. On the Larry King telethon aired on American television January 18 to raise donations for Haiti’s earthquake victims, a video clip was shown of a medical worker telling a mother and her injured little girl, who couldn’t have been more than 8 years old, that the girl’s leg would need to be amputated. The girl started sobbing and reached out her hand to her mother for comfort, but the mother turned her back to her daughter and the medical worker, crying that she would rather have her daughter die. Life in Haiti is hard, the narrator explained, but it is most especially hard on girls with physical handicaps. It was the medical worker who gently urged the distraught mother to take her anguished daughter’s hand finally.

Nothing more was said about what painful choice the mother made for her child, but I joined many other ordinary Americans who donated a few dollars to relief efforts. At the end of the two-hour show, nearly $5 million had been raised. No doubt, among the many good-hearted donors were people struggling with unemployment and their own economic troubles who nonetheless made the choice to donate money to those much less fortunate.

I – like many Americans – have never been to Haiti, which is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. The World Fact Book reports that 80 percent of Haiti’s 9-million population lives under the poverty line, and 54 percent lives in abject poverty. A history of political turmoil has contributed to keeping Haiti poor, according to the State Department’s Background Notes on the country. It is clear that Haiti must make painful choices to succeed as a democracy.

Nonetheless, however fragile, Haiti is a democracy – albeit a struggling one. When you think about it for a bit, the histories of Haiti and the United States have some similarities. Both nations fought against powerful adversaries to win independence. Haiti became the first black republic to declare independence from France in 1804 after a prolonged, but ultimately successful, revolt of its half-million African slaves. Africans played a huge role in the development of the United States as well and brought fruition to the U.S. Declaration of Independence’s statement that “all men are created equal.”

Compassion for Haiti’s earthquake victims motivates American relief efforts, but also a belief that democracies need to be supported. Supporting imperfect democracies can be a painful choice, but one that is necessary. What are your thoughts?

I think President Obama may have just challenged a sacred political rule. In an interview aired January 26 ahead of his State of the Union address, ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked him if, in light of setbacks to priorities such as health care reform and polling data that show declining popularity, did he think that perhaps “one term is enough?”

“I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” Obama replied.

“There’s a tendency in Washington to think that our job description of elected officials is to get re-elected,” he continued. “That’s not our job description. Our job description is to solve problems and to help people.” Obama added that he is willing to take bold moves even if it costs him re-election in 2012.

The president’s statement resonated with the political cynic in me, since I have often shared the view that elected officials, once in office, seem primarily concerned with getting re-elected. As a result, they appear decidedly risk-averse and reinforce the popular perception of government as a bastion of inefficiency. In some moments of exasperation I feel this way, but I’m sure I am not the only one.

Are term limits the answer? If officeholders know that they have only a very limited time, will they be more focused on their legacy and try harder to make a difference? Or would the fact they will not need to defend their record to the voters make them essentially unaccountable to their constituents? Readers, I welcome your opinions on the matter.

Obama’s statement has already been described as a “death wish” by some pundits. For me, if the president is prioritizing bold action over the prospect of electoral defeat in 2012, it makes tomorrow’s State of the Union address a lot more interesting and even potentially inspiring as he outlines his agenda. He will need legislative help, of course. I wonder if lawmakers in Congress, many of whom face re-election this November, will be willing to respond with similar courage?

Some have been arguing there was a major political shift in the United States last week. Republican Scott Brown won a special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat, a surprise in a state that typically elects Democrats.

With Brown’s election, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate and 59 Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents. You would think that still gives Democrats a sizable majority, but some political pundits argue that without 60 Democratic members, President Obama’s political agenda is in jeopardy.

The number 60 has often been touted as a “magical number” in U.S. politics. Holding 60 seats is important because Senate rules require 60 votes to end a filibuster — a parliamentary procedure that allows senators to continue a debate indefinitely and block or delay a vote on a measure or nomination. Filibusters have been employed effectively throughout U.S. history. It was a tactic frequently used by Southern senators seeking to block civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

The term filibuster, coined from the Dutch word for pirate, came into use in the 1850s. But the practice of filibustering to keep the legislative body from voting on a bill predates this term. In 1917, senators adopted a rule allowing debate to end with a two-thirds majority vote. This device, called “cloture,” can halt filibusters, but it was used rarely because it was so difficult to gain the support of that many senators. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes needed for cloture to three-fifths (60).

What I think many people overlook is the fact that politicians have their own opinions, and don’t always agree with their fellow party members. Even if Democrats had 60 members, there would be no guarantee all would agree to vote to end a filibuster. In fact, rarely do American politicians vote as a party bloc on an issue. Of course, that also means some Republicans may side with Democrats on certain votes.

We still have three years of the Obama presidency — and likely changes in the Senate after the 2010 elections — so there is plenty of time to see how the president’s agenda plays out in Congress. Do you think the filibuster serves a useful purpose in American politics?