politics

When I was younger, I had very clear political ambitions. I wanted to climb the D.C. ladder.

That is, until I realized that some of my political convictions were strongly against the politically correct positions high-powered politicians were expected to have. In middle school I was writing my Senators condemning China over its Tibet policies. More recently, my digital history is strewn with strongly worded denouncements of powerful interests like the big content industries. All of this is not even touching on the realities of friendships played out online - jokes that may strike third parties as off-color or unprofessional.

The reality of having lived a strongly opinionated and Internet-heavy life is that I have a history of content which could easily be dug up by opposition staffers after a would-be appointment. Luckily for me, for the most part I don’t think my skeletons will ever be worthwhile to dig up. But plenty of my generation’s closets will be searched. What to make of the coming storm?

The Economist jumps into this fascinating question with a very smart article discussing the future of politics and reputation. Astutely noting, “who has a closet without a skeleton?,” the article uses Obama’s intensive vetting process as a harbinger of things to come.

But I don’t think that covering up people’s unsavory pasts is likely to be sustainable. Instead, I think we are moving towards a society of disclosure and acceptance - Obama never had to confront breaking news that he tried cocaine because he disclosed it well before he was a Presidential candidate. Not everyone can have best-selling books, though.

Instead, I think the next forty years will be a roller coaster where my generation’s past will sink many a rising star. Only the most adept will be able to avoid the career-stunting attention paid to their youthful indiscretion, but, in the end, we’ll (hopefully) have a society more accepting of the human, in failure and success. We’ll turn the media spotlight on ourselves and recognize that we’ve all done things we’re not proud of and that it doesn’t mean we are unqualified for public office.

The Economist reaches much the same conclusion. Although it seems that, “Only the very blandest, most media-savvy and controlled people, who have never uttered a controversial sentence in their lives, will be deemed fit to hold public office…” another possibility is that “Perhaps, when dirt on almost everybody becomes readily available, politics will lose its hypocritical, moralistic tone… That could make people realise that politicians, too, are only human, and make them more forgiving of minor transgressions.”

What do you think? Are we destined for blandness or acceptance?

Ari Melber, writing in The Nation, discusses the options Obama’s administration will have given the persisting digital connections between voters and his presidency - the phone numbers, email lists, MyBO members and the existing desires, manifest on Change.gov, to be involved and heard by the transition team.

He touches on a worry I’ve had, given Obama’s support and his unprecedented network to them.

Many Obama supporters want the network to turn from electoral politics to lobbying. After the election, half a million activists responded to an e-mail survey about the road ahead. The most popular goal was to help the administration “pass legislation,” according to campaign manager David Plouffe. If Obama’s initiatives stall in Congress, these activists will presumably back him instead of their local representatives. Combining the White House bully pulpit with constituent lobbying could have a dramatic effect on Obama’s presidency. Previous presidents have gone over the heads of Congress by appealing to the public, of course, but never with a parallel whip operation targeting representatives in their backyards. If the pressure works, the experiment could even alter the conventional balance of power. After all, citizens typically lobby the legislature for their own policy goals–not on behalf of another branch of government. While George W. Bush boosted executive power by routing around Congress, Obama may fortify executive power by mobilizing citizens to roll right over Congress.

The worry is that because local representatives do not have the digital Rolodexes stretching into the millions, they will not be able to motivate their constituents to the same extent Obama will. Any basic civics course will teach why slow deliberation is desirable, but Obama’s potential ability to force the hand of legislators will continue the consolidation of power in the executive branch that George W. Bush has so forcefully done.

Melber rightly points out, though, that the network isn’t merely a push medium - as Clay Shirky and Yochai Benkler have so convincingly shown in Here Comes Everybody and The Wealth of Networks, respectively, digital tools empower the individual, as well. He points to MyBarackObama members using the campaign’s social network to protest against Obama’s support for warrantless wiretapping. The example, though, points to the unfortunate reality: although Obama heard the dissidents, he didn’t change his upcoming vote.

What remains to be seen, though, is whether other political offices can take advantage of the same tools. Are local representatives able to attract widespread attention for their social networks? It certainly makes sense to have an agora where all politicians could hear the voice of the people without CNN’s filters or Fox’s bias. Does it make sense for Congress to have a social network? Or, as the article points out, will that only be one more node that organizers have to address? Perhaps data portability can become a democracy 2.0 theme?

What do you think?

Nudge is a book which, in the 24 hours since I purchased it, has transformed how I think about the world. Co-authored by two University of Chicago professors, behavioral economist Richard Thaler and lawyer Cass Sunstein, Nudge brings a superb policy approach to the table. Although the name is unwieldy, “libertarian paternalism” has solved a major internal debate of mine.

Representative democracy is great. The devolution of power allows for freedoms which are often restricted in other forms of government. People’s ability to choose and influence government allows impersonal institutions to respond to personal needs. I’m a fervent believer in personal choice and support many civil libertarian causes.

At the same time, people can make some really dumb choices. Often, when I hear or witness some particularly uniformed opinions or decision, I’ll catch myself snottily thinking “…and these people get to vote? Great.” I’ll frequently voice support of a technocracy where the most skilled and brightest make decisions, insulated from the ignorant masses.

Yet, these two approaches are opposed to each other and I’ve struggled to make sense of my dual support. Luckily, Thaler and Sunstein have lent their considerable intellect to this problem and brought resolution in the form of libertarian paternalism which uses “architects of choice” to “nudge” people towards better decisions. The bad decisions people make are often the result of conditions outside their control: time restraints, financial limitations and a host of psychological phenomena which foster poor choices. Libertarian paternalism aims to create situations where it is easier to make the best choice while not limiting other options (as mandates would do).

Nudging recognizes that people respond to much more than incentives, as traditional economics would have you believe. Nudges recognize the complex array of options which make simple tax cuts or prison penalties unlikely to create the best outcomes. Nudges come down to designing systems which help people reach the best outcome. Full of examples, the book shows that seemingly innocent differences in order or defaults can have profound differences in outcomes.

Nudge is divided into three parts: an explanation of the theory, a series of policy recommendations, and responses to critics. The first portion is definitely my favorite as it lays the intellectual foundation for this idea which can play a part in many policy debates. Perhaps since I fall prey to a number of the blunders they outline (I’m young, I’ve got nothing to worry about!), I was not as enthralled with their discussions of how to improve credit markets or pharmaceutical plans, but I certainly hope that the right people do read those parts because the plans outlined to help millions are incredibly important additions to the national debate on issues as broad as environmental protection to investing to school choices.

Libertarian paternalism recognizes that humans are fallible and need help. It knows that experts have the experience to help. But it contrast to traditional paternalism, it recognizes the failings of government mandate and that knowledge is dispersed and people, if given appropriate settings, can make the best decisions for themselves.  So, allow me to nudge you towards their website or Amazon page where you can purchase it for yourself.

[Also by Sunstein is Infotopia.]

The Starfish and the Spider is one of the better books I’ve read recently. It is a fun book packed with great examples about the “unstoppable power of leaderless organizations.” Much of what I am interested in recently are the networks which are increasingly important and prevalent; Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom provide a wonderful explanation of the benefits of decentralized networks.

The title of the book comes from the fact that if you cut off a spider’s head, it dies; however, if you cut a starfish in half, what you’ve done is create a two animals. In fact, some starfish can even grow from the removed leg of another. Their persistence comes from the fact that they do not have a centralized, hierarchical control system. In the past, starfish organizations did exist, but the Internet “is a breeding ground and launching pad for new starfish organizations.” As such, the lessons the two authors outline are important.

Brafman and Beckstrom are masters of finding perfect examples to illustrate their points. They easily tie together Native American history, the automobile industry and P2P networks to provide insight into the nature of starfish organizations. For example, why were the Aztecs so easily conquered by Cortez but the Apache tribe remained fiercely independent for hundreds of years? The answer, it turns out, is the same reason record labels are languishing and Napster is dead, only to be replaced by BitTorrent and eMule. The Aztecs were highly centralized with a capital city, chain of command and stationary lifestyle; in contrast, the Apache’s relied on disparate communities led by example and willing to live nomadically - with no supreme leader to kill or towns to raze, the Apaches proved much more adept at avoiding conquest. Similarly, whereas Napster decentralized much of music sharing, it relied on a central database which was vulnerable to copyright enforcement. Newer approaches, like BitTorrent are fully decentralized making it near impossible to shut down.

These open systems are also, understandably, more adept at evolving or mutating. One prime example of a starfish organization is Alcoholics Anonymous which doesn’t have a real headquarters or leader. AA is just a system and belief in the power of people to help each other overcome addiction. Though it began as a system for alcoholics, it spawned decentralized programs for other addicts including gambling and eating.

By being decentralized, starfish organizations take advantage of distributed knowledge. Wikipedia does this famously by allowing anyone to edit an encyclopedia page; Draper Fisher, a leading VC firm, does it by having dozens of offices around the world to hear pitches from entrepreneurs. Starfish organizations rely on the community they foster and the willingness to contribute to a cause.

One of the things I like most about “The Starfish and the Spider” is the authors’ decision to structure it, in parts, as a business book with clear “how-to” and lists of strategies. One section in which they do this is how to combat decentralization. Al Qaeda is one of prototypical starfishes: they are more an ideology than an organization. Would-be terrorists do not need Osama bin Laden’s approval to carry-out an attack. In this light, it makes even less sense to hunt the 9/11 masterminds while not combating the ideology that motivates terrorists. Brafman and Beckstrom say that there are three ways to combat starfishes, none of them are to further centralize yourself, even though that is the tendency (witness the rise of the Executive branch post-9/11 or the record labels in recent years). You can change the ideology of the decentralized adherents by giving them reasons to not attack the West (a future or respect, perhaps?), centralize them (as America did by providing Apaches with cattle and therefore property), or decentralize yourself.

The key, though, for decision-makers and organizers, is to find the hybrid form like Toyota or eBay. Both major corporations, Toyota relies on their much-flaunted production system which relies on outsiders for much of it and eBay has a decentralized network of sellers and buyers, but a central payment system.

At 210 pages of fun examples, plain English and smart-thinking, this book was great (I finished it the day it arrived). Though I found their discussion of the catalysts (people who empower decentralized networks) a bit tiresome, I cannot complain about the rest. “The Starfish and the Spider” will provide an important way of thinking about the world.

An old debate, made famous by Machiavelli, has been resurrected in recent weeks when discussing Barack Obama. Does the end justify the means? Do Obama’s recent political maneuverings on FISA and public financing justify his goal of becoming president? Is his place in the Oval Office so important that he should sway on important issues like telecom immunity or campaign finance? Lawrence Lessig, for whom I have great admiration, certainly thinks so. Others, though, are becoming disillusioned and realize that Obama is a politician like others, prone to changes and human error.

I, too, have been disappointed. I never thought Obama was perfect, but he was certainly brilliant and had the academic credentials and connections that I think are important for politicians to hold. However, it recently occurred to me that perhaps his ideal role is not in politics. The broad, genuine support that Obama has enjoyed certainly makes the highest office of the land look promising, even likely. But could his following exist outside politics?

Historically, those wanting to induce policy change needed to be where power was. They needed the attention that came from being Senator or President. However, the deep structural resiliency of Washington, D.C. allows for the persistence of corruption and stagnation. Many Mr. Smiths have gone to DC to see their hopes and plans crushed.

Now, many of the elements of power - attention, influence, etc. - have been distributed outside DC. Al Gore has been more effective outside of politics than as an insider. Bill Gates commands more flexibility and cash than many countries. Both men have the ability to gain media attention and amplify their power. The same could be true of Obama. Now, I don’t presume that any private citizen could maintain the influence of the President of the USA for four years, but as a private citizen Obama could stick to his principles. The resurrected question of ends and means wouldn’t mean much. The end and means would be aligned.

Imagine Barack Obama forming the “Coalition for Change” or the “Alliance for Hope.” His digital roledex of hundreds of thousands of supporters would quickly become one of the most important political forces - while existing in a distributed, assymetrical fashion.

So, it isn’t that I want Obama to drop out of the race (too much of McCain’s policies and approaches are less than ideal) but, instead, he should recognize that if, for some reason, he doesn’t win the Presidency, he may be better as something besides a politician, a private citizen.

David Brooks gave a recent talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival about the unconscious mind and its importance. According to new research, the mind can only consciously process 1% of the information it captures. While we have grown to believe that thought and reason shape decisions, the reality is that consciousness is only like a small boy riding an elephant - it is important, but much of the work is done in the unconscious/elephant. These non-cognitive skills are just starting to be understood through behavioral economics, neuroscience, sociology, psychology and other fields.

The processes that shape people’s minds are really hard to measure and do not resonate with our current framework of economic incentives. Brooks thinks we need a new vocabulary do discuss these topics because our explicit decision-making is understood in terms which do not reflect our growing understanding.

I really recommend you check out the brief speech, in two parts, here and here.

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to pass a “compromise” bill which updated FISA; in it, it granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunications firms which are facing lawsuits alleging civil liberties violations from their work with the NSA in wiretapping Americans. This deal, which effectively removes the Judiciary from the legal process, had been rejected earlier this year by the same Congressional body. Even though the EFF and others have shown that this bill is not a compromise, for some reasons Congress supported it now.

What gives?

Well, it turns out the telcos do.

MAPLight, one of many organizations working to shed light on the influence of money in politics, has analyzed the political contributions of ATT, Sprint and Verizon over the past couple months and found that the 94 Democrats who changed their position received an average of $8,359 from the telco PACs. More of their findings are here, including the fact that 88% of flip-flopping Democrats received telco money.

The effect of money in DC is abysmal. It is a procedural cancer which retards the political system. I’m ashamed to say that my representative, Judy Biggert, is a proud supporter of George Bush’s policies and has voted with him 80% of the time, including on this issue. As election season approaches, I was hopeful that the Democratic candidate, Scott Harper, would be able to unseat her and bring some measure of change to DC.

However, at a recent house party, when I asked Mr. Harper about accepting money, he sorely dissapointed me. Although I was impressed with much of what he had to say, Mr. Harper flippantly dismissed the malignant effects of money in politics. He spoke proudly of accepting money from unions and had sought environmental contributions, too. I fully appreciate the difficulty of raising money in a Congressional race, but was disheartened to hear him laud contributions from those he supports.

Mr. Harper or Mrs. Biggert could easily support the unions or telcos without accepting their money. They could meet with lobbyists and executives to learn about issues with which they have little experience. However, when money changes hands, political thought is biased. Both attorneys and lobbyists seek to influence a supposedly impartial decision-maker, but we would never allow an attorney to legally pay a judge. Why should lobbyists?

The Change Congress movement is Larry Lessig’s new project to end the economy of influence in DC. They are asking candidates to 1) not accept lobbyists/PAC money, 2) vote to end earmarks, 3) support increased transparency and 4) support public financing. Lessig elaborates on the goal in this video.

I sincerely hope the effort is successful so that politicians like Mrs. Biggert and Mr. Harper can represent their constituencies without the bias which is endemic to today’s political system. No longer can we afford the change that $8,000 brings about.