Posts Tagged ‘mccain’

On Thursday, John McCain, the Republican candidate for President, unveiled his official policy position on technology and innovation. He has come under fire in recent months for his technological illiteracy, but the extent of his wrong-headedness was not clear until his campaign presented the policy. Like many issues, it differs drastically from Barack Obama’s positions which have been public for months. While I have written in the past that getting technology policy right is not just an issue of being in touch with America, it is essential to the modern economy, what have others to say about McCain’s approach?

First, let’s take a look at the Wall Street Journal, who I’ve criticized in the past for confusing the issue at hand. Their article on McCain’s policy lacks real balance and is essentially just rephrasing his policy without substantive critiques. But when you read technology experts, it is clear that they think McCain is woefully incorrect.

David Weinberger, one of the smartest philosophers on the meaning of the Internet, compiles a list of words you won’t find in McCain’s policy. He points out that McCain sees the Internet as a broadcast medium, not an interactive communicative tool.

Harvard computer science professor Harry Lewis says of the policy, “It’s mostly vague, aspirational statements, many of which are in flat contradiction with each other.”

Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist, has been a driving force behind making the net what it is today. He says in reaction to McCain’s positions, “Obama embraces the Internet as a means of cleaning Washington up, but McCain/Bush sees it as a threat which might make them accountable.”

Harold Feld, the tech policy wonk, calls the policy “a joke.”

David Isenberg, a Berkman fellow, says “to McCain, the Internet is yet another technology by which America can compete against the world.”

Former FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, lists numerous problems.

Wharton Professor Kevin Werbach calls it a “non-plan.”

OneWebDay organizer and ICANN member, Susan Crawford, notes “This isn’t vision.  It’s more like a wistful memoir about times gone by.”

The list goes on, but it is important to note that these are the people who understand the Internet better than anyone. Many of them have been fundamentally involved in the development of the Internet. They are on the front lines, so to speak, and McCain is admittedly nowhere near them in expertise. If technology and innovation is something important to you, then the choice seems clear in November.

Update: Lessig weighs in via video.

Lee Gomes of the Wall Street Journal wrote a rather curious article last week advising the next president of the United States to “avoid computers.” In it, he asserts a number of rather silly recommendations and opinions about the reality of technology policy in the next administration. The approaches to technology for the two candidates couldn’t be more different: Barack Obama is at ease with his Blackberry and iPod; John McCain is a self-professed ‘computer illiterate.’

Yet, for the either candidate, Gomes recommends a mandated 20 minutes of computer use per day. To him, using a computer is synonymous with “spending the day deleting spam or closing pop-up windows in a browser.” (Personally, I haven’t done either of those things in years; perhaps Gomes should check out Firefox and Gmail…) He continues,

“The president could use his computer time any way he wished: a favorite blog, YouTube videos, a mind-clearing game of Spider Solitaire. So many of his constituents would be doing the same thing at the same time, it would be a good way to keep up with the common folk.”

The common folk? I’m glad to see that blogging, YouTube and Solitaire is how the President can really get in touch with his constituents.

“The severe time rationing is necessary because a computer, far from making you more productive, instead loads you down with things to do, and it’s important for the machine to know who is boss.”

This is absolute nonsense. Technology is the basis for increases in productivity. Of course, the President should use assistants to deal with many tasks, and of course he should use his prestige to meet with people in person, but Gomes and McCain have missed the fundamental importance of computer literacy.

As Kevin Werbach pointed out a couple weeks ago, as digital technology is increasingly foundational to the modern economy, computer literacy isn’t about “being in touch” with the peasants common folk, it is about understanding the realities of the knowledge economy.

“…[T]he US falling behind other countries on both broadband deployment and competition, individual rights violated because the government hasn’t established rules of the road, and the Internet’s magnificent innovation engine in jeopardy” are all important problems that need to be solved. When you have the head of McCain’s technology policy team, Michael Powell, asserting that a “lot of the FCC’s issues aren’t ‘president of the United States’ issues,” you realize just how out-of-touch the campaign is with the importance of getting technology policy right at the highest levels of government.

[Image courtesy of Getty via WSJ]

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.

A central tenet of John McCain’s foreign policy plan is the so-called “League of Democracies.” This new international organization, as designed, would bring together democracies to work for a sustainable global peace and to spread the ideals of representative government. After the Bush Administration’s insistence on unilateral action, this emphasis on institutional diplomacy is, at surface, a welcome development.

However, any further thought shows this to be a silly idea which betrays the essentials for legitimate international action. I think it suffers from two poor assumptions.

The first is that all democracies support similar policies. This is hardly true. Take Iraq, where many well-established democracies in Western Europe opposed American action. McCain, who continues to support military intervention in Iraq, seems to be in an odd position of supporting a League of Democracies which would oppose his principle foreign policy. In discussing this idea in the most recent issue of Foreign Policy (subscription required), Thomas Carothers points out that democratic processes often bring to power governments which do not support American policy - Palestine, Nepal, Nicaragua and Bolivia, for example. Even more, as Fareed Zakaria pointed out in his first book, The Future of Freedom, democracy does not necessarily demand liberal principles. In fact, it is often a muddy continuum from authoritarian governments to illiberal democracies to liberal republics. The superficial belief that a League of Democracies would be clearly opposed to authoritarian regimes falls apart under true study.

Secondly, this supposed new inter-governmental organization would not be as legitimate as supposed. It is a common projection by democracies to view their role as more legitimate than authoritarian regimes, but by excluding those who they oppose from decision-making, this organization would fall prey to more mislead diplomacy. Just as the Economist explained last week, the existing global institutions are becoming outdated because they do not reflect the world today. The IMF, UN, G8 and others reflect post-WWII realities, but what good is discussing oil prices or Iranian bellicosity at a G8 summit without OPEC countries or Iran?

I agree that we need to seriously rethink organizations like the UN and G8, but the answer is not in exclusion - it is in bringing more countries into the international fold. Expand the G8 and Security Council and don’t create American projections that aim to replace the UN, especially ones flawed in design like a League of Democracies.