Posts Tagged ‘obama’

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?

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.

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.

Two days ago I was with a friend who enjoys watching Fox News. Where I get angry at the inanity and ignorance of the programming, he laughs at the foolish topics discussed. To me, the cycle of misinformation is dangerous and needs to be addressed. Whatever the cause, insidious or innocent, this election has been marred by numerous rumours, particularly concerning Barack Obama.

As these memes gain traction online, sensationalist television news gives both creedence and additional adherents to the rumors. In turn, the speculation survives. To cloud important political decisions with innuedo, rumor and outright lies is dangerous and needs to be fought.

What, then, are the solutions? Barack Obama’s campaign thinks the answer consists of presenting verifiable truth. Their site, Fight the Smears, disproves many of the more popular myths including Obama’s “secret Muslim childhood.” It also allows supporters to email their contacts with the truth and claims to identify three political operatives who are to blame. In effect, it is a social Snopes for the campaign.

This is imperfect at best. My gut tells me that those who believe the emails they receive about Obama’s lack of patriotism will not use or trust Obama’s site. Perhaps third-party sites like Snopes could serve to convince others of their impartial truths, but it still lacks the saliency of political smears which are more likely to be forwarded than the bland truths. A real solution would have to slightly raise the cost of forwarding misinformation and lower the cost of checking the truth. Fight the Smears serves to lower the cost of fact-checking. A Firefox plugin which contextually searched for misinformation on a page could do similarly. How could we raise the costs of spreading disinformation? Some sort of karma system could rank sites but would it be biased or gamed?

What do you think would be the best way to fight disinformation?

Update: Louis Gray has noticed a similar trend populating Twitter. Some insightful thoughts in the post and comments.