Posts Tagged ‘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?

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.

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.

The second day of Berkman@10 was less structured and involved a number of smaller panels and discussions. Haven taken a course in economic and political development, I was particularly excited to see the panels on the developing world’s use of technology.

The “Open World” session was led by a number of people doing work in the area. Key points I took away were the importance of both “hard” topics like infrastructure and policy and “soft” ones like culture and language. Because of the oft-discussed digital divide, there is a “latent ingenuity” in poor countries where people are not given the agency to create or innovate with the same ease of their rich peers. Even where ICT infrastructure exists, it is often costlier; for example, African ICT traffic must flow through third parties (e.g. British ISPs) driving up the cost in net hundreds of millions of dollars. How do you create policies which induce infrastructure construction? These are difficult tasks which Ethan Zuckerman thought were possible to avoid in certain cases. He gave the example of cell phone service in DR Congo where an entrepreneur was able to start with just one tower and built it into a billion dollar business, piece by piece. In other words, where nothing exists, something is better than nothing.

The conversation shifted to issues of access. Frequently Internet access is considered a panacea, but access is not everything: people need skills and abilities - literacy is a major one. While the Internet requires literacy, many times in English as local language content is lacking, mobile devices rely on vocal communication which is more accessible. Also, because people are less likely to trust third party institutions or sources in the developing world, mobile phones offer opportunities to communicate with the social network people already trust. Where people are accessing content, say in Central Asia where Beth Kolko does a lot of research, they want entertainment and sports news, not just agricultural prices or weather.

Finally, on one last issue of infrastructure, Professor Jhunjhunwala of IIT Madras lamented the poor state of power sources. Not enough effort has been put into developing inexpensive, reliable power sources which can stand up to the unique tests of the developing world.

The second session I attended was led by Ellen Miller and Micah Sifry who are involved with the important Sunlight Foundation which works to promote government transparency. Please see this post for a lot of the great sources they referenced.

The next session I attended was in much the same vein as the first. It was led by Beth Kolko and Michael Best. It was framed as a debate over the relative benefits of the OLPC versus mobile phones. Is a mobile phone solely a communication and information delivery device, not a platform for deep/rich content, like the OLPC? Or is the mobile phone the best ICT environment for the global South? An audience member for Nokia had interesting commentary about the richness of voice and the difficulty in determining the difference between phones and laptops. Storage, portability and programmability are no longer the domain of just one type of device; a convergence has occurred. Unanswered question: has a convergence of use followed?

Since technical capability may be the same in many cases, what are the policy and ideological implications? Discussion turned to the role of intermediaries. As you know, cell phone carriers exert incredible control over their networks (even though it has lessened slightly recently). With 4/5 of the world owning a cell phone in 5-10 years, do we want these companies to exert such control over the major ICT? Using Zittrain’s framing in his book “The Future of the Internet,” are these devices bound to be sterile (that is without the generative capabilities of PCs or the Internet)? I noted that even though these devices are sold as-is, the presentations of Jan Chipchase suggest that people are quite adept at forcing generativity - opening their phones and forcing new capabilities out. I’ll have more to say about this as soon as I finish Zittrain’s book.

The final session I went to was led by Jonathan Zittrain about “Netizenship” which is his term for the ways in which people vote through their bandwidth or CPU cycles. When people edit Wikipedia or utilize Folding@Home, they are signaling an approval of the goal - universal knowledge or cancer research. Zittrain and a team have created Herdict (not open yet) which will work with the OpenNet Initiative to better quantify and reify the phenomenon of Internet filtering. It is a great example of the entrepreneurial nature of Berkman.

Overall, the conference was eye-opening and enlightening. It gave me a lot of leads and ideas over which to stew. More to come as a result.