Greater Democracy news and opinion via email:
- To subscribe, send a blank message to greaterdemocracy-subscribe at greaterdemocracy.org
- To unsubscribe, greaterdemocracy-unsubscribe at greaterdemocracy.org
Weblog Team
Jock Gill
Jon Lebkowsky
Jeffrey Fisher
Adina Levin
Peter Kaminski
David Reed
David Weinberger
Paperless Papers
The Internet Constituency by David Weinberger
Open Spectrum FAQ
Why Open Spectrum Matters: The End of the Broadcast Nation by David Weinberger
Nodal Politics by Jon LebkowskySocieties of Cooperating Cognitive Solutions, a weblog post by Jock Gill
Is Money Killing Democracy in America? by Jock Gill
Resources
Howard Dean Meetup (first Wednesday of each month)
Dean for America
Blog for America: The Official Howard Dean Weblog
Unequal Protection
Organizers' Collaborative
Common Dreams
Center for Democracy and Technology
Nonprofit Technology Enterprise Network
ReclaimDemocracy.org
13 Myths
Instant Runoff
Orgnet.com
Archives
July 2003
June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Political Advertising -- From the IRSThe following is linkable at: http://www.correspondences.org/archives/000187.html#000187 (Thanks, Mitch!)We received a letter today from the Internal Revenue Service, informing us that thanks to Congress and President George W. Bush, "We are pleased to inform you.... This new law provides broad-based tax relief, including a $400 increase in the child tax credit for 2003...." This is another example of malfeasance by the Bush Administration, not because the Federal government is borrowing from future generations (more about that in a moment), but because the letter is a political advertisement for the Bush campaign. It doesn't simply inform taxpayers about a change in rates, it spins the very debatable point that this is a "broad-based" form of tax relief. The letter should not have been sent with the adjectival "broad-based" appended to the phrase tax relief, since the child tax credit is only one aspect of a much larger tax cut that, cumulatively, results in far greater benefits for the richest one percent of the U.S. population than for the typical American. The Secretary of Treasury, John Snow, should resign for having abused the neutral bureaucratic function of the Internal Revenue Service mailing priveleges for political purposes. But, I also want to send some feedback from one of the Americans the Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 ostensibly benefits, my seven-year-old daughter, Geneva. When I opened the letter and read it, then handed it to my mother-in-law, who said "What are they sending $800 [for my two kids] when the government doesn't have the money?" my daugher said: "They're sending us $800, why are they doing that when they don't have the money -- where does it come from?" I explained that even though the Federal government doesn't have the extra money to write these checks, it is borrowing the money and will pay it back later, with interest. My daughter, who is already certain she will own a business someday (a pet shop currently, but she's got entrepreneur written all over her, as she's always making and selling things), asked who would be paying it back. "Americans will pay it back, in the future. You and the other kids who will have jobs someday will pay it back." "I don't want my store to pay back $800 we got this year," Geneva said. "That's not fair." I didn't go into how some very wealthy families are getting a lot more than $800. But I did ask her a question to make sure she understood that we pay taxes every year, anyway: "Would you be willing to pay some money to the government every year for schools and other things it provides?" Here, Genny was precise and the President should listen to my little girl: "Daddy, of course I'd pay taxes to let us live, but President Bush shouldn't be taking $800 out of my pocket when I am a grown up." She then said she will be president when she grows up so she can help fix this mess President Bush is making; and therein lies the future of the United States, which is safe as long as young people continue to believe they can make a change. So, even though the U.S. Treasury has abused the public trust by sending what amounts to a campaign advertisement the Bush Administration's duplicity is clear to everyone, even my albeit bright and perfect little girl. If Bush doesn't fire Snow for abuse of public funds, this is another reason to vote against him in 2004. — Mitch Ratcliffe
"I did not have uranium with that woman"The Democratic National Party is soliciting funds to air this commercial. The ad twice shows Bush saying "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It then tells us that everyone knew that was false. But the real aim of the ad is, I believe, to hang that phrase around Bush's neck the way the Republicans hung "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" around Clinton's. And the way the administration tried to wiggle out of it by claiming that the full statement - truncated in the ad - only said that the British had learned this, not that it was true, is more disingenuous than Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Monday, July 21, 2003 "superpower democracy"By Sheldon S. WolinSheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds." July 18, 2003 Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as "the world's only superpower." Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic participation congenial. No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved. Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel. The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest. The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it displays similar contempt for restraints. It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast,inverted totalitarianism exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States, participation is about 50 percent. Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests) short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition seems futile. While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions. This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment, downsizing and cutbacks in basic services. Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one, the Republican, radically change its identity: >From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one. >From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars. >From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to the right and and enfeebling opposition. >From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which subordinated "big business" to party leadership.) The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's reconstruction. In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a reformist administration comes to power. Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged.
Sunday, July 20, 2003 Dean campaign in the frayI wrote about how remarkable it is that a presidential candidate has found himself thrown into the wildest sort of Internet melee, which led to my blogging about how much is contained in a simple statement by Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager, in his totally human comment on that fray.So, now it's been continued on my own discussion board. Ken Camp criticizes Dean for "walking the fence" on issues. "All I really want is for him to stand up and say something." Seems like an odd complaint addressed to Howard Dean. In any case, Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager, has responded. He says, in part: The easiest thing in the world would have been to tell people on the Lessig blog exactly what they wanted to hear — so I think your criticism of playing the Internet audience is a little off-base. We really were and are trying to open a dialog to help us formulate our policies as we move forward — and to do it from the bottom up. Ken replies. But I think he's missing the bigger point: Whether you agree with Ken that Dean's blogging at Lessig's site should have had more detailed proposals (and, fwiw, I do not agree) this has never happened before. Here's what's new or at least unusual: A first-tier presidential candidate has written his own stuff and posted it for the world to see with no focus groups and little or no staff review. Before this, what would you have had to do to get the ear of a potential president of the United States? You could have a column in a national newspaper or you could get a hernia toting sacks of cash to the campaign headquarters. Can we at least pause for a moment of delight before we become blasé?
Thursday, July 17, 2003 Chris Lydon audio blog w/ Weinberger: Dean, Lessig etcChris Lydon audio blogged an interview with David Weinberger yesterday. The interview is in three parts. The last third (separately linked) is about why the fray over at Lessig.com is historic.The Governor, says Weinberger, is doing great with the Lessig blog. The page with the entire audio blog: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/ The segment about the Governor: http://media.skybuilders.com/lydon/weinberger/mono3.mp3
Saturday, July 05, 2003 What Gives?by Dana BlankenhornTo: David Yepsen Des Moines Register From: Dana Blankenhorn Dear David: You have no doubt heard about the Howard Dean campaign’s latest stunt, getting thousands of people at Meetups nationwide to write personal letters to Iowans, urging their support. I missed yesterday’s Meetup. I had to pick up my kid from camp. So when I got back home today, I assigned myself to you. Here’s a Clue about the Dean campaign that can win you a Pulitzer The magic of Dean has very little to do with his specific stands on issues. Yes, the anti-war thing was provocative. Yes, he has gay support because he signed the civil unions bill. But George H.W. Bush opposed his son’s war, and the Supreme Court has moved pretty far down the road toward approving civil unions. Beyond those two issues, Dean is pretty much DLC all-the-way. He’s mainstream, he’s moderate, he’s the son of "Howie" Dean, the investment banker, a Rockefeller Republican. Yet his fans don’t seem to care. Dean "screws up" (all the chattering classes agree) on Meet the Press, and they don’t care. His kid gets arrested and they don’t care. He moves right and they don’t care. He flip-flops on the death penalty and they don’t care. What gives? Here’s what gives. Every four years you come on TV and go on rhapsodically about the miracle of the Iowa caucuses. People come together from within their communities and stand up for their man. It’s true democracy because it’s intimate. The only equally-intimate rite we have is the New England Town Meeting, you say. This is what Howard Dean has created but for everyone. Go to his blog (blog.deanforamerica.com). You can use the "comment" command at the bottom of each post to respond. People will read it, and they might follow what you say. When you see a candidate on TV you’re in the audience. When you experience Dean’s blog you’re in the game. Or go to a Meetup. People who are new to the process come for the first time, they are recognized, they stand up and they testify about what brought them to Howard Dean. They are validated, congratulated, welcomed, embraced. And they come away feeling empowered. I make my living covering technology and Internet commerce. I’ve done this full time for nearly two decades. I’ve also followed the development of online politics since 1996. And what I have learned from all that work is simply this: The IN in the word Internet is short for Intimate. True intimacy comes when you are validated, accepted, and embraced by someone else. We think we approach this with sex. We really embrace it with marriage. But it’s at the heart of all friendship, all fellowship – personal, religious or civic. Go to any church, or any Rotary meeting, and you will see it. All those people are different, but they are coming together despite their differences, doing something useful and good. The Dean Campaign creates, embraces, enhances, validates, and rewards intimacy. The Dean Campaign gives people something they have lost, not just in politics but in life. A responder on the June 30 "campaign telethon" at the Dean Web site understood this – "Does anyone else here feel like an extra in a Frank Capra movie?" he asked. This is what the Dean Campaign delivers, something no campaign has delivered since the dawn of the TV age – real intimacy. Pat Robertson conditioned intimacy on a detailed religious dogma, but you remember how powerful that was. Howard Dean does without the dogma. His campaign embraces anyone – white, black, rich, poor, gay or straight – anyone who is willing to embrace it and be embraced in turn. No, sir, this is not "creepy." This is America. This is where America started. This is what America promised. This is what America is all about. It’s about acceptance. It just so happens that Dean’s own principles – old-fashioned Capra-esque principles – have met a medium that can recreate this intimacy in all of us. What is the key message of the Dean Campaign? It was the close to his announcement speech. "You have the power." You really do. Money doesn’t have it, Washington doesn’t have it, the pundits don’t have it, David Yepson doesn’t have it, Dana Blankenhorn certainly doesn’t have it. You have it. You. Out there, whoever you are and whatever your story. George Bush raises funds in million-dollar chunks and calls his people pioneers. We raise funds in $20 chunks and we call ourselves, simply, Americans. There was a lot of agonizing in Hollywood over the ending of Capra’s movie "Meet John Doe." It had to be changed, because it was looking dark. It was 1941, and Edward Arnold’s media mogul D.B. Norton had succeeded in defeating Gary Cooper and the John Doe clubs. Cooper, as Doe, is ready to jump off a skyscraper on Christmas Eve, just to prove a point, that no one cares. Barbara Stanwyck, as the journalist who got him into this mess (she created the character and wrote the letter promising he would jump), reaches toward him, hugs him, begs him not to jump. Arnold and his powerful buddies arrive on the scene, but so do James Gleason (the crusty newspaper editor) and a rag-tag collection of John Doe Club members. It’s the extras, the Doe Club members, who keep Doe from jumping, not Stanwyck, and these are the people who carry him off the roof. Gleason sticks out his finger at Arnold, motions with his thumb back to the group, and barks, "The people. Try and beat that!" (Cue the credits.) That’s the secret of the Dean Campaign. Yeah, it’s as corny as a Frank Capra movie. But the blogs, the campaign, the Meetups, they all deliver that same power, that same intimacy. They return Americans back to a sense of themselves as powerful, important, worthwhile. And we need that. We need that now. We need that bad. Howard Dean gave it to us. The feeling that we have the power. And over the next 16 months, we will see whether we do. src="http://www.quicktopic.com/22/qLhi85dZVEkYZ.js"> Discuss What Gives?
Friday, July 04, 2003 Post-Broadcast PoliticsThis via email from Jock Gill:This occurred to me in the truck as we drove to Vermont yesterday — 1986 diesel Suburban, 250+K miles, no radio, no A/C — windows down all the way. Metrics always distort goals. So, as my much smarter than I wife says, be careful of the metrics you pick. In Broadcast politics, the metric has been the dollar — how to pay for broadcast advertising. Net result: chasing dollars turns politics into corporate politics. Now add in the 90 day financial report: it is clear why "stewardship" is ranked so low today. However, if the metric becomes the number of people who donate, the implication is that this is a politics that drives democracy and participation. The is post-Broadcast politics. What FDR did with radio, what JFK did to Nixon with TV, is what we are going to do to Bush with New Media — Our politics of Connection, Openness, and Participation [post-broadcast] will not be understood by Bush — although it is the same strategy our military used in Iraq. Happy 4th, Jock src="http://www.quicktopic.com/22/w4JikWtf3UMk.js"> Discuss Post-Broadcast Politics
Tuesday, July 01, 2003 ScalingAnother blog calls the winners of the MoveOn PollRight now, based on the way we assume Presidential campaigns are run, further. Based on the present rules and assumptions of politics, no Democrat is electable. This has nothing to do with MoveOn being "ultra-left" or Bush being in the mainstream. In fact, the opposite is very much the case. Except for the Iraq War, which in fact has barely started (despite Bush' claims it ended May 1), this Administration's policies are far from mainstream. They are radical. The deficit is out-of-control. Our social policies have become repressive. Our tax policy has become regressive. George W. Bush is the most radical right-wing politician we have ever seen in power in this country. He isn't a fascist -- he is an Americanist. But that means he is just what us against. In contrast, Howard Dean says we need to balance the budget, and so do other Democrats. Howard Dean says the court decided rightly in the case of tory/International/">Lawrence et al v. Texas This is wildly left only to someone who is wildly right. Yet right now, under the present rules, no Democrat is electable. This is because the political rule is that you raise as much money as you can and spend it on TV commercials. No Democrat can compete under those rules. No Democrat can compete when business lobbyists are deliberately shaken-down for contributions by an Administration that has no shame about using, and abusing, its power. The only way Democrats can compete -- the only way to restore democracy (which depends on a vibrant two-party competition) -- is to change the rules. This is what makes Dean dangerous. It is precisely what his campaign is trying to do. This is what Kucinich is copying, and it's why he was able to keep Dean from winning the Moveon endorsement. (This is not to minimize their issue differences, which are real. But Kucinich' is now an Internet campaign, which got 76,000 votes.) The question is, can any of this scale? I'm not just talking about scaling in the computer sense -- that challenge is hard enough. I'm talking about scaling in the personal sense. Combined, Dean and Kucinich drew about 200,000 people to do the same thing on the same day. It was impressive for this early in the campaign. But can they get 2 million to do the same thing on the same day, 20 million, 100 million? Can they do this, mainly using the Internet, while those who might join them are bombarded day-and-night by TV advertisements from the other side? That is the question, and the challenge, before Democrats today. And their success could truly restore democracy. Because if a Democrat can win, using mainly the Internet, they will spend one-tenth what their TV-tied opponent does. And if that can happen, then campaign finance reform becomes unnecessary, a dead letter. It doesn't matter. On the other hand, if a radical, far-right Administration can crush the Democratic Party, crush them with advertising, with a vast, intensive media campaign, crush them despite a collapsing economy and an unwinnable war -- then where lies democracy -- with a small "d"? This Internet campaigning I'm doing right now means everything. It means more than the fate of Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich or any other politician. These Internet campaigns are an attempt to do nothing less than change the rules of the political game. And until those rules change, democracy (small d) does not exist in the United States of America. Not because Bush is radical or evil, but because he has twisted the present system so that no Democrat can compete within it, requiring that a new system be created. Will you help create that system, an interactive politics in which you are really heard, where you really participate, and you are not merely part of the audience? Or are you going to watch TV instead? — Dana Blankenhorn src="http://www.quicktopic.com/22/atmrGvTmBkWGr.js"> Discuss Scaling
|