Monthly Archives: June 2003

building a constituency for the Commons

The American Library Association’s

commons-blog

has a nice mention of The Prince George’s

Information Commons.

I see our local work on this experimental "information

commons" as an effort to fill an important gap. The national public interest

groups that work on media issues use a model pioneered around 1970 by Ralph Nader

and John Gardner (founders of Public Citizen and Common Cause). Today, these groups

perform extremely important functions in tracking complex federal policies and

lobbying and litigating on behalf of values that would otherwise be unrepresented

in Washington. However (with the exception of the ALA and a few other groups),

they lack a grassroots base. In part, this is because their issues are so complex

that most people cannot, and will not, keep up. In part, it is because the original

Nader/Gardner model depended on a large population of active citizens who were

prone to join groups, to follow and discuss issues, and to make contributions.

Public Citizen and Common Cause were born at the demographic peak of what Robert

Putnam calls "the long civic generation." Now that people are generally

less likely to follow the news and to join groups, the "public-interest community"

in Washington lacks a base. So our strategy is to start building independent (that

is, non-partisan, non-profit, and non-governmental) groups at the community level—as

places where people can develop social ties and learn to use the complex new media

for public purposes. I believe that we should never try to push these groups to

take any particular political positions. Even after people start using the Internet

for public purposes, they may still not be upset (as I am) about corporate monopolies

or a lack of diversity in the mass media. They may have other concerns. But they

will be active, participatory, experienced, experimental, and independent; and

so they will provide the missing voice.

ideology: pros and cons

Is it good to be ideological? This seems to be an important question, since ideologies are what many people use to engage in political and civic life, yet there are good reasons to be against ideology.

First of all, What is ideology? I think we are “ideological” to the degree that our concrete judgments are determined by a set of assumptions that cohere or grow from a common root. Thus:

degree of ideology = (range of judgments generated by a set of assumptions)x (coherence of the set)


number of items in the set of assumptions

For example, Ayn Randians have a very small set of assumptions—maybe just one. Their belief that individual freedom is the only moral value generates a very wide range of judgments, not only about politics and economics, but also about religion, the virtues, and aesthetics. For them, a good novel must be about an iconoclastic genius, because individual creativity and freedom are all that matters. So Ayn Randians are highly ideological.

Classical liberals are somewhat less ideological, according to this theory, because the range of judgments supported by their initial assumptions is narrower. For instance, they may say that liberalism only tells us how to organize a state; it says nothing about what makes a good novel, or whether God exists, or what are the best personal virtues.

So is it good to be highly ideological? I would say Yes if:

  • there is a small set of coherent and true principles that can guide us.
  • everyone is inevitably ideological, in which case an overt ideology is more honest than a hidden one.
  • the alternatives are unpalatable (e.g., we must make no judgments at all, or we can only decide randomly).
  • ideology gives us roughly correct answers while lowering the cost of political participation, thereby allowing poor and poorly educated people to participate
  • ideology is the only way to solve“voting cycles”

I would say No if:

  • there is not a small set of coherent and true principles.
  • it is possible to make judgments individually, and generalizations distort a complex reality
  • there are preferable alternatives to ideology.

a strong good government program

It

appears that John Podesta will lead a new American Majority Institute designed

to develop and popularize "progressive" ideas. (The

New York Times story is here.) I think this is great news, even from

a non-partisan and non-ideological perspective, because the

intellectual collapse of the American Left is reducing competition and debate

in US politics.

There are some good idea for broad political movements

that could be adopted by the Left. Here’s one (more will follow in future postings):

Idea

# 1: A strong "good government" program. To attract the Perot-McCain-Bradley

vote in addition to its usual base, either party could propose the following policies:

  • Public financing (or at least free broadcast time) for political candidates

    and parties. Politicians always circumvent limits on campaign spending, but direct

    subsidies can make politics accessible to newcomers and increase competition.

    Public financing is available now in several states and major cities.

  • Radical

    tax simplification. On a revenue-neutral basis, taxes could be dramatically simplified

    so that the tax form became a single page for everyone. The fairness of the system

    would improve dramatically if this were done right.

  • Alternatives to standard

    methods of federal regulation. Administrative agencies generate malleable, complex,

    and inconsistent bodies of law that are always full of loopholes and inefficiencies

    and impossible to understand. Agencies always get "captured" by special

    interests. In each field, there are alternatives to rule-making by administrative

    agencies. Sometimes, Congress can replace an elaborate system of rules with vouchers

    or other simple payments to consumers. Sometimes, Congress can codify the important

    parts of a body of existing regulations into a sweeping new statute. And sometimes,

    administrative agencies can use new methods of rule-making, such as citizen juries

    or Deliberative Polls.

    The overall theme would be a criticism of both regulation and unregulated

    corporate behavior.

  • Aggressive efforts to promote diversity, competition,

    and localism in the news media, including support for low-powered radio; aggressive

    antitrust enforcement in the media industry; higher subsides for public television

    and radio; and laws requiring providers of Internet connections to offer neutral

    services so that their customers may freely explore the World Wide Web and easily

    post their own material.

  • More federal support for civic

    education and voluntary service, to increase the capacity of the next generation

    to play an active role in politics and community life.

resources for the commons

For people interested in the information commons, here

are two sites worth visiting:

  • Lawrence Lessig is circulating a petition

    asking Congress to pass a "Public Domain Enhancement Act. This statute would

    require American copyright owners to pay a very low fee (for example, $1) fifty

    years after a copyrighted work was published. If the owner pays the fee, the copyright

    will continue for whatever duration Congress sets. But if the copyright is not

    worth even $1 to the owner, then we believe the work should pass into the public

    domain."

  • The American Library Association has a new "commons-blog,"

    devoted to issues of intellectual property. The ALA is a powerful resource for

    civic work and a supporter of the public domain. Librarians run important civic

    institutions in communities and schools; they are custodians of intellectual property

    that people can use for free; and they promote deliberation. The ALA has what

    the whole public-interest movement most desperately needs: an active, knowledgeable,

    grassroots base. Leaders of the ALA, such as Nancy Kranich, a recent President

    whom I know, are aware of their civic role.

youth media

My

good friends at the Center for Media Education

sent me a list of youth-led civic projects that use the Internet. Here

are a few great examples from their list:

  • Teen

    Consumer Scrapbook (Sponsored by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office)

  • Flint Profiles

    ("By teaching information access and computer technology as tools for change,

    this project aims to empower high school students to succeed as decision makers

    who influence community leaders to respond to their ideas for change. Through

    this project, young activists will learn to put their passion into action.")

  • Harlem

    Live (Mission: "To empower a diverse group of youth towards leadership

    using experience and exposure to media and technology. … HarlemLive is award

    winning, critically acclaimed web magazine produced by teens from throughout New

    York City".)

  • Street

    Level ("Street-Level Youth Media educates Chicago’s inner-city youth

    in media
    arts and emerging technologies for use in self-expression communication,

    and social change.")

  • Wire Tap

    ("WireTap is the independent information source by and for socially conscious

    youth. We showcase investigative news articles, personal essays and opinions,

    artwork and activism resources that challenge stereotypes, inspire creativity,

    foster dialogue and give young people a voice in the media.")