Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 406
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, October 9 2002 Volume 01 : Number 406
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] A little fun with a very serious subject
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 20:01:18 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] A little fun with a very serious subject
From rec.humor.funny:
"I've started referring to the proposed action against Iraq as Desert
Storm 1.1, since it reminds me of a Microsoft upgrade: it's expensive,
most people aren't sure they want it, and it probably won't
work."--Kevin G. Barkes
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
>Continuing my response:
>
> "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com> responding to Ronda Hauben
>ronda@panix.com wrote:
(Answering in reverse order)
[Incidentally, you may enjoy knowing I have a new cat family, with a
kitten named Rhonda. Different namesake, but you share something
(hopefully not walking on keyboards).]
>
>>>
>>>I called the NY Senators and their local phones were either busy
>>>or not taking messages....
>
>>[snip]
>
>
>>Simple question: what is your data that the US majority does not want
>>a war? I'm not prejudging, just looking for what is opinion versus
>>information. Given the size of the world, I can probably find
>> millions opposed to almost anything.
>
>20,000 in Central Park in NY on Sunday, and 9,000 in San Francisco
>and demonstrations in other places. In the world, 400,000 in London
>last weekend and 1 million demonstrating around Italy this weekend.
>
>Lots of calls to the offices of Congressfolk and other forms of
>communication opposing the war..
Certainly indicative that some people oppose the war. A majority or a
significant minority? That's not clear.
>
>The fact that there is so little representation of any of this
>in the US press and that the President and Congress do not seem
>to have any interest in why there is such opposition or the need
>to explore and understand the opposition.
There is a fundamenental and theoretical difference between
leadership by democracy and leadership by consensus. The hard fact is
that as soon as a democratic leadership believes it has the support
of over 50% of the electorate, it can act. The Constitution really
doesn't speak to considering the opinions of all (nor was it
practical at the time), although there is reason to believe the
Framers' intent was to have the Senate in the role of the reflective
"tribal elders."
(Just an aside - is it an example of progress that we honor the
Framers, but consider it unjust when someone today is framed?)
>
>Something very fundamental seems to have broken down in the US
>system of government that this is all happening.
>
>
>>Incidentally, I feel that Congress has been especially shameful in
>>this, beginning with some leaks that certainly don't contribute to a
>>good working relationship with the Executive, followed by
>>witchhunting by the Executive, then Congress apparently drafting a
>>blank check without serious investigation and debate. There has been
>>an incredible amount of posturing.
>
>Yup giving a blank check and there being so little public discussion
>in the US about what is happening is a strange environment to
>be living in.
>
>>Many leaks deal with overclassification. Leaks of communications
>>intercepts do not. There is reality to the claim that sacrifices
>>sources and methods that may be critical for the future.
>
>Far too much is secret to begin with.
Yes, but I am raising a specific point. If there is ANY level of
trust in government, if the oversight committees are doing their job,
there is NO reason to reveal the time and text of a communications
intercept. By doing so, you are likely to lose the source for all
time, since the source knew HOW they said what is being quoted, and
won't use that source again.
>Somehow there is a need
>for much more public discussion of problems to have any means
>to find real solutions that serve a public interest rather
>than solutions that only serve very narrow private interests.
Again, there's a delicate line. It would be one thing, and a good
one, if Internet technology, etc.,
>
>>>The staffer said he would convey my sentiments to the Senator.
>>>I didn't see how he could since he didn't seem to be asking
>>>any questions or taking any notes.
>
>>From practical experience with the Hill, it's not all that effective
>>simply to call the office. It tends to be most effective to track
>>down the relevant staffer in a member's office or the relevant
>>committee/subcommittee, unemotionally state your credentials, perhaps
>>tie what you want done to a position taken by the legislator or of a
> >group in the constituency, and then offer specific suggestions.
>>Offer to be a policy resource.
>
>Several of us tried that with the ICANN situation back when the
>Science Comm was taking up the issue. The staffers really didn't
>seem to want to sort out how to solve the problem, but rather
>it seemed that Worldcom's representative from Mississippi was
>there calling the shots in Worldcom's interest.
>
>It all made me wonder if there is any way to have the system
>function according to law and the public interest ever again.
>
>>Another approach, even though the matter in question may be before
>>the Senate, is to contact your Representative's office, in writing,
>>and ask the material be conveyed to your Senator and to the various
>>House and Senate committee staff. I wouldn't expect to get anywhere
>>on a phone call unless I had already established a staff relationship.
>
>I appreciate these suggestions and will consider seeing if there
>is some way to do what you suggest. But somehow it seems that
>the Congress and other aspects of the US government need to have
>some realization that citizens and and their needs do matter.
>Right now, it seems this has gotten lost from their radar screen.
>
>In other countries like for example Germany and a few years ago,
>Austria, there seemed real interest in government in how the
>Internet could make a more democratic environment possible.
>
>>If, say, foreign policy is an issue, start in a non-crisis situation
>>and ask your Senatorial and House offices to put you on their mailing
>>lists for relevant action by the member. Try to learn which staffer
>>has interest in the area.
>
>Have you found this functioned for you?
Yes. I include both technology policy and my work on District of
Columbia government.
For that matter, I've used similar techniques in the Executive
branch. My ex-wife was attacked by a person delivering the paper. I
detained him by a ruse the next time we saw him, until the police got
there. He claimed diplomatic immunity, as a low-level driver for the
Pakistani embassy.
The local police said they could do nothing. After I worked my way up
the ladder at the State Department, the individual was forced to
leave the country.
>
>>
>>>So that was the best America's representative form of democracy
>>>seems to offer its citizens. Not very adequate to the problems
>>>facing the people in the US and around the world.
>>
>>>What are we to do to have more democracy?
>
>>Define how you differentiate individual democracy from government by
>>public opinion poll.
>
>Nice question.
>
>A public opinion poll is in the control of someone or some interest
>who has some calls made and makes some report of some finding.
>
>There is no discussion among the public, no public questions that
>are identified and examined, etc.
>
>In a democracy, as has functioned online at various periods,
>there is a need to hear from a range of opinions. People
>with differences are encouraged to speak and to have a discussion.
>People find from the differences that issues become clarified and
>it becomes clearer what is important to do and less important
>and why.
I'm not sure this is scalable to large numbers, or, without
moderation, is protected from charismatic speakers or with those who
do not respect the rights of others. This is a fairly common event
on political newsgroups.
>
>A newsgroup or mailing list with active participants can be helpful
>in clarifying issues. For example, in our book "Netizens: On the
>History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" there are two
>chapters about the November 1994 National Telecummunication and
>Information Administration online conference (NTIA) about the
>future of the Internet. There were a broad range of views and
>interests discussed and that was a beginning model for how
>to have people participate in a democratic process that the
>people making the decisions should be drawing on.
>
>
>>
>>>That is the question that needs to be raised and somehow answered.
>>
>>>And how do the people of the US and around the world prevent the
>>>US government from attacking Iraq and offering other countries the
>>>Iraq oil reserves etc?
Loaded question, given your "and". There may or may not be
justification for attack. That doesn't speak one way or another to
oil reserves.
>
>>A more general question that might be discussed: are there criteria
> >for just war? If so, what are they? Is preemption ever ethical?
A good start is in Augustine and Aquinas. The US Declaration of
Independence cites a specific rationale. Telford Taylor had good
things to say in his book "Nuremburg and Vietnam," although that was
on the operational and tactical, not strategic level--the conduct of
a war rather than the decision to start one.
I think highly of Fred Ikle's book, "Every War Must End (2nd Ed)" for
more of a realpolitik view of when it is extremely unwise to start
wars.
>
>The UN charter is contrary to attacking a sovereign nation with
>a preemptive attack. I guess I don't see preemption as having
>the potential of being ethical since one doesn't know what will
>happen, only what one thinks can happen.
I'm not sure I see that. Article V provides for self-defense. I don't
think there is a military in the world that doesn't consider, for
example, having an aircraft hit with firecontrol radar rather than
search radar to be an act that warrants self-defense. There can be
military indicators that an opposing force is about to attack.'
Let's take a historical example. You are the captain of a US
submarine, with flexible orders, and you are following the Japanese
Mobile Fleet around December 6, 1941. Would you consider attacking
the carriers:
1. When they moved into striking range of Hawaii
2. When they began to launch a significant number of combat aircraft
3. When the combat aircraft formed up and flew in the direction of Hawaii
(note at this point the carriers are empty)
4. Only after you have heard Pearl Harbor has been bombed.
>
>In Great Britain before World War II there was a sense that Britain
>needed some way to defend itself in a coming war, so there was
>a commitment by the government to develop radar, a defensive strategy
>to protect rather than to strike out.
The British Chain Home radar system was not meant only to protect
civilian areas, but to conserve military forces.
>Later there was the decision
>to bomb civilian areas in Germany and that lengthened the war
>and cost more lives both German and British than before this policy.
It is true that population bombing, based on postwar data, does not
tend to break civilian morale. Does population bombing equate to
bombing civilian industrial targets? Mind you, I do tend to consider
Air Marshal Harris, the RAF Bomber Command leader, a war criminal for
his specific policy of targeting civilian homes in preference to
industry. Given the distributed Japanese manufacturing system,
things are not as clear for General LeMay.
>
>This second decision was a preemptive decision and proved harmful.
>
>>It is harder to have public debate on specific operational matters.
>>Mind you, there are matters of realpolitik, not democratic theory,
>>that suggest regime change in Iraq may not be a good idea.
>>
>
>There are also democratic theory considerations that say to make
>a "regime change" by an outside attack is a violation of any
>democratic process.
Even when the target is totally non-democratic?
>
>In the US we need more democratic processes so we aren't in a position
>to be dictating to Iraq or any where else what means there are
>to more democracy.
My head spins.
>And as I wrote earlier, if we were more democratic,
>we wouldn't be proposing illegal activities without any participation
>of the people in the decisions that will affect us such as
>attacking Iraq to bring about a "regime change."
>
>
>>I also find it very difficult to come up with scenarios for Iraq
>>giving WMD to terrorists. Using them directly against coalition
>>forces, or against Israel to break up a coalition, is much more
>>plausible.
>
>It ssems that the US in proposing a regime change via an attack
>is the problem for the UN and the world, not Iraq.
>
>And Israel in attacking the Palestinians in violation of UN
>mandates is similarly a serious problem.
No argument.
And while it hasn't risen to the level of widespread public
recognition, the nuances of the Kurdish situation have tremendous
effects not only on Iraq, but on the balance of power with Turkey,
Iran, and the new Central Asian republics.
>And yet there is
>no entity calling for a UN resolution against the US or
>Israel. One wonders if that is what should be happening instead
>of going along with the US to consider how to continue the
>attack on the Iraqi people in the name of the problem of their
>government. Once one starts to condemn some government from the
>outside, it seems all governments can be condemned by other
>governments. It becomes a mere power play as there aren't
>governments in general that citizens are satisfied with at
>the current time. But that is the task for the citizens of
>a country, not the government of some other country.
In what country is there more participation in decisions about WMD
than in the US?
>
>
>>There's also been too little analysis about how strategic deterrence
>>actually worked during the Cold War, but somehow is irrelevant here.
>
>Yes this is an important issue as well.
>
>Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 18:16:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: Re: [netz] Only more democracy can save democracy
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Howard,
A few thoughts on (some of) your interesting comments:
> Certainly indicative that some people oppose the war. A majority or a
> significant minority? That's not clear.
At the risk of sounding facetious, there seem to be two kinds of people: those who
perceive political action (such as attending demonstrations and contacting members
of Congress; probably also participating in open public discussion, although that
opens up other questions) as the preeminent if not the only true expression of
public opinion, and those who don't. I'm in the latter group: it would never
cross my mind to cite a demonstration as evidence of majority opinion.
The way I read the (gulp) survey data, a majority of Americans tend to favor war
against Iraq, but only if it is approved by the Security Council. Many other
caveats apply; reality is messy and can't be reduced to a few survey results,
although I do believe that the survey results convey some aspects of reality.
> There is a fundamenental and theoretical difference between
> leadership by democracy and leadership by consensus. The hard fact is
> that as soon as a democratic leadership believes it has the support
> of over 50% of the electorate, it can act. The Constitution really
> doesn't speak to considering the opinions of all (nor was it
> practical at the time), although there is reason to believe the
> Framers' intent was to have the Senate in the role of the reflective
> "tribal elders."
I don't want to get hung up on the right definition of "democracy"; it might be
clearer if you said "representative democracy." I certainly agree that it's hard
to imagine how a consensus model scales to anything approaching national size. My
one big gripe here is that it is perfectly possible for the U.S. national
leadership to act without believing that it has the support of over 50% of the
electorate. Don't you agree?
[I have nothing useful to add to the conversation on Congressional responsiveness;
I think you and Ronda both have made good points.]
> [Ronda:] >A public opinion poll is in the control of someone or some interest
> >who has some calls made and makes some report of some finding.
> >
> >There is no discussion among the public, no public questions that
> >are identified and examined, etc.
> >
> >In a democracy, as has functioned online at various periods,
> >there is a need to hear from a range of opinions. People
> >with differences are encouraged to speak and to have a discussion.
> >People find from the differences that issues become clarified and
> >it becomes clearer what is important to do and less important
> >and why.
>
> I'm not sure this is scalable to large numbers, or, without
> moderation, is protected from charismatic speakers or with those who
> do not respect the rights of others. This is a fairly common event
> on political newsgroups.
As someone with a professional interest in interpreting public opinion polls, I
would say that they are normatively valid as a means of ascertaining the people's
will only to the extent that (1) they follow actual conversation among the people
who participate and (2) they respect people's terms of discourse rather than
imposing their own. [Since polls are pretty darn stilted at best, (2) means in
practice that I want to see several different surveys covering "the same ground"
in different ways before I start forming my impressions of the public thinking
behind it.]
I think there are many ways of scaling democratic discourse, but there don't seem
to be any widely accepted ways of doing this authoritatively -- I mean, of
deriving a democratic decision from what people have to say. (Polls approximate
"equal representation" better than, say, Internet discussions do, but obviously
don't solve other problems.)
What's your take on "government by public opinion poll"? Mine in a nutshell:
policymakers decide what they want to do, then use public opinion polls to look
for ways to get it done. Overall, I wish we had rather more "government by public
opinion poll" -- but only to the extent that the polls reflect actual public
thinking. (A poll on ICANN probably wouldn't tell us much. Polls on Iraq can
tell us more because, these days, many people _are_ thinking and talking about
Iraq.)
> >The UN charter is contrary to attacking a sovereign nation with
> >a preemptive attack. I guess I don't see preemption as having
> >the potential of being ethical since one doesn't know what will
> >happen, only what one thinks can happen.
>
> I'm not sure I see that. Article V provides for self-defense.[...]
Traditionally, just war theory distinguishes between preemptive attacks -- which
can be permissible for self-defense against an imminent attack -- and preventive
attacks -- not permissible because they violate the principle that military force
is a last resort. Of course, that distinction at best frames the ethical
questions you pose; it doesn't answer them. Right now, it seems to me that Bush
is proposing preventive war, not preemptive war. (Given the last Gulf War and its
aftermath, there are plausible arguments nonetheless for using military force if
necessary to prevent the Iraqi regime from developing or using weapons of mass
destruction -- although it's not at all clear why the U.S. should be doing this
unilaterally.)
> >[Ronda:] There are also democratic theory considerations that say to make
> >a "regime change" by an outside attack is a violation of any
> >democratic process.
>
> Even when the target is totally non-democratic?
>
> >[R:] In the US we need more democratic processes so we aren't in a position
> >to be dictating to Iraq or any where else what means there are
> >to more democracy.
>
> My head spins.
I dunno whether it's intrinsically undemocratic for a sorta democratic state to
bomb a distinctly undemocratic state with the purported hope of making it more
democratic. In general, if that were the main rationale for attacking Iraq, I
suspect most folks (in the U.S. and elsewhere) would agree that it's a Bad Idea.
> > [R:] And as I wrote earlier, if we were more democratic,
> >we wouldn't be proposing illegal activities without any participation
> >of the people in the decisions that will affect us such as
> >attacking Iraq to bring about a "regime change."
Ronda sometimes seems to see no difference between the legitimacy of the U.S.
regime and that of the Iraqi regime; I do. I'd quibble with some of her words
here. But then, when the quibbling is done, I'd say that the U.S. leadership
seems to have set itself on a path of benevolent hegemony (albeit with
consultation) that seems on its face to fail both "purist" and "pragmatic" moral
tests, and goes against basic principles that most Americans want U.S. foreign
policy to follow and that Bush campaigned on (for instance, in his debate
statement that the U.S. should be "humble"). I don't mean to suggest that if the
U.S. military moves against Iraq, the United States will be revealed as the Great
Satan; my concerns go beyond the fate of Iraq.
Best,
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #406
******************************
