Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 421
Netizens-Digest Tuesday, March 4 2003 Volume 01 : Number 421
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
[netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:44:43 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
>Larry (AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com ) wrote,
>Thanks Howard for expressing accurately the complexity of the
>democracy issue.
>
>Fact is that there is no practical means of assessing the true will
>of "the people" in a democracy beyond their choice of representation
>by suffrage. To what extent the demonstrators of a demonstration
>reflect the "general will" cannot truly be quantified.
I agree completely. Protests are indeed input to those
representatives, whether the protest is conventional, net-organized,
or even virtual. But they are not a substitute for suffrage.
>
>Nevertheless, it might be interesting to note the existence of a
>specific intersection or common purpose among a wide array of
>protesting groups in the case that these same groups would otherwise
>pursue radically disparate causes.
>
You make an interesting point, one that may be valid, especially with
traditional organization. Let me, however, suggest some additional
views on what the groups might and might not be accomplishing, and
then mention some possible new, network-enabled modes different than
mentioned so far.
Historically, it is probably true that the protest do have some
coordinating role. I would suggest this role is strongest among
self-identified issue activists, as distinct by people involved in
some more traditional political movements.
Historical Incentives to Centrism
=================================
When I speak of traditional political movements, I tend to think of
political parties, especially conceptually broad-based ones such as
the US major parties. In a parliamentary system, parties may be much
more ideological, because coalition-building is a natural part of the
parliamentary process. Historically, the US parties, and the role of
the convention/caucus rather than the primaries, have been forces for
centrism and compromise. Unfortunately, this has been increasingly
broken since 1963-1964.
That date is significant because it was really the first example of a
well-organized minority organizing the primary and convention
process, and presenting a fait accompli to the 1964 Republican
convention: nominate Barry Goldwater. Especially in the Democratic
Party, there were pressures to move the role away from the convention
and into the primaries. Not necessarily a bad idea, but HORRIBLY
implemented.
Having worked in both primary and general elections, one of the
hardest jobs is switching modes. Getting a nomination means
mobilizing the True Believers, which often means catering to
extremes. Winning the general election means moving away from the
extremes toward the center.
The US system of sequential (more or less) state primaries
overemphasizes the role of the early-to-vote states, forces
candidates to appeal to local and perhaps extreme positions there,
and then may disenfranchise party members in states late to have
primaries.
I used to be active in the Republican Party, in the seventies, at a
time where it seemed a tent that could hold both moderates concerned
with less government intervention, and more authoritarian types.
Unfortunately, the religious right gained undue control in that
Party, and I could no longer feel a participant. The Democratic
Party had its own set of entrenched interests (e.g., unions and trial
attorneys).
So where am I going with this? When parties had the centrist role,
it was possible to hammer out compromises with a broad slate of
candidates. When everything became issue-group-dominated, this went
away.
A Centrist Reaction to Activism
===============================
Up to a point, belonging to a traditional party didn't mean that one
supported the extremists, because the extremists also needed the
moderates. This let me disavow some of the more extreme views but
still work with people in general harmony. A critical aspect of this
cooperation was that a party is NOT an ad-hoc organization, but a
continuing structure in which radical positions on one day could have
dire costs in the future, working with the same people.
Now, I started looking at some of the ad hoc groups (I am speaking
especially of the late sixties and mid seventies here). I did, for
example, oppose many ongoing policies in the VietNam War. But, when
opposition groups became open to any ad hoc organization, I found
myself recoiling.
I remember, for example, one protest group focusing on national
security policy. My views were not inconsistent with the founders.
But I remember groups such as the DC Coalition to Free Angela Davis
joining the original group, and then turning it into a forum where
they pushed their overall agenda, rather than the common purpose.
Some of the other positions of this particular group were so
reprehensible to me that I withdrew from the larger coalition.
And that, for me, is the crucial problem of the broad-based protest.
As long as the common effort stays on an agreed purpose, I can decide
if I support that position and work with it. If, say, I'm against
racism and for globalization, I can't work within a structure that
requires me to oppose both. Protests, by their very nature, are
against something, and the tendency I personally hate is for them to
turn into seemingly protests against EVERYTHING (i.e., the set of all
dislikes of all groups), and watering focus.
A Net Alternative?
==================
I suggest that Netizenship may re-enable the individual. It isn't as
necessary to join the broad agenda. I see Larry's concern that
different groups could go in different directions to be good rather
than bad, IN A NETWORKED ENVIRONMENT where people join multiple
coalitions on specific issues, each coalition providing specific
policy input, rather than being caught up in the charismatic parts of
a mass protest.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:07:26 -0500
From: Mark Lindeman <lindeman@bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
A bit off-topic, but perhaps not, this morning an activist mailing list
centered at Bard distributed the following (excerpted) e-mail from a
(presumably unusual) Bard student:
>> also, a pro-war rally? if you find out anything about it or a planned
>> counter protest, please fwd. to the list.
>
>
>i saw the flyer for the pro-war rally today, a friend of mine had taken it
>down. i personally smeared chocolate peanutbutter icecream on the flyer, ripped
>it up and threw it away. after that, looking around campus, i couldn't find any
>other flyers...
>
Do the recent global demonstrations evince some virtues of something
that we can call netizenship? I do think so. Do they incarnate the
spirit of netizenship -- that is, should all true netizens be out
demonstrating against war? I don't think so. Should we conflate
netizenship with anti-war organizing or any other particular activist
agenda, whether or not we agree with the agenda? I agree with Howard
that netizenship should be for everyone, not just activists. If we use
"the net" to describe our petty efforts to suppress other people's free
speech, does it become an act of netizenship? Not hardly. [I'm
referring, of course, to the nonsense with the flyer, not the suggestion
of a counter protest. More speech, not less.]
This isn't to imply that I disagree with Ronda's comments. And I think
Howard missed the force of one of those in particular:
> [RH:] It seems that the current government leaders in most countries
> around the world don't feel there is any reason to explore how
> these new means of communication like the Internet could be
> helpful in having more effective government and more democratic
> government.
[HCB:] [again a complaint about George Bush]
Well, no, a general observation that I think is accurate. No matter how
strongly one insists on discretion in representative government -- i.e.,
that political leaders should be able to go against the will of their
constituents even if unanimous (a hypothetical case!) and
well-considered -- one can also feel, and many do feel, that good
democratic discourse provides important guidance to governments. (It
also helps citizens to exercise their ultimate control over those
governments.) Accordingly, one can feel frustrated, and many do feel
frustrated, that political leaders _around the world_ don't do much to
promote good democratic discourse as an end in itself. I'm reminded of
the Netherlands' "General Social Debate" on energy futures; a great deal
of effort was expended to draw citizens into democratic dialogue, but
with no discernible impact on the political system.
It is indeed a matter of record that George W. Bush, like previous U.S.
presidents of both parties, uses opinion polls and focus groups to test
political messaging strategies -- while (and this part is more
distinctive) seizing many opportunities to mock attentiveness to survey
research. For those of us who have any respect whatsoever for George
Gallup's hope that survey research could improve democratic
communication, by helping politicians and others to discern the views of
the normally silent majority, this development is no less discouraging
for its inevitability. The analogy between demonstrations and focus
groups is distressing because, in its conceptual incoherence (not to
mention its hypocrisy), it seems to evince a desire to discredit
democratic responsiveness altogether. We've seen this before: for
instance, when David Frum wrote back in 1993 or so that the U.S. needed
"a Model T for health insurance... [even though this] idea may not poll
well in focus groups." Well, maybe we do, but the implication of the
rhetoric is that we cannot explain to ordinary people what is best for
them, so we'll have to find some other way of getting it done.
While I was sympathetic with almost everything in Howard's message, I
don't much like rhetoric about "popular whim." Sometimes the leaders
are smarter than the people; sometimes, in my reading of history, they
seem far from wise -- as perhaps his example of Vietnamese peasants
underscores. Vietnam aside, unmodified political pluralism -- where
"the people" are represented primarily in and through organized interest
groups -- does a somewhat poor job of representing the legitimate
interests of the unorganized. I should like netizenship somehow to be
relevant to this problem, at least incrementally.
Best,
Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:02:55 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] The Rise of Open Source, Network-Based Movements
>A bit off-topic, but perhaps not, this morning an activist mailing
>list centered at Bard distributed the following (excerpted) e-mail
>from a (presumably unusual) Bard student:
>
>>>also, a pro-war rally? if you find out anything about it or a planned
>>>counter protest, please fwd. to the list.
>>
>>i saw the flyer for the pro-war rally today, a friend of mine had
>>taken it down. i personally smeared chocolate peanutbutter icecream
>>on the flyer, ripped it up and threw it away. after that, looking
>>around campus, i couldn't find any other flyers...
What a waste of chocolate peanutbutter icecream! Something we still
can't, alas, transmit through the net. :-)
But seriously, yes. Suppression of opinion is suppression of opinion,
whether the suppression is by a government or an activist.
>>
>Do the recent global demonstrations evince some virtues of something
>that we can call netizenship? I do think so. Do they incarnate the
>spirit of netizenship -- that is, should all true netizens be out
>demonstrating against war? I don't think so. Should we conflate
>netizenship with anti-war organizing or any other particular
>activist agenda, whether or not we agree with the agenda? I agree
>with Howard that netizenship should be for everyone, not just
>activists. If we use "the net" to describe our petty efforts to
>suppress other people's free speech, does it become an act of
>netizenship? Not hardly. [I'm referring, of course, to the
>nonsense with the flyer, not the suggestion of a counter protest.
>More speech, not less.]
Indeed, there's are also some groups that feel it perfectly
acceptable to hack the websites, etc., of opposing organizations and
keep them from functioning. That's not Netizenship.
>
>This isn't to imply that I disagree with Ronda's comments. And I
>think Howard missed the force of one of those in particular:
>
>>[RH:] It seems that the current government leaders in most countries
>>around the world don't feel there is any reason to explore how
>>these new means of communication like the Internet could be
>>helpful in having more effective government and more democratic
>>government.
>
>[HCB:] [again a complaint about George Bush]
>
>Well, no, a general observation that I think is accurate.
I think we have a slight misreading. My parenthetical remark quoted
above was not in response to Ronda's quote, but to a subsequent
paragraph that specifically referred to George Bush. I should have
made it more clear that I was _snipping_ a comment about George Bush,
and I can see how the way I wrote it was confusing.
>No matter how strongly one insists on discretion in representative
>government -- i.e., that political leaders should be able to go
>against the will of their constituents even if unanimous (a
>hypothetical case!) and well-considered -- one can also feel, and
>many do feel, that good democratic discourse provides important
>guidance to governments. (It also helps citizens to exercise their
>ultimate control over those governments.) Accordingly, one can feel
>frustrated, and many do feel frustrated, that political leaders
>_around the world_ don't do much to promote good democratic
>discourse as an end in itself. I'm reminded of the Netherlands'
>"General Social Debate" on energy futures; a great deal of effort
>was expended to draw citizens into democratic dialogue, but with no
>discernible impact on the political system.
>
>It is indeed a matter of record that George W. Bush, like previous
>U.S. presidents of both parties, uses opinion polls and focus groups
>to test political messaging strategies -- while (and this part is
>more distinctive) seizing many opportunities to mock attentiveness
>to survey research.
Not sure it's relevant, but I'll share an experience from my
attendance at the Republican National Committee's Senior Campaign
Management Seminar, in the early seventies. One of the main
Republican pollsters -- I'm blanking on the name, but he was
Goldwater's primary pollster -- gave a serious presentation on
polling and its internal use in campaigns, one that any social
scientist would respect. Afterwards, a classical cigar-chomping
county leader (hey, he WAS chomping a cigar at the time) came up and
said "I've been doing this on the back of an envelope for twenty
years, and I'll do that for another twenty years"
"And you'll get the wrong numbers for another twenty years."
>
>While I was sympathetic with almost everything in Howard's message,
>I don't much like rhetoric about "popular whim."
Noted, and I plead guilty to sloganeering. Mea culpa.
>Sometimes the leaders are smarter than the people; sometimes, in my
>reading of history, they seem far from wise -- as perhaps his
>example of Vietnamese peasants underscores. Vietnam aside,
>unmodified political pluralism -- where "the people" are represented
>primarily in and through organized interest groups -- does a
>somewhat poor job of representing the legitimate interests of the
>unorganized. I should like netizenship somehow to be relevant to
>this problem, at least incrementally.
My immediate response was "well, what about disorganized interest
groups," but I realized that wasn't quite what I meant! What I do see
as valuable potential of the Net, and something that gives better
input than broad-front appeals, is ad hoc banding together of
distributed communities involved with specific issues, and providing
leadership feedback that is specific.
A Capitol Hill colleague once said over a beer that he thought at
times there were actually 100,000 people that could make a difference
in the political process, but that only 10,000 were active at any
given time. He elaborated on that remark as an approximation of the
number that knew the techniques of effective...dare I say
lobbying?...communication with leaders such that the message was
heard, if not followed.
That's really a shame, as the techniques aren't that difficult -- but
they require adapting to the political culture as opposed to what may
be the broader scope of legitimate concern. Still, I think these
techniques can be made more available through the Net. By
techniques, I mean things like going to a legislator and identifying
the significance of the issue with respect to the legislator's actual
constituency--be that opinion, economic impact, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:45:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
I thought readers of the netizens list would find this article of
interest. I realize there may be some thoughts it is not on topic
for the Netizens list, but I propose that it is worth people knowing
about considering the seriousness for the vision of netizens of
not finding a way to intervene toward access for all rather than
war.
Also it is interesting that online helps this to be available
to people online who are interested in this issue.
The Thirty Year Itch
by Robert Dreyfuss
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html
It puts the current U.S. plans to start a war against Iraq in a
larger context of geopolitical designs.
Ronda
ronda@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:38:55 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Thirty Year Itch - article from Mother Jones on U.S. policy on Iraq
>I thought readers of the netizens list would find this article of
>interest. I realize there may be some thoughts it is not on topic
>for the Netizens list, but I propose that it is worth people knowing
>about considering the seriousness for the vision of netizens of
>not finding a way to intervene toward access for all rather than
>war.
It's your list, Ronda.
I suggest that other people who consider themselves Netizens and have
records of Net participation might equally well believe that war is
very appropriate in this case. For the record, I am somewhat on the
middle on the war issue -- neither anti- nor pro-war.
But the long lessons of history teach that there sometimes is no
alternative to war. And, until the shooting starts, bluffs and shows
of force are part of less-than-war international conduct, as
evidenced in the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia. There was very
little bloodshed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but a massive show of
force converted the confrontation to something soluble through
diplomacy.
Netizenship != opposed to war.
>
>Also it is interesting that online helps this to be available
>to people online who are interested in this issue.
>
>The Thirty Year Itch
>by Robert Dreyfuss
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html
>
>
>It puts the current U.S. plans to start a war against Iraq in a
>larger context of geopolitical designs.
More precisely, it states an interpretation of US plans and intent,
which may or may not be accurate.
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #421
******************************
