A recent piece in Politico by Daniel Libit highlights the ongoing struggle between defining politics as a profession and ensuring that it’s a true change agent. You’ll see:

Among the things that the proliferation of TV cable news has wrought is slackened standards for what constitutes a political strategist. Now used as a catchall tag for a whole host of people with varied — and often peripheral — backgrounds in electoral politics, the term has all but lost its meaning.

“I think it’s absurd,” says Ed Rollins, a bona fide strategist who has held high-ranking positions in numerous Republican presidential campaigns. “Everyone calls themselves a strategist. I have been doing this for 40 years, I know most of the players, and I go on these shows and think, ‘Who are these people?’”

"Slackened standards" can appear like code for issues some may have with the rising diversity in political perspective in modern broadcast news. A subtle way to say: "There are a bit too many of these other folks coming in and playing our game."

That said, let’s first address a concern about the horse race nature of political news coverage, with more focus on polls rather than candidate platforms. The real problem is that there is more gossip than discourse in political news coverage, driven by the sound bite dynamic favored by cable news producers, hosts and anchors. This isn’t completely their fault: typically, they only have several minutes at a time to either finish their thoughts, ask questions and move on to the next segment before commercial breaks set in. We keep talking about the "24/7" news cycle - but is that statement really accurate when applied to the cable networks since a great chunk of that time is eaten away by advertisers? Between a journalistic rock and need-for-information hard place, somebody has to pay the bills. That’s the problem. Let’s talk about that.

The good thing about the recent election cycle is that we’re seeing more of what’s different than the classic "standard." And, we all remember the standard: every major political talk show, every Sunday panel was populated almost exclusively with middle-aged or senior to high-brow to white-hair White males who defined who knew what about politics. It seemed as though no one knew or could discuss politics better than White males in suits. Soon after, working to middle class Irish Catholics joined in, then White ethnics, followed by White females as a way to mix it up and stray from the stale, formulaic Anglo-Saxon Protestant format that dominated for so long; occasionally, for dramatic effect, an adventurous producer would book the few entertaining African American activists, preachers or "leaders" who could cause a stir and momentary jump in ratings - and they, too, were male for the most part. Still, they were more ideologue than analyst. To analyze the political landscape, you’d bring in your White guy "insiders."

To a large degree, that is still the case. Broadcast talk is still disproportionately unrepresentative; Black and Latino analysts are either tokenized or pigeon-holed into discussing "race" topics. Certainly, pundits of color are a good group to access for that sort of info, but there are also quite a few experts within that pool who know just as much about topics such as foreign policy and economics.

And there is still a sense that the "ole boy" school defines American politics - which is one of the main factors behind public apathy and the low voter turnout (until recently) that we experienced for so many years. The larger public doesn’t feel like a stakeholder when the broadcasted political conversation lounges in the ivory tower. But, we see more faces "of color" mixing it up in terms of presence and perspective. And that’s a good thing - not a "slackened standard." Libit’s piece comes off like a veiled attempt to paint these new faces as "unqualified" simply because they don’t fit the mold or image of the traditional pol.

Diversity is not a great thing because it puts "different" or "color" in a room - it’s great because it offers a larger serving of diversity in opinion, thought and information. We’ve seen enough of the old school cats like Ed Rollins above - clearly, he and others are a bit annoyed because they’re finally being challenged. Because their conventional wisdom no longer rules. We appreciate what everyone brings to the table - including Rollins. But, how can we get a real sense of what voters think or what candidates will do if that analysis largely comes from the same vantage point? Rather than hate on the future, step up your game and add something fresh to it.

Charles D. Ellison, 6.29.08

Recent polls suggest that race may factor into Presidential election as much as age, and then it flips to show that age could be as much a factor as race. 

However, in reality, it will rest on the larger electorate’s perception of the economy and how that impacts our collective bank accounts.  Voters will react, rather emotionally, to whatever candidate or platform they deem prepared to address the challenges of slow growth, rising oil prices and ridiculous food prices.  Much of that is linked into an overall view that energy is the driving culprit: oil that is.

The GOP is making a rather smart play on that perception, particularly as Americans grumble over $4+ a gallon at every gas pump.  One could argue that lack of Bush Administration zeal for a solution is actually a somewhat deliberate political move to drive voter sentiment in favor of another Republican White House, particularly given the fact that the GOP is having trouble energizing its typically reliable base around the presumptive nominee while dealt the double blow of low popularity for its current head.   Less action helps to exacerbate the situation enough whereby a sudden political burst of willpower to drill domestically is seen as a saving grace.  One can’t help but feel a sense of political strong-arming until the electorate cries uncle. 

Domestic drilling has been seen, up until recently, as an environmental catastrophe. What could be troubling is that any decision to now drill stateside is based on the pure emotion of a voting public being wrestled down by economic pressures. This latest drive by the Bush Administration to drill domestically - buoyed by a McCain reversal on the idea and greater political support from GOP-aligned think tanks, advocacy groups and other associations - could be extremely problematic for Democrats and Obama. 

As problematic, we find, is that although Americans are aware of a shortsighted reliance on fossil fuels - to our global detriment - we’re not as emotional about finding an innovative solution out of this quandary as we are pursuing the quick fix of a domestic drill.  The benefits of such are, at best, mixed, with no clear results for another decade if it’s pursued and no solid data suggesting a sudden price reduction.  But, here again, we find another example of democracy by the gut, absent reason.  �

With the passing of Tim Russert from a sudden heart attack on Friday, journalism lost one of its greatest practitioners. Russert, in many ways, exemplified what mainstream media should be with an adherence to journalistic principles during a time that saw trends of a sound-bite culture and sensationalism for the sake of ratings. Russert was both feared and respected by politicians from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps even more importantly, the enthusiasm and dedication that he brought to the table was reflected in a desire to really understand the arguments of those he interviewed. Since his death the mainstream media and blogosphere alike have been praising Russert for what he did for the profession of journalism. The journalism community coalesced to honor Russert’s memory with heartfelt and touching tributes. However, the sincerity of these tributes is yet to be seen. On Friday afternoon just hours before his death, Russert said the following in an interview on MSNBC:

You have bloggers on both sides, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats all trying to utilize this vehicle without any kind of fact checking and without any kind of editorial control … That’s what we have to be conscious of and vigilant against, particularly at the end of the campaign as things are put out there. We’ve already had a few fake videos with different words dubbed in and people say, “This must be true because I saw it on the Internet.” What we hope to do in this campaign is recognize there are big differences on big issues between John McCain and Barack Obama – the war in Iraq, Iran, Social Security, taxes. You don’t need to get into this other stuff. If it does surface, then I think the mainstream media has an obligation not to just instinctively put it out there without vetting it. Or, if it is something that is manufactured as a virus, report on that – who did it and why.

If those in the mainstream media truly want to honor Russert they must follow his example and advice. The loss of Russert right before the General Election leaves a void that will be impossible to fill, however while all journalists were quick and correct to pay tribute to their friend and colleague, eulogies are not enough. The biggest compliment that the mainstream media can pay to Russert is actually making a concerted effort to focus on the real important issues of the campaign and not get bogged down in the alluring but unsubstantial mudslinging that occurs during the course of a campaign.

Interesting piece in eGov monitor by World Bank’s Samia Melham examines the recent e-readiness index and where various world governments rank in terms of using mobile technology to interface with citizens.  The United States ranks #10 on a list of 25 countries:

The index looks at the availability of Government services on line (personal tax car registrations, business permits, passport applications, e-procurement applications etc.). These services are based on the traditional web-based delivery platform for egovernment services, but several of them are now being migrated to the mobile platform under different agreements between the government and the mobile operators.

Question: do such trends actually diminish government accountability?  Basically, there is a concern here that while governments argue that technological applications make them more transparent, they can also use such to hide behind a cloak of visual disclosure.  The storefront nature of the web can make a government appear responsive - but, is it really?  It’s a good debate, to ensure that governments are not just pulling our collective leg, so to speak, in one massive public relations ploy.  Technology, as useful as it seems, can also produce a lot of hype through soaring expectations.  Experimenting and beta testing new applications is great, but is the rubber meeting the road as it relates to true government representation and responsiveness?

Charles D. Ellison, 6.17.08

On some levels, reported Black conservative support of Sen. Obama is not so surprising while on other levels it is. First: it is important here that we make a distinction between a “Black conservative” and a “Black Republican” - the two are not synonymous. Just because one is a Black conservative, or even a Black liberal, doesn’t necessarily make them a Black Republican or, respectively, a Black Democrat. And, what you’ll find here is that many Black intellectuals with known conservative perspectives - from Booker T. Washington to George Schuyler to, arguably, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X on down - have embraced and pushed a Black empowerment model that relies on the success of African American political and economic gain.

Hence, this is not so surprising to hear many Black conservatives voicing support for Sen. Obama. His ascendancy fits into that conversation and model, an African American rising to the top of the political world through his own agency, by his own “boot straps,” through pure self-sufficiency. His story fits the conservative mold. Additionally, Sen. Obama is making a strong bid for conservative and religious votes, evident in his use of spiritual themes in many of his speeches and outreach. See this rather telling piece on brewing conservative support for Obama in Politico.  There are many conservatives who, for the first time in a long time, actually feel comfortable with a Democratic nominee. 

Still, Black conservative Republican support is an interesting phenomena. Mainly because many very public Black conservatives have always pushed the “content of your character” paradigm as a substitute to Black power or Black socio-political and economic gain based on “color.” The rhetoric has been, at times, highly provocative and polarizing. Support for Obama suggests an about face on the subject.

It also suggests trouble for John McCain. It is rather unusual when prominent Black Republican conservative activists go against the party line, and if they feel safe enough to do so in this instance, it means that there is much grumbling within the conservative base about the GOP presumptive nominee.

Charles D. Ellison, 6.17.08

Have to ask this, put it out there.  The “buzz” and blood fire over former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s tell-all has now officially passed, since it’s newsworthiness appears to have a short shelf life.  Which is the problem with political tell-all books: they don’t transcend the immediacy of the moment they drop. 

The book wasn’t really the real news - what would’ve been real news is if those called out in the tell-all would face new inquiries, hearings, indictments and, perhaps, jail time.  Of course, that won’t happen.  But, this is a case study in how the 24/7 news cycle (instigated by the ravenous appetite for instant information of the web) seems more concerned with its ability to cope with the tell-all than with how it responds to or investigates the circumstances behind the reason to write the tell-all in the first place.   �

It may seem like I’m digressing a bit here from the usual themes on the IPDI blog, but there is a connection here in terms of what the future holds.  The raging debate over charter schools comes to life in this recent Washington Post piece by Jay Matthews:

For these new schools with taxpayer funding and independent management, old rules and habits are out. No more standard hours, seniority, union contracts, shared curriculum or common textbooks. In are a crowd of newcomers — critics call them opportunists — seeking to lift standards and achievement. They compete for space, steal each other’s top teachers and wonder how it is all going to work.

Nationally, research shows little difference between average test scores for charters and for regular public schools. Experts say the quality of charter schools varies as much as the quality of regular schools.

Some critics call the charter invasion of New Orleans a challenge to democratic values. Writing about New Orleans in a new book, Leigh Dingerson, education team leader for the Center for Community Change in the District, says Louisiana school authorities have “opened a flea market of entrepreneurial opportunism that is dismantling the institution of public education in New Orleans.”

This reminds me of a recent April 2008 piece in that same newspaper’s magazine by Marc Fisher that struggles to create a Washington metro area in the next 17 years.  Interesting footnote:

Our panelists are almost unanimous in declaring that the District’s public school system will have to be dissolved, sold off or otherwise disposed of. Not one of our panelists sees much hope for success in the reform efforts ofthe early 21st century. Gary Marx, president of the Center for Public Outreach in Vienna, foresees a decision to shut down industrial-age schools and reinvent education with a heavy emphasis on expanding the ranks of creative workers and diminishing differences across national borders.

There is a trend occurring, a bit unnoticed, where it seems urban public education systems are investing more money into independently-run charter schools.  The outcomes of this effort are still a bit iffy - perhaps it’s a bit too early.  But, what can be envisioned is the creation of publicly financed charter school continuums or private school-like systems that replace public schools.  Rather than have public schools, design a system of specialized charter schools.  You get the look and feel of a private school without the price tag. 

How worried we should be about the demise of total public education depends on how the charter school effort is managed.  If it’s managed to truly introduce innovative ways of teaching and and raising productive citizens, then we’re on our way.  But, if we’re simply witnessing the creation of an alternative educational system existing for the sake of spiting the traditional public one, then this could prove a bit problematic.  There is much at stake.

Charles D. Ellison, June 8, 2006

Back from that cauldron of caustic backbiting known as the Democratic primary, I’m about ready to crack  knuckles and get busy on the IPDI blog.  What’s good?  Lot to talk about, needless to say. 

In examining the intersection of technology, public policy and politics, I’ve thought, or perhaps, worried a bit about how that links into our national imagination and sense of purpose.  Does the proliferation of information technology actually contribute in fulfilling and long term ways to the common good?  It might appear like a non-sensical question at first glance, but there’s some keep it real below the surface.  Whereas there is quite a bit to celebrate or proudly observe with respect to the record number of voters who participated in the Democratic primary this year (defying past apathy and breaking records at ballot lines), there was something also quite problematic about it all.  It’s one thing to get energized over a candidate and to vote for or openly support that candidate, but how informed of a voter are you? 

The explosive growth of blogs and the insance rotation of the 24/7 news cycle blurs the line between accurate information and irresponsible speculation and innuendo.  We the people eat it up. 

But, there’s something else to it all.  The technology, as great as it is, always poses a risk in terms of our collective motivations.  It can, potentially, make us lazy and intellectually lethargic.  True research and information accessibility is lost to the instant gratification of “Googling,” and citizens are no more motivated to confirm rumors over a Presidential candidate’s religion or whether he pledges allegiance than they are in picking a nail stuck in their foot.  There is a worry here that IT overload lulls the collective society into a mass sleep, since there is this feeling that everything, the world even, is literally at our fingertips.  In pushing the concept of a 21st century modern democracy, I’m more worried about intellectual laziness than I am about apathy.  At least with apathy, much of it is connected to a negative reaction and sense of hopelessness rising from disenchantment with the process and its gatekeepers.

I don’t suffer from claustrophobia, but as someone who has had an enduring love affair with science fiction, I have global claustrophobia.  Of being stuck on this planet and not having the luxury - at least in my lifetime - of traveling to other worlds or, at the very least, orbiting earth in a space hotel.  It is a sense that we still haven’t got our collective human act together, and as I’m watching episodes of Battlestar Galactica, I’m thinking that we’re way behind.  We can’t think outside the box of our cyberspace.  The Internet being so vast and infinite, there is a danger that too many users believe they have charted unknown territories already. 

“Why explore space when I have it on my desktop?”

Perhaps, I’m a bit old-fashioned, too.  This is, simply, how societies continue to evolve and technology is here to stay, so live with it.  It’s like music: just because I prefer Tribe Called Quest to Soldier Boy doesn’t mean the former is actually better than the latter; it just means that I’m older and that hip hop has changed or evolved - for better or for worse.

But, I can’t shake this feeling that our heavy reliance on information technology has moved us away from the purely academic but intellectually fulfilling exercise of DIY: doing it yourself.  We are duped into a sense of progress through bits, code and social networking sites. 

Gregg Easterbrook’s nightmarish article in this month’s Atlantic Monthly offers a higher sense of urgency to the argument above:

Given the scientific findings, shouldn’t space rocks be one of NASA’s priorities? You’d think so, but Dallas Abbott says NASA has shown no interest in her group’s work: “The NASA people don’t want to believe me. They won’t even listen.”

NASA supports some astronomy to search for near-Earth objects, but the agency’s efforts have been piecemeal and underfunded, backed by less than a tenth of a percent of the NASA budget. And though altering the course of space objects approaching Earth appears technically feasible, NASA possesses no hardware specifically for this purpose, has nearly nothing in development, and has resisted calls to begin work on protection against space strikes. Instead, NASA is enthusiastically preparing to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars on a manned moon base that has little apparent justification. “What is in the best interest of the country is never even mentioned in current NASA planning,” says Russell Schweick­art, one of the Apollo astronauts who went into space in 1969, who is leading a campaign to raise awareness of the threat posed by space rocks. “Are we going to let a space strike kill millions of people before we get serious about this?” he asks.

We can talk all day about the political reasons for the disastrous lack of common sense described above, but we must also ask ourselves an uncomfortable question: Are we lazy? The fact that we are so comfortable as to lounge back into a somewhat half-baked pre-Copernican worldview that Earth is “aight,” means that we give little thought to the vast universe in which we are a speck of dust.    

Charles D. Ellison, 6.5.08

Larry (Lawrence) Lessig, a Stanford Law professor and technology & Internet policy influential is considering running for Congress in an April 8^th special election to replace recently deceased Tom Lantos (D, CA-12). Lessig is the founder of the Center for Internet and Society, CEO of Creative Commons, and a board member of both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center. He formed an exploratory committee and has an official campaign website up at lessig08.org. His decision seems to be spurred by supporters that formed draftlessig.org and a draft Lessig facebook group that now has close to 3,000 members. Additionally, he has already risen close to $11,000 on ActBlue and this number seems to be growing quite rapidly. An official decision from Lessig should come soon. His campaign website Lessig states “I will decide in the next week or so whether it makes sense to advance that movement by running for Congress.”

Should Lessig decide to run he would face tough competition from Jackie Speier. Speier is a former aid to Rep. Leo Ryan (D-CA.), who was murdered by cult members in 1979 in Guyana while investigating Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple cult. Speier was also shot five times in the attack, but survived. Most recently she served as a California state senator and enjoys broad grassroots support. Whoever emerges from the primary, should win the general election easily. California’s twelfth district is as about as blue as they come and includes South San Francisco and Silicon Valley. In 2006 Lantos won the district with 76% percent of the vote.

The prospect of Lessig in congress will likely bring a large amount of support from the open source community and intellectual property reform advocates. Lessig has been a strong advocate of open source and even publishes his own books under a creative commons open source license. It remains to be seen, however, how the software industry will react to Lessig’s candidacy. The software industry is a major player in the district and may be reluctant to support Lessig if it feels that his stance on intellectual property could hurt its bottom line.

As with any closing year, it’s always the most vexing tradition to muse on the happenings of the following year - before they happen.  But, we enter the fray, notwithstanding the salty pretense of our annoyance with New Year fab.  We can’t help but make predictions since it’s human nature to try so hard at it, to somehow control our destiny through useless pseudo-psychic predilections about where we might end up.  Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is on NPR the other day mulling the inherent predictability of market forces struggling to “predict” our “future,” which is what makes economics and the “free market” so great, so fascinating. We forge on.

Political predictions give way to nonsense, really.  But, there is political instinct which sometimes trumps all that in wise, mysterious, devious and dubious ways.  Personally, I’m cautiously optimistic about the next year, with so much to do and so much happening … yet, little time to do it all.  But, the irons keep burning, and I love to be busy rather than bored.  Philosophically, I’m a bit more cynical about the 2008 world view because, here I go, there are a few things on the horizon converging in very nasty ways for a crash of sorts come 2008: 1) The increasing isolationism of ideological blogs and online social networks with political agendas; 2) the increasingly conservative tone and conservative consolidation of the Supreme Court; and 3) the religious fervor and Biblical citation of the current Presidential election which has almost every candidate (save Ron Paul), blabbering for poll position about how much “faith” (”got faith?”) they have as opposed to the other candidate in an effort to woo the throngs of “evangelical” voters - how weird that it’s on both sides of the aisle this time.

All three of these events converge because they feed into one another in very direct and indirect ways.  One one level their blend is politically pragmatic and expected; on another level it’s almost metaphysical to watch.  But, it will gradually define and structure our society into something we’ll all hate to love, love to hate, depending on how we look at it.  And it will redefine our relationship and interaction with technology as it increasingly characterizes our very essence the more we use it to socialize and govern.  The blogosphere will become more irate and exclusive, hence defying the very open and fundamentally unrestrictive nature of the Internet.  Didn’t some of us say the Internet would democratize such undemocratic global hot-spots as the Middle East?  Pissing in the wind that was as we watch the hornets nest continue to buzz with violent intensity.  What’s happened, instead, is it’s served as a propaganda channel for the zealots and tyrants in search of dispossessed recruits, fueling rages and effigies.   Although back here, in the U.S., online discourse is more “civil,” it’s also more disparate, clique-driven and segregated - don’t venture onto a blog/forum/board with an opposing view perceived as “new” or “contrary” to the convention of that site or you might find your cyber-conscious decapitated in a rage of netimosity.

People are finding comfort zones in the virtual realities of like-minded peers, so they are ensconcing themselves in the world of what they know and believe.  They preach endlessly to the same choir and are encouraged to do so with no chance of indulging a countering view - and it’s only the fool that thinks he/she can opine effectively without considering the other argument.  Nonsense of “liberal” bloggers to threaten the New York Times with cut subscriptions just because they hired Weekly Standard Columnist Bill Kristol to write a column every week.

This is a dangerous trend because it gradually diminishes discourse; talking to yourself is not discourse … it ultimately leads to a madness of sorts.  Interesting, as wide open as the infinite plains of the Internet, that we refuse to venture further into its outer reaches to see what else is out there.  What does this do?

Well, it will continue to fuel the surge in religious revivalism which is overtaking political campaigning as candidates become uncomfortably open about how their faith dictates their policy stance.  Religion only forces you to take sides at the expense of considering other perspectives and ways of seeing things.  We don’t seem bothered about this, definitely not as much as the Founders would have - this faith debacle was the first thing they talked about in Philly.  But, we’re muted on it, or gladly smile that one candidate holds musical revivals in a hotly contested primary state, while the other uses religion to watch his polling numbers suddenly rise way ahead of the pack and another is forced to give a speech on the subject which is as intolerant as the people he accuses of intolerance.

Mix that with a Supreme Court smartly turning itself right by opposing precedent without actually changing or outright contesting it, and you might be swimming in a messy soup of social progress in reverse.  2008 should be interesting.

cde