All posts in election

While we’re waiting

Back in early July, we heard that the McCain tech policy (eight months behind the Obama tech policy) was going to be released in… July. It’s August, it’s humid, and no policy.

We can predict to some extent what the in-process policy will say.

The bottom line: Sen. Obama sees the promise of technology. He understands that technology policy should be closely tied to this country’s economic policy, because technology may provide answers — solutions — for our sagging standing in the world.

Sen. McCain, from all we can tell, thinks technology is a problem. We’ve all heard the line from the Chronicle article last week:

McCain said he is well aware that technology “does drive the news. It is changing the shape of the news. … It’s changing the information age, and I’ve got to stay up with it.”

He added, “But I am forcing myself … let me put it this way, I am using the computer more and more every day.”

The problem isn’t that he doesn’t use a computer. The problem is that he thinks it’s acceptably funny to shrug away the entire ecosystem.

Sen. McCain is much more interested in offshore drilling than innovation.

He’s bought into the idea that the “free market” in highspeed internet access in this country is functioning just fine – when in fact we’re failing on every measure. Enormous incumbents have successfully avoided competition by facilitating ongoing regulatory gymnastics, prices are high, and speeds are slow.

Sen. McCain’s got that bemused, “let the kids play around” tone when it comes to technology, even as the country slumps and looks backwards towards its prouder days.

We need new ideas. Those new ideas will generate economic growth and get us out of this hole, someday, with a lot of effort. Tinkering around with capital gains breaks for big companies is not going to do it – we need a concerted, well-led, public effort to invest in the internet access infrastructure the country needs. There is no greater source of new ideas than the internet, and no greater source of hope for our economic future than better technology policy.

Back in 1904 the “Good Roads” movement gathered strength in this country. We had ignored this basic infrastructure and our roads were covered in mud and deeply rutted. It was embarrassing; other countries had invested in their roads and were able to get move their goods to market much more easily. It took leadership to dig ourselves out. One writer said at the time, “If America be the most progressive nation in the world, her citizens will not much longer endure medieval discomforts when they go out to mingle with their fellows and market the fruits of their fields.”

Our basic communications transport infrastructure today is internet access, and we’re in some medieval pain right at the moment. Sen. Obama understands this.

It’s not just internet access that Sen. Obama understands. It’s technology generally. Here’s a paragraph from his technology policy:

The 21st century tools of technology and telecommunications have unleashed the forces of globalization on a previously unimagined scale. They have “flattened” communications and labor markets and have contributed to a period of unprecedented innovation, making us more productive, connected global citizens. By maximizing the power of technology, we can strengthen the quality and affordability of our health care, advance climate-friendly energy development and deployment, improve education throughout the country, and ensure that America remains the world’s leader in technology.

I don’t want Sen. Obama stuck in front of a screen all the time. I just want him to understand what people using millions of graphical screens networked together are capable of. I think he does.

Sen. McCain? I’m still waiting.

Exciting, huge project: unlearning passivity

Take a look at 10Questions. This is a huge project to inject interactivity into the Presidential election here in the U.S.

The problem 10Questions is trying to solve: Presidential debates are frustrating. The candidates are busy trying to put across soundbites. The questions are either too narrow or too broad. Voters are stuck praying for a moment of clarity that will guide them. The time simultaneously crawls by and flies by – too much time spent debating too little/too random.

How 10Questions will (attempt to) solve the problem: Anyone can upload a video with a proposed question for the candidates tagged “10questions” to blip.tv or YouTube or any other platform. For the month after that, the rest of us can vote up or down on the question. (Yes, there’s a possibility of ballot-box stuffing, but 10Q will try to deal with that by allowing only one vote per IP address. Yes, that isn’t a perfect answer.) Then the candidates will have a month to answer the question – in video form. Viewers/voters will rate the candidates’ responses.

Why this is a good idea: The web makes it possible for candidates and voters to relate in new, visible ways. It should be lowering barriers of time, distance, inertia, and crowd psychology. None of the candidates, however, is using the web to share power. Their web sites often don’t make clear what their positions are. Sen. Edwards is somewhat schizophrenic in his approach to the web, but generally isn’t doing much that’s innovative. Sen. Clinton started off on a strong note with her video-parody of The Sopranos, but otherwise hasn’t embraced the internet. In March 2007, she proudly announced that she’d be doing some form of frequent online interactive webcast, saying “So let the conversation begin.” The conversation never began, and the webcast page hasn’t been updated since the announcement.

More generally, the candidates aren’t using online collaboration or self-organizing in new ways. They’re not giving any power (or even responding very directly) to those listening to their messages. Instead, they’re using the web as a bulletin board for their traditional campaign ploys: “Volunteer here, and we’ll tell you exactly what to do and what to say.” It’s as if they didn’t learn the lesson of the 2004 Dean campaign, which was the high-water mark for involvement of the public online by a candidate so far. Or maybe they learned too well the lesson that Dean lost.

The 10Questions experiment forces each candidate to do an online “fireside chat” in response to well-tailored, popular questions — a very slow, deliberate online chat session with all of us. This takes advantage of the potential of online video. It could be very interesting.

Open questions. How ingrained is American political passivity? Do people really want to talk to the candidates? Do candidates really want to be talked to? Will people actually upload questions? Will the candidates actually respond?

It’s a start. It’s led by Micah Sifry and Andrew Raseij, and backed by the NYT Editorial Board and MSNBC. (All sponsors listed here.) It’s huge, even if it doesn’t look like it today.