Jim Moore’s blog: Innovation, Strategy, Public Policy

Emergent democracy is a precious, fragile thing.  It needs to be
protected from assaults, especially those that rise to the level of
crimality:  Libel, fraud, extortion.  Without legal
protections, our newly sprouting digital democratic
processes will be stamped out before they can flower.

This vulnerability to oppression exists in third world countries–and
it exists in more subtle but also more powerful forms in the United
States, Japan, and Europe–and in all other nations on earth.

In the normal, everyday world we recognize certain kinds of behavior as
criminally damaging to individuals and to society.  Libel and
fraud are among the most pernicious of actions.  A person’s career
and contributions is undermined by libel in an near
instant.   The fundamental trust necessary for personal
relationships and commerce is profoundly shaken by fraud.

But somehow in media space, and in its subset, cyberspace, we allow
libel and fraud to go largely unaddressed.  And in the political
arena of media and cyberspace, we allow it almost unbridled freedom.

The result is a politics of libel–”negative campaigning” is the nice
word for it.  And a politics of fraud–”getting the facts wrong.”

Now, I understand that there are serious concerns about government
involvement in politics, concerns about government repression of
political speech.  But on the other hand, with little or no
government involvement, we have evolved a very damaging, unsafe,
unsatisfactory situation.  Voters are cynical, campaigns are
fundamentally libelous and fraudulent.   Honest, kind people are
driven out of the democratic process.

I think we need a serious national debate about crimes in the political
arena.  I think we need to consider how we might define crimes,
and enforce the law in this sphere.  And we need to start this debate now–before this summer’s campaigning.

I don’t think watchdog groups
and citizen action can hold the line anymore–particularly not with the
speed and micro-targeting of new forms of media.  The candidates
have “rapid response networks” but these don’t seem to be doing the
job.  Push-polling,
for example, targets individual voters for phone calls that seem like
unbiased polls, but the “polls” are designed to sew doubts about
particular
candidates.  Many believe that push polls were used against Howard
Dean in Iowa, but the allegation is very hard to investigate, much less
to prove. 

Even television ads, when used in negative, targeted ways by disguised
third parties
hits fast, hard, and is very difficult to detect and counter. 
This, of course, is the nature of libel in the everyday world. 
For example, the intent of the
notorious Osama television ad (view the ad here) is only now being fully understood because its
perpetrator has decided to brag about his prowess.  This situation
illustrates both the stealth nature of these abuses, and the brazen
stance of the abusers. The abusers are more likely to gain accolades
(e.g. speak at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard) than to be
criticised or charged with a crime.  And yet almost any observer
recognizes the harm caused to individuals and society by these forms of abuse.

This piece by Gladwell is getting a lot of links, and it deserves them.  It is a classic of reporting, analysis, and insight.

The subtext of this article about Detroit and cars and psychology and
safety is that we are creating a more and more deeply irrational
society, with our industries pandering to our lowest instincts
(literally reptilean) and allowing us to pull ourselves down a rathole.

Hey, how come a famous author gets more famous–deservedly–by writing
like this, and our presidential candidates avoid all of these sorts of
issues?  What’s wrong with them?

Oh, yea, winning elections is about getting the support of big numbers
and large percentages of the society.  The same folks who buy the
stupid trucks that Gladwell is writing about, determine who will win
elections.

And success as an author like Gladwell is garnered by having a large
(think: critical mass) of readers who are passionate about your
issues.   But it does not depend upon your percentage of the
total electorate.  Gladwell is not competing against People
Magazine, or even Time, for market share.

So what we all see now is the political challenge of mobilizing a core
of thoughtful folks, and empowering them to the extent that they can
then enlist (or overcome) others who are not paying the same kind of
attention.

But is this the right way to see the problem?  Hmmmm.  Not sure…….

LaGuardia, the Story*

Some nights I make a killer pot of coffee —

I put on the music that I love,

and dance. Sometimes I dance for hours.

Go to your phonograph. Put on

Brandenburg Concerto Number Six.

This is about something very hard.

– This is about trying to live with that music

playing in the back of your mind.

– About trying to live in a world

with that kind of music.

           
           
           
           
    *a poem by Jane Mead

Dave Winer, by the way, was in attendance at the Kennedy School for the Hit man seminar, and blogged it first.  Perhaps Dave will have further reflections now that the story is developing legs..

Here
is a more complete story of the hit on Howard Dean, from the Chicago
Sun-Times, written by the reporter who opened up the story at the
Kennedy School seminar on Thursday..

This post in BOPNews is shocking..

Check it out–the list of donors (pdf file) to this hit that killed Howard may
include your neighbors.  For example,  Cambridge, Mass.
Brattle Street wealthy person and Kennedy School donor:  Swanne
Hunt (Hunt Alternatives)(MA) $25,000

Shame on you.