Abound in Oxford

Shocked by Palin? I’m more worried. CMC’s Jack Pitney saw it coming, though - in part:

Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani for president. To hold GOP women who might vote for Hillary and to stress his commitment to reform, Giuliani surprises the political class by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Let’s play Pitney mad libs. Replace Guiliani with McCain and GOP with Democratic, fix the tense, and see what you get:

Republicans nominate John McCain for president. To hold Democratic women who wanted to vote for Hillary and to stress his commitment to reform, McCain surprises the political class by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

See why I’m worried?

I’m something of a technology elitist, sure. Just today I scoffed at my boss’s old floppy disc, and regularly I mock typographical missteps. Nonetheless, I understand that people have different levels of experience and different points of view, so I can at least appreciate this opening to Lee Gomes’s recent op-ed, “Note to the Next President: Avoid Computers.”

“The two presidential candidates this year, in addition to all their other, more-significant differences, also present two contrasting perspectives about the extent to which personal-computer technology can be integrated into someone’s everyday life.”

That was about all I could appreciate.

Gomes makes the obvious diagnosis of McCain’s computer illiteracy, but then, instead of dismissing, let alone lamenting, the candidate’s technological conservatism, he rationalizes it, arguing that it’s best for a president to keep distance from computers, the internet, and (those dreaded) blogs.

“The severe time rationing is necessary because a computer, far from making you more productive, instead loads you down with things to do, and it’s important for the machine to know who is boss.”

He just threw the 21st century under the Straight Talk Express.

To be fair, there is some force to Gomes’ argument. Yes, the president can have an aid check his email, and sure, the computer wouldn’t sit well on the Resolute desk. But no, we shouldn’t enroll the president in computer class, as Gomes wishes: “If I were the chief of staff at the White House, I would have some sort of computer, not in the Oval Office itself, since it wouldn’t match the furniture, but one office away. I’d push the president to spend, say, 20 minutes a day on the machine — whether he would complain about the limit or about the mandated time.” Or at least, we shouldn’t have to.

This compartmentalization of new technology is crux of Gomes’ pitch, as it hopes to free the president from the “distractions” of the internet, but it betrays his skewed worldview. He views the internet and the information age as small areas of our life: at best, a useful business tool, at worst, a distracting indulgence. It is a necessary evil in his mind, something to be used sometimes, but controlled always.

This is the modern equivalent of seeing the trees but missing the forest.

The information age has already transformed the way we work and the way we interact. We’re more connected - and sure, sometimes more distracted - than ever, but the Blackberry isn’t the enemy. It’s a tool, one of many; tools that are breaking down the top-to-bottom communications structure of the 20th century and piecing together increasingly wide and dense networks. In fact, some expect this structural change to strengthen and develop our democracy (read this compelling call for “Politics 2.0″ by members of the Sunlight Foundation). In a recent Atlantic Monthly article, Marc Ambiner explained that, already, Britain and other European countries have incorporated internet into governance, expanding access and increasing participation: for nearly two years now, British citizens have been able to seek redress from their government with online petitions. The Atlantic piece rightly notes the shortcoming of the system, as many petition go unattended to and none have guaranteed affect. But, it’s just a start, and there are always blunders at the beginning. Moving forward, it will take attention, understanding, and willingness to unlock the full potential of internet participation–and that potential could translate directly to political power, as Ambinder explains:

“But it’s worth noting that some of the best-known presidents in U.S. history have stood at the vanguard of past communications revolutions—and that a few have used those revolutions not only to mobilize voters and reach the White House but also to consolidate power and change the direction of politics once they got there.”

Here we see the political cost to Gomes’ (and arguably McCain’s) skewed worldview: by compartmentalizing the internet, you squander its potential. The Luddites thrashed about London, wrecking the machines and factories of modernity, denying its promise of a better future. Similarly apprehensive, a Luddite-in-chief is in some ways more damaging by muting the enthused, those clamoring for a new way to participate and strengthen our democracy.

It’s not simply a matter of updating his facebook page, the next president will lead the country - and hopefully the world - during an exciting and sometimes tumultuous technological revolution. To lead, he should, at least, know what’s happening - let alone look to what’s ahead.

The themes in Obama’s Berlin are nothing new from his campaign: no, we’ve heard of the great challenges, great potential, and our moment fairly often. In fact, many commentators have pointed out the obvious parallels between his Iowa victory speech and this latest oration. Ok, it’s not new rhetoric, that’s nothing noteworthy, I thought. Then I remembered Peter Beinhart’s similarly vague “The Other Wilsonism,” and I realized something that was: those themes are nothing new in American Foreign Policy.

From Beinhart’s piece:

To counter McCain, Obama must do what Kerry could not: define what a liberal foreign policy is. His answer cannot be a laundry list; it must be an overarching theory of how America should relate to the world. For close to a century, American liberals have had such a theory, even if at times it has been submerged by events. That theory has not been rendered moot by the passage of decades; to the contrary, it has never been more relevant. It is called collective security.

The phrase “collective security” will forever be linked to Woodrow Wilson, the leader who presided over America’s emergence as a great power. Wilson was a progressive, which meant, among other things, that he was an optimist about human cooperation. Against Social Darwinists who celebrated competition because it hardened the strong and culled the weak, Wilson insisted that selfishness was neither natural nor good. In a nation bitterly divided between rich and poor, urban and rural, immigrant and native born, he saw unregulated self-interest as leading not to progress, but to civil war, as America’s fractious tribes trampled one another in their drive for power.

And now Obama (definitely worth a watch):

I got my reading list for the three week preliminary tutorial in London on de Tocqueville. For a three week course, I have a 10 book vacation reading list. The rest of vacation will now be spent preparing for the preparation tutorial. The list is below; any thoughts?

Hugh Brogan, Alexis de Tocqueville: Prophet of Democracy in the Age of Revolution (London: Profile, 2006).
François Furet, ‘The Conceptual System of Democracy in America’, In the Workshop of History (Jonathan Mandelbaum, trans.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).
François Furet, ‘De Tocqueville and the Problem of the French Revolution’, Interpreting the French Revolution (Elburg Foster) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
François Guizot, The History of Civilization in Europe (William Hazlitt, trans.) (Larry Siedentop, ed.) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1997).
François Guizot, The History of the Origins of Representative Government in Europe (Andrew Scoble, translator) (Edited and with an introduction by Aurelian Criautu) (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002).
Alan S. Kahan & Oliver Zunz, The Tocqueville Reader: A Life in Letters and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
Jack Lively, The Social and Political Thought of Alexis de Tocqueville (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962).
Larry Siedentop, Tocqueville (Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1994).
Cheryl Welch, De Tocqueville (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.