Organizing for Democratic Renewal
“Democracy is based on the promise that equality of voice can balance inequality of resources.” Prof. Sidney Verba, Harvard University, 1993.
"In democratic countries, knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others." Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835.
In 1831, French aristocrat Alexis De Tocqueville came to America to study our penal system, but used the opportunity to investigate American democracy. He worried that political equality could so erode social relationships rooted in family, church, and guild that citizenship would turn into a series of arid exchanges between isolated individuals and a powerful state. That individualism uncurbed by claims of community, could not sustain a healthy polity in which the common good would receive its due.
But what he found was a vibrant society, sustained by civic associations. Modeled on parties organized to contest political power, the art of association had reached into all realms of public life. Associations had become the great “free schools” in which citizens learned the “habits of the heart” that made their new democracy work – an understanding of self-interest linked to the interests of others and thus requiring active collaboration in pursuit of common goods. When scale was required, collaboration was also modeled on parties – and government itself – that organized across locality, state, and nation as a self-governing three tiered representative associations.
But only by joining with others could we come to appreciate the extent to which our fates are linked, gain an understanding of our common interests, and make claims on the political power we needed to act on those interests.
Our collective action, citizenship as association, was also rooted in the churches.
Self-governing congregations based on the moral equality of the believer, located authority in the governed who made collective choices as to clergy, doctrine and worship. And although anchored in New England Protestantism, the great Methodist and Baptist movements created this foundation across the country.
The impulse for change in America – given especially the fragmentation of our electoral institutions – took shape as movements that linked civic association with evangelical campaign. Movements calling for temperance, abolition, labor organization, suffrage, populism, civil rights, women rights, environmental protection and, most recently, conservative renewal swept across the political landscape asserting moral claims, redefining collective identities, reshaping political parties, reformulating public policy, and often restructuring institutions of government itself. The people who led these movements, whether called agents, representatives, delegates, stewards, lecturers or something else, were America’s “organizers.”
Late in the 19th century, however, other currents began to run counter to this populist, if not always progressive, form of association. A new form of large-scale organization took root, modeled on the mass armies of the Civil War, the bureaucracies of European states, and the engineering vision of industrialists – the national corporation. But unlike the civic association, the object of which was to amplify the voice of its members, the corporation was designed for control. The authority of its leadership based on property, not voice, it enabled the few to efficiently – and profitably - harness the effort of the many. And conflict ensued.
By the 1940’s, however, largely as a result of the New Deal and World War II, a kind of balance had been struck based on the fact that the influence of associations could be amplified by public institutions to challenge the property -based economic power of corporations and wealthy individuals. This is also when Saul Alinsky formulated his approach to community organizing.
A University of Chicago student of criminology deeply skeptical of social work, Alinsky was greatly impressed by the organizing successes of the CIO, led by John L. Lewis. Although labor had begun to win a seat at the table at which urban interests were negotiated, others had not – especially those who lived in lower income communities, did not have unions to represent them, or had no other way to get in on the deal making. One answer, he concluded, was to build community organizations modeled on the CIO. They would bring people together, create a venue in which they could discover common interests, and mobilize collective resources to get the power to win their own seat at the table. Unlike the CIO, these associations were organizations of organizations, not individuals, to leverage existing community leaders and their networks.
This approach contrasted sharply with two others: that of social workers and that of socialists. Traditional social work ignored the power disparity most often responsible for poverty, and treated its victims as clients seeking public patronage, rather than citizens able to act together to make their voices heard and thus do something about the power disparity responsible for the problem in the first place. And unlike the socialists, Alinsky eschewed any ideological orientation other than that of populist democracy, coupled with a pragmatic interest based approach to program.
One institutional leader for whom this approach held real promise was Chicago Bishop Bernard Sheil, soon Alinsky’s partner. Alinsky’s approach to social justice offered an alternative to socialists with which the Church was in conflict and contributed tools for citizen participation less well established in the Roman Catholic tradition than among Protestants.
As it was taking shape, however, Alinsky’s approach was both energized and eclipsed by social movement organizing that burst on the scene with the civil rights, anti-war, women’s, and environmental movements of the 1960s and ‘70’s. To many younger activists, whose agenda was driven by constituencies for whom the issue was not simply one of “interests”, but rather of identity, core values, and social transformation, Alinsky’s approach seemed too narrow. Of course, so did the approach of associations who had made peace with the racial, gender, and generational boundaries that were no longer legitimate.
About the same time a market driven approach to advocacy and electoral politics also emerged, fueled by new targeting, fund raising, and information technologies that replaced constituency based organizing with direct marketing techniques. Advocates of many causes also eschewed associational organizing around common in interests to focus more narrowly on “issues.” Professional activists began mobilized individuals to support their causes by contributing money rather than organizing them to act together.. And familiar forms of association were shunned in favor of local, unstructured and spontaneous activity. The effect of all this was simply to reinforce the power of money over time and reduce collective action into the expression of individual “preferences”
Organizers with a different set of values, on the other hand, but quite comfortable with associational organizing had launched a conservative movement newly energized by public reaction the government’s role affirming racial, gender, generational and environmental challenges to the status quo, as well as a private sector increasingly restive under New Deal constraints. As Ronald Reagan put it in his 1964 speech supporting Sen. Barry Goldwater for President, “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.”
By the time the smoke began to clear in the 1980s, the progressive social movements had won major changes in how we treat race, gender, youth, and the environment. But the conservative movement had seized the moral or ideological initiative, won control of major political institutions, including the Presidency, and channeled its energy into a deep restructuring of the relationship of public institutions - and the organized groups to whom they afforded influence – to private wealth. New challenges facing government, rather than providing an impetus to reform, became an excuse to outsource its functions - to the private sector if there was money to be made, to the nonprofit sector if there was not. And these institutions, whether for profit or not for profit – and whether large scale or small scale - assumed a traditional corporate form. As a result, the scope of citizenship itself as way to balance private wealth with public voice, narrowed, as we became “customers” of the private sector or “clients” of non-profit funders.
This was the period in which Alinsky style community based organizations, rooted in Roman Catholic parishes, became one of the few venues in which the art of organizing continued to be practiced. But it was with a twist. At a time when problems of local communities were increasingly driven by national if not global forces, these groups remained insistently local. At a time when the moral initiative has been seized by the right, they continued to speak language of “self-interest.” And at time when a New Deal style “table” at which interest groups could bargain had vanished, they took an interest group approach to formulation of program, tactics, and strategy. As a result, their influence as a whole was less than the sum of their parts.
So what has changed that may be giving organizing a new lease on life, especially in electoral politics? I’d suggest four reasons.
First, elections have been very, very close. Even the most media oriented of political consultants recognizes that in close elections, effective grassroots mobilization can influence outcomes. And when conducted by people with ties to one another – as opposed to bussed in canvassers – it is more effective. The commitments people make to people with whom they maintain relationships are far more reliable than answers given to an anonymous caller, over the phone or in person. This is especially true of the presidential primaries in small states like New Hampshire and caucus states like Iowa.
Second, the promise of “connectedness” via the Internet is an invitation to a dance that has yet to begin. The Internet is a market place, not an organization. As such it offers motivated participants an opportunity to give money, exchange information, and market causes. Organizations, however, as Alinsky organizers know, are built of interpersonal commitments people make to each other of their time, money, and energy. With skilled leaders, organizations have the capacity to strategize, motivate, and engage in purposeful effective action – and develop more skilled leaders. But in the last election, opportunity created by the Internet was only intermittently translated into action because there were few organizers. This time, perhaps it will be different.
Third, the recommitment to organizing by the labor movement during the 1990s, especially by SEIU and its associates, afforded thousands of young people an opportunity to learn organizing skills, acquire experience, and make a real difference. This is true not only of young people recruited from colleges, but also new immigrants, one of the most energized constituencies in America and which has only begun to develop its political potential. Similarly, some campaigns offered unique training grounds for organizers, such as the New Hampshire Dean campaign, the Iowa Kerry campaign, and others.
And finally, at some level, we may finally be coming to understand what De Tocqueville saw – the promise of democratic politics is in people’s ability to enter into relationships with one another to articulate common purposes and act on them. Organizing to bring people back into politics is not a cost, but an investment in rebuilding the democratic infrastructure of our public life under assault for far too many years.
Comments (28)
The line from Reagan was in his first inaugural, not his Goldwater nominating speech.
March 27, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. This is an amazing, insightful examination of how we've come to where we are today and it avoids the liberal tendency to see America's traditional individualistic bent as part of the problem.
The communitarian streak in liberalism seems to cause liberals to see individualism as the anti-thesis of community. You remind us that that was never true. Human beings are social creatures by nature and will as a result tend to form communities and associations without any coercive demand that they do so.
What's more, communities and the corresponding obligations they place on individuals are much stronger and more authentic when they occur as a result of the free choices of individuals rather than through the force of government or social coercion.
I don't have time to completely read this at the moment -- I'm half way through -- but I will be sure to come back and finish. Lots of food for thought already.
March 27, 2007 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Campaigns today, on both sides of the political aisle, too often fall into the disempowering trap Professor Ganz writes about. The whole notion of treating people like "customers/clients" instead of active and engaged citizens is classic DC consultant politics.
But, as Ganz notes, more and more campaigns and organizations (political, labor, etc) are building real political power and treating supporters as volunteer organizers rather than passive recipients of the campaign's message (and by training staff organizers to organize rather than simply relying on TV ads and slick mail/paid robo calls).
Full disclosure: I am a former student and colleague of Professor Ganz.
March 27, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
For that I am envious.
March 28, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, please, PLEASE
don't make this a one-shot appearance. I've been waiting for a voice from this perspective almost since I've been a member here. I've been kicking around in my mind how to inject more thinking about civic engagement and liberal education...whether to try blogging, whether to see if there's some way to create a group Blog, or whether it might be possible to start a table on Education for the Common Good. I define much of what I'm looking for in the philosophy implied by your column, and the two quotes you've chosen to begin it are sublime.
I think one of the reasons why we lost initiative to the right in the 1980s was that we stopped methodically renewing our commitment to the ideals of which you speak. In the 1970s and 1980s, education became defined far more narrowly as something associated with career more than with vocation. I see "education" in the title of a column here, and I can almost guarantee it relates to the bogus "No Child Left Behind" mantra or to concerns of outsourcing and globalization. I want to see something more like the call issued by the Campus Compact.
What does this have to do with de Tocqueville and why I'm so excited by this post? The quotation says it, the combination of knowledge and organization. I was in Chicago, 1959-1963, and certainly knew of Saul Alinsky and his work, though I wasn't privileged to ever meet him. How many college students are familiar with his name today?
One of my favorite passages from de Tocqueville comes from chapter 8. I'm tempted to quote the whole thing, but I'll restrain myself to two paragraphs.
So Professor Ganz, stay around with us and remind us of what Democratic education is really about--that it begins with knowledge and ends in action--for the good of the commons, whether it is in Back of the Yards, or any other neighborhood.
aMike
March 27, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent quick history of populist organized movements. I had only heard the name of Alinsky but intend to find out more about him. I think the community groups that De Tocqueville saw were direct outgrowths of Benjamin Franklin’s junta and civic community group ideas (as much of the character of America at the time was influenced by Franklin). Franklin’s civic and political ideas always seemed to balance group and individual power and rights very well.
I know that some of the reform movements grew out of the Church, but I wonder if the organizations were not more civic oriented given our longtime aversion to religion mixing in politics. In my eyes, the corporate consolidation of power in the ‘80s has continued and was not budged by union efforts to reorganize in the ‘90s. And the last six years has made obvious that strong organizations can be negated if the party holding the reigns is the pro-corporate party. I think a massive Populist movement is going to be needed at some point to right our course again.
March 27, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the period of organizing for social change was fairly short. If we ignore the abolitionists of the 1850's then it started with the farmer Populists in the 1870 and went up to the 1950's.
The reason it was successful (for a while) was because of a unique set of external conditions. The most important of these was probably the rise of large industrial plants which brought many workers into close proximity and allowed for progressive ideas to spread quickly. The excesses of the industrialists starting with the railroads and grain merchants and extending up through steel, mining and autos also gave rise to a great deal of resentment.
These days the working classes are not so bad off, they are fairly atomized since the big factories are gone and they have been lulled into complacency by consumerism.
I don't see any neo-Populist movement these days. The lack of one was was the thing that Thomas Frank found so puzzling. John Edwards is trying to establish himself as a Populist with his Two Americas theme, we'll see if he strikes a receptive chord.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
March 27, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I've never found on of these groups that I'd be interested in joining. No church for me because of the whole "they think there's a god," dilemna and something about just about every political group I encounter is off-putting.
One reason is that no group out there represents my philosophy which is socially libertarian and economically liberal. I remember going to a view libertarian type meetings in college and I thought "Oh, these people are nuts." Environmental groups? They don't make me feel passionate. Feminists? I agree with them on most everything, but the libertarian parts of me cause friction. People out to save Darfur? Yeah, me too, but I'm afraid they're going to push us into another war.
Ooh, war... I'm against that. But the big antiwar groups invariably start saying things about Israel that make me want to inch away.
Heck, I'm even reluctant at being reigstered as a Democrat, for obvious reasons.
I guess one of the reasons I prefer to keep my politics on the Internet instead of in meeting halls is that here I can be my idiosyncratic, sometimes iconoclastic self and though I can be challenged for it or praised for it, I can still engage with people.
In The New Republic of two weeks ago there's an article about Barack Obama that explains how he got hooked up with his church. He was organizing in the community and trying to use the churches to do so, but he didn't attend any of the churches. The man who became his pastor told him to basically start showing up and argued, persuasively, that if he's going to spend time bringing his congregation to Obama, then Obama should spend some time bringing himself to the congregation. Preachers, who are often asked for a lot, he said, need to have faith in the activists they're working with too. Now, Obama was able to make the leap and to join the church where he's been a member for decades now. But that ain't me. Were I out organizing I'd have to look a preacher like that in the eye and say, "I don't believe in god, so you either think what I'm offering is good or you don't." And I never would have gotten anything done that way.
Guess I'm not ready to put a group cause ahead of my personal beliefs.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another recommended book re: this is Bowling Alone -- which actually charts the decline of civic power in America. Very Good!
I'm mulling the idea that political power may be more diffused in Washington than any time in my lifetime, however, I've not fully come to conclusion here.
Let me lay out the arguments. First, every corporation, no matter how big, understands they've got to "pay the piper" in Washington, which means they've got to have lobbyists working for them. It's lassez-faire in reverse -- government keeps hands off, but business puts their hands on government to control the levers of power. Bill Gates learned this when Microsoft went through the Justice Dept wringer. Since then, they've got powerful lobbyists on their side. In essence this amounts to the outsourcing of our political voice. Every industry plays the game, and so do the unions representing the workers. From insurance agents, to auto workers, to cotton farmers, they've all got nameless, faceless, unaccountable representatives in Washington lobbying on their behalf.
Now add to this layers of other special interests. Your powerful right-wing NRA lobby is now balanced by an equally powerful left-leaning enviornmental/animal rights lobby. The enviornmental lobby is so powerful now, I don't believe you could build the Hoover Dam in today's America. They would sue and study the project to death. Gay rights groups have a lot of power and money, but so do christian organizations, fighting against their agenda.
So, the point is we've got special interests dug in on both sides of every issue -- all of them well-funded and threatening lawmakers with retaliation for the wrong vote. This has led to a titanic tug-of-war in which politicians dance around the margins of tough issues, but they can never get enough momentum one way or the other to push it all in their direction.
Am I right here, folks, or are my observations off-kilter? It seems like a level of gridlock to me we haven't seen in the nation's history.
March 27, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
rd, see my post below. Let me know what you think.
March 27, 2007 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you're wrong, but only by a little.
You're right, we could never build the Hoover Dam in this environment. That's probably a good thing, on the whole, but there are trade-offs.
When you compare the homosexual lobby to the Christian-Right lobby you're way off. That's David vs. Goliath with Christians as the ironic Goliath. You might argue that the homosexual activists, combined with other socially liberal activists, even the score but even if dollar amounts are equal, the culture still seems to support the Christian-right agenda (though it is moving towards a more liberal conclusion, I think, just very slowly).
On issues of economics -- the right wing dominates economic debate and the whole academic discipline is built on right wing principles, at least in the US.
Also, the right's network of well-funded think tanks and pseudo-academic institutions still rivals the left's. You'd have to argue that all of mainstream academia is leftist to find a stand-off there. But... all of mainstream academia really isn't left-leaning.
Same for the mainstream media. It's portrayed as a leftist institution, but it's corporate owned and is really quite conservative.
I don't see a stand-off. I see an uphill battle for the left, though I do see openings for us, right now.
As sidenote, though: hate the concept of "bowling alone." I guess I see life as a quest for individual fulfillment. If people are bowling alone it's because they want to, not because they're lonely.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 27, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
On March 27, 2007 - 7:21pm destor23 said:
Were I out organizing I'd have to look a preacher like that in the eye and say, "I don't believe in god, so you either think what I'm offering is good or you don't."
I wouldn't let that stop you. Many of todays preachers don't really believe in God either, or they wouldn't do the things they do. Oh they believe in god alright, the god of riches, the god of luck, the god of the belly.
There is a multitude of Sects out there I'm sure you could find one, that most appeals to you.
Then you could wear your faith label, for all to see, that others could say, "look he can't be so bad, he's got religion."
Never mind that you wouldn't necessarily adhere to the teachings, you could be like the rest of so called Christain groups, Go to church on Sunday and forget it on Monday.
March 27, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite pointed, Chuckie. Quite pointed. And a bit genius.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 27, 2007 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
On March 27, 2007 - 7:46pm Brook Dataski said: Am I right here, folks, or are my observations off-kilter? It seems like a level of gridlock to me we haven't seen in the nation's history.
Your observations are correct.
(2 Timothy 3:1-5) 3 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; . . .
March 27, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another take on centralized versus diffuse power, perhaps ironically, is in public protest. I have long believed that most massive demonstrations in DC do not have the impact that much smaller demonstrations in individual Congressional districts would have, given that Congressmen can, if they desire, rationalize "well, those people aren't my constituents."
A demonstration, or even a polite delegation, in front of his district office(s) is going to be much harder to rationalize away. 435 simultaneous demonstrations, one per district, shows both local clout and national organizations. Those simultaneous demonstrations are apt to be cheaper in travel time and cost than a large national demonstration, and may actually be accessible to a larger number of people.
Think about it. One of the signatures of al-Qaeda is that they deliver multiple simultaneous attacks, geographically distributed. Why can't that principle be adapted for peaceful speech?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 27, 2007 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bowling Alone is wonderful the diffusion of power and community, though it doesn't really speak to questions of political lobbies and special interest groups. Another book worth reading is The Geography of Nowhere, by James Howard Kunstler. Where these two coincide, I think, is where they draw attention to factors which are taking a horrid toll on the very idea of community. Let me settle for a short and partial list:
If you like Kunstler's book, you might enjoy his blog.
aMike
March 27, 2007 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a good plan,
All politics is local.
Thomas P. O'Neill
March 27, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bowling Alone is not about bowling,it's about the fact that there are no more bowling leagues anymore. in essence -- a fundamental shift from a more civic America to a more isolationist America.
However, the Internet has become America's new front porch, and from that regard more people are probably sitting on the "front porch" now than they ever were in the old days. It's a different kind of interface though -- a global one that makes proximity or shared community values irrelevant.
March 27, 2007 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello Marshall, Thanks for the essay. I recall your work with the UFW. I agree with most of what you have laid out. It is about organizing, educating, and building organizations. Your history in these fields is profound.
I did a part of my organizing in and around Catholic churches.
A problem which I hope that you address in a future post.
Many of these organizations, once built, do not remain democractic nor participatory. Unions, IAF, etc.
It is, as you say, substantially about building relationships. And, much of organizing is re-organizing.
In fields of education, Bob Moses book, Radical Equations, and Jean Anyon's book, Radical Possibilites, both provide first steps in using organizing to improve education.
Many of the education related issues are discussed on my blog;
www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com
Duane Campbell
Sacramento, Calif.
March 27, 2007 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a perfect example of how diffused (worker) power leads to abuse, Circuit City announced today that they are firing 3500 people and hiring cheaper replacements immediately.
With no unions and no worker protection laws (as they have in Europe) this is perfect legal and perfectly immoral. The last time this happened in the early 20th Century it led to street protests, spontaneous strikes, civil unrest and eventually the formation of unions. The first one being the IWW. Management eventually decided that paying a better wage was preferable to risking civil unrest which might lead to socialism or worse...
A new generation will need to learn the old lessons. I don't know how bad things will have to get before workers become active on their own. Not yet it seems.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
March 28, 2007 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not having seen the announcement, how did they explain it? Store closings and consolidation, conversion of full-time to part-time, cutting of benefits, or a blatant "fire people who cost too much"?
It would be interesting to see what this does to the stock price, which might be a fascinating argument as to who profits and who loses.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 28, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The report I heard stated that Circuit City was firing people because those people were being paid "more than the prevailing wage."
March 28, 2007 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Washington Post coverage. I'm appalled. They seem to have gone out of their way to disincentivize workers. In 2003, they did away with commissions. Now, they set a cap for positions and fired (with severance and reapplication rights) for anyone making more than 50 cents per hour above the cap.
Assuming their salary reviews had anything to do with performance, getting rid of their best salespeople, and presumably also getting the top-commissioned people to leave, flies in the face of effective customer service.
Of course, the priorities were preserved:
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 28, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another store at which I won't shop.
Hopefully I won't eventually be left with no place to make purchases.
aMike
March 29, 2007 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I'm not one to be considered a bleeding-edge labor activist, this one went far over the line for me. It did so not just from the slaps in the face to the presumably best workers, but the utter stupidity of it from any management and marketing principle other than short-term stock price.
For a struggling company, their CEO certainly does well by them. Now, if I was in his place, I'd consider more creative solutions. One approach might have been to correlate salary (although in retail, dropping commissions also seems insane) and revenue per employee, and presenting this, even at a layoff meeting. If the company really wasn't getting return for salaries, and was willing to do some risk-sharing, people have been known to respond -- although I tend to think they'd want to see executives be austere and stay below a half-million in compensation.
The drive to optimize short-term profitability, I believe, is killing the economy and also investments in the workforce. CEO compensation is only a symptom of that, where cost-cutting is more important than coming up with innovative, market-grabbing new products and services.
Has any legislator, or even caucus, approached disincentivizing short-term/cost-cutting and incentivizing better-mousetrap?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 29, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You get a "D" for depth of study, a "W" for well written, and an A overall.
If you see undemocratic institutions and artificial persons grabbing power (loyalty to faceless investors) from natural, thinking, living people, individually and collectively, you see less loyalty among real people, and more loyalty to power symbols, institutions and ideologies.
March 30, 2007 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mike,
Am I inferring correctly that you believe that there should be limits on corporate power? Have you articulated these?
At this point in history, frightening as may be Administration constitutional abuse, it may be that even elected officials are better-controlled than some corporate interests. I emphasize some, as there are corporations, of various sizes, that do act responsibly. It may well be that a long-term strategy lies in economic and other policies that encourage responsible behavior; I suspect disincentives to basing everything on short-term stock price may be one of them. By this, I don't mean irresponsible spending, but a rational balance between short- and long-term valuation. Staying with short-term alone, among other things, encourages meat-ax cost cutting and discourages reinvestment in R&D, staff development, and productivity.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
March 30, 2007 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrote a discussion table topic post a while ago about whether people walking around in public places with private cameras reaching into their public / private lives can actually consent to being viewed by people behind those cameras, not knowing who they are.
Informed consent is a bedrock personal right and privacy issue, and the blurring of private and governmental instrumentalies because of technological leaps is one of those areas eroding consent to both the governed and the customer-public that is not so obvious to many.
Most people just continue into deeper and deeper denial and levels of desensitization as to the constitutional erosions taking place all around them in the name of convenience.
And, today's techies seem utterly ignorant and uninterested in abuse of power issues. If they can engineer it, it's a cool challenge and it pays well. That's a shame. We ought to require IT and computer science folks to minor in political science / civil liberties just to protect the Republic.
April 2, 2007 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink