To say that Americans have had a love affair with technology is the most humdrum of cliches. The idea that new technologies will not only make life easier for us, but will help bring us together as a people, is not new theme in American folklore. Long before there was the Web, or the radio, or even a developed telephone network, American philosophers and social critics dreamed of how new technologies might transform us, make us into a community in all of our diversity. In 1892, as a relatively young man, George Herbert Mead, a pragmatic philosopher in the American grain, wrote a letter to his wife's parents. It's worth quoting.

"But it seems to me clearer every day that the telegraph and locomotive are the great spiritualizers of society because they bind man and man so close together that the interest of the individual must be more completely the interest of all day by day. And America in pushing this spiritualizing of nature is doing more than all in bringing the day when every man will be my neighbor and all life shall be saturated with the divine life." (See, Gary A. Cook, George Herbert Mead, The Making of a Social Pragmatist, p. 31)

This relatively youthful Mead thought that the locomotive and the telegraph would bring us closer together. And so they did in their own ways. Now the Internet appears to be doing so in a qualitatively different fashion. But before moving on to discuss the Internet's place in the current election, it's worth reminding ourselves about the dark side of our commitment to technology. For example, we have recently been promised nearly bloodless wars in which burnished flying machines, decked out with starship instrumentation, will seek out and destroy our enemies. The Iraq nightmare began with the promise that high tech would produce "Shock and Awe," and a quick end to war.

But in this election, the prospect of utilizing technology to make Americans feel as if they are part of a national political community, is no longer merely a fantasy of the early devotees of Apple computers. Although it has been said many times and in many ways, and in ways that were suspect, it does seem that the Internet has finally come of age. No doubt Obama would not be where he is today without his campaign's creative use of Internet technologies and software. (See, Joshua Green's piece, "The Amazing Money Machine" <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance> and Marc Ambinder's "His Space" in The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/am binder-obama

Yet technology by itself is blind. Obama's experience as a community organizer has let him frame how the technology could be used. He and his people have pioneered paths for merging the virtual and the real worlds, for moving from on-line communities to real world communities and back. What happens on the Web doesn't just stay on the Web. However, it's worth keeping in mind that Obama is part of an older American tradition, one that supported the development of technology without worshiping it. And one that spoke a great deal about community and social responsibility. Mead was part of this camp. And so was his good friend John Dewey. They were called progressives in the early 20th century. They were on the non-Marxist Left. (Yes, we once had a vital non-Marxist Left.) Sometimes we forget that this tradition preceded New Deal Liberalism.

What is happening is not just about Obama and his campaign. It is about words: their profusion, polyphony, and heartfeltness. People are writing to each other, again and again. And not just to friends (or one's wife's parents), but to strangers. Have Americans ever written so much in such a short space of time? Do all the words in all of the (paper) letters that Americans have written since the Declaration of Independence equal 1/10 of the words on the Web in the last five years? (No doubt, someone, somewhere, has made a calculation.) Commentaries abound from people who never had a voice in the mainstream media. They talk, argue, commiserate, plan, plot, comment, organize, and vent. Yes, a lot of junk, some hate, but also speaking and listening. Will this conversation resolve economic inequalities and racial divides? Of course not. As a matter of fact, we will have to work to make sure that new technologies don't increase class divisions or centralize power in unimagined ways. Yet, all in all, we are engaged in an impressive conversation. It may not be the New England Town Hall, but for a country of 300 million, it's an interesting way to help promote political communities and community.

For more on this and related topics, http://msa4.wordpress.com/

Cross posted at Future Majority.

Since I've been traveling so much, I've taken the opportunity afforded by long plane flights to revitalize my reading habits.  So far I've read and reviewed Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, and David Kinnaman's UnChristian.  I've been enjoying this chance to read again.  It's a good habit that unfortunately dropped well below previous levels as I worked on my book and struggled to juggle a full-time job and blogging.  I've been able to do a new book every 12 - 15 days, and hope to keep that  up through the spring and summer (no promises once the Fall gets here and the campaign really kicks into high-gear).

Most recently, I finished Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics by Morely Winograd and Michael Hais.  Winograd is a former policy advisor to Al Gore, and Hais is a retired executive for communications research firm Frank N. Magid Associates.  Together, they've pooled their expertise and produced a compelling look at the historical, demographic, and technological trends that have shaped American political history, and how those cyclical trends might play out as the Millennial Generation comes into it's own as a force in American politics.

Joe Trippi recently observed on Twitter that both Obama and Clinton have fairly lame presences there. Both seem to be recycling standard issue campaign schedule material, example from @barackobama:

The State Department says employees who improperly accessed the passport files of the three major presidential candidates were guilty of "imprudent curiosity." It makes one wonder how many other employees or independent contractors in the vast federal bureaucracy are similarly curious. How it could be so easy to improperly access passport files that imprudently curious employees can do so on a whim during training sessions. Were they being trained in domestic surveillance? Do they have similar access to restricted files while on their coffee breaks? How about at home? It's disconcerting that senior State Department officials only learned of this incident after a reporter contacted them about it. It suggests they don't run a very tight ship when it comes to guarding Americans' personal information. This from the administration that so desperately wants to implement the Real ID Act, a law that would consolidate Americans' DMV records into a network of interlinking databases accessible to the federal government and bureaucrats throughout the 50 states and U.S. territories. These records, possibly including digital copies of birth certificates, Social Security cards and other sensitive documents, would be accessible to thousands of state and federal bureaucrats - some of whom are certain to be imprudently curious. The Bush administration has made sure there are no limits in place in the amount of information kept in the Real ID database. The potential for abuse is boundless. This is one of many reasons why the New York Civil Liberties Union is fighting to block the implementation of the Real ID Act in New York and throughout the country. Government bureaucrats can and do make mistakes. Our lawmakers should do everything possible to ensure that Americans' personal information is secure. They could start by repealing the Real ID Act.

Cross-posted on One Million Strong

The editors of TechPresident, a blog dedicated to the intersection of politics and technology and to which I am an occasional contributor, took the time to grade each candidate's technology proposals. 

Here are the grades:

Barack Obama A-

John Edwards A-

Joe Biden B 

Hillary Clinton B- 

Chris Dodd C

Bill Richardson C-

Dennis Kucinich D 

The rationale behind each grade is available here.  Details below, and I'll focus on TechPresident's critiques of the Obama campaign... 

Welcome to the Saturday night Edwards Evening News Roundup.  Tonight, our major focus is on the education plan that John Edwards released yesterday.  I think it's a great plan that will put our public education system back on track after years of neglect.  I'll highlight some of that plan tonight.

Beneath the fold, we'll delve into the following stories:

• Teach Your Children Well: The Edwards Education Plan


• Campaign Manager David Bonior on Hardball


• Breaking News: Bush May Have Misused the DOJ AGAIN


• Celebrating OneWebDay with the Edwards Campaign

via sometimes snarky tech blog Engadget, the madness that is the technology patent system lately:

Verizon's patents may be illegitimate. Apparently the two patents in question, 6,104,711 (filed March 6, 1997) and 6,282,574 (filed February 24, 2000) may themselves use technology openly discussed and published by VocalTec back in 1996. In fact, it may also indirectly include technology input from the likes of IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Nortel, etc. made during the VoIP Forum in 1996, with the businesses' original intentions that this tech be used in future open standards.

Few Americans have heard of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.  It was created by Congress in 1972 and became the fourth congressional support agency.  It was designed to provide the House and Senate with independent, nonpartisan and thorough analysis of complex technical issues and policy options for addressing them.  In 1995 under pressure from the pompous and nefarious Newt Gingrich the small agency was de-funded.