Which way for liberty in the new world? Reflections on Personal Democracy Forum 2008

_{Personal Democracy Forum panel on "the cross-partisan movement for political transparency and watchdogging government from below:" (Right to left) Panel moderator Ellen Miller, co-founder and executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, Matt Stoller of MyDD (mostly obscured), myself,  and W. David Stephenson, who blogs on homeland security issues. (Photo by Robert Cox, Media Bloggers Association).}

It's not often that one gets the opportunity to be among and converse with several hundred of the smartest people in the world, but that is precisely what I was able to do last week as a participant at Personal Democracy Forum 2008 at Rose Hall in New York City's Lincoln Center complex.

It was my first PDF and, despite only being able to attend the second day, it was a memorable experience because I came away with a heightened sense that we are on the cusp of profound, even revolutionary changes in government and public policy thanks to the Internet. Being a conservative, I don't use that word "revolution" lightly.

I was in fact continually reminded throughout my time at PDF of Alexander Hamilton's prophetic observation at the outset of The Federalist Papers, America's most important contribution to serious  political thought:

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."

It is still a time for choosing. Today, we are witnessing the creation of an incredible array of fantastically effective communication tools made possible by the Internet.  As Clay Shirky says in his new book, "Here Comes Everybody,"  when the way we communicate with each other changes, it inevitably changes the way we relate to each other in society.

And that means we are heading towards having to make some choices that deserve serious reflection about the place of individual political liberty in the "new modes and orders" that are being shaped by the Internet, those who understand it and those who seek to manipulate it to a multitude of purposes from a broad spectrum of perspectives.

To illustrate, think Gutenberg, the rise of the printing press and the media it inspired like pamphlets, books and newspapers, the spread of general literacy fueled by the desire to read the Bible independently of traditional religious gatekeepers, and the consequent demands for an analogous independence in the political, economic and scientific realms, particularly in Britain and America.

The Internet is every bit as revolutionary, if not more so. That point has been well-documented for at least a decade for fields like business, entertainment and media, but the implications of the Internet for government and public policy are only now beginning to appear, dimly, in public discussions.

Two things struck me most vividly at PDF. First, the sheer magnitude of possibilities is simply staggering. The excitement engendered by pondering widgets, mashups, Facebook, FollowtheMoney.org and APIs today must be akin to what was felt by the first generation of Protestant reformers and their nascent allies in the politics of the day as they realized the possibilities of spreading their respective gospels via the printed page. People do tend to get excited when paradigms shift.

In the business world, we're talking about an Internet-inspired paradigm shift from the top-down, vertically integrated, proprietarily focused corporate model that succeeds by controlling a product from inception to obsolescence to an outward-facing, collaborative partnering entrepreneurial model that succeeds by creating and focusing value from within and without to produce needed products or services.

Don Tapscott's "Wikinomics" is the best description of this revolutionary change I've read (FYI: We're probably distant cousins but have never met). Just as the corporate model is being redefined by the collaborative networking made possible by the Internet, government at all levels in America is undergoing massive dislocation occasioned by social unrest, demographics, the lengthening list of quandaries occasioned by the bureaucratic state AKA Big Government, and technology.

So an era of required reassembly looms, which entails revisiting the classical issues of the appropriate roles of citizen and government in a democratic republic. For those who seek to protect and even expand the realm of individual liberties, it matters a great deal how those issues are to be settled.

We are only beginning to see and talk about these things in the public policy community, even as the  basic structure of the new business paradigm is rapidly becoming a part of every day life, thanks to eBay, Amazon, Google, and many more companies that look, think and act very differently from giants like General Motors. We don't yet have much of a grip on Government 2.0.

And that brings me to the second thing that struck me at PDF - Most of the people at an event celebrating a 21st century technology with profound implications for public pollcy came bearing a distinctly 19th century political outlook. They are mostly of the Left, or progressive, or whatever is the favored self-description for those who view the state as the chief agent for achieving social, economic and political justice, however that is defined.

This is, to put it most simply, Leviathan - the all-powerful central government but harnessed in service of one or more of  the seemingly endless variations on the 18th and 19th century isms that grew out of the fevered brows of Rousseau, Feurbach, Marx, etc, with perhaps just enough classical liberalism rhetoric thrown in to maintain the appearance of an appreciation for some dead white European guy named John Stuart Mill.

As such, the enthusiasm among PDF attendees for Barack Obama specifically and for the full range of progressive causes was palpable, especially during the morning plenary sessions. Things really got spirited during a speech by social activist and environmental advocate Van Jones, who entertained and inspired the audience with a superbly delivered and fervently argued appeal that stopped just short of jeopardizing PDF's non-partisan status.

That is not meant as a criticism of anybody. Like the overwhelming majority of newsrooms in the Mainstream Media, it is just a given these days that most of the people who attend events like PDF come from a Leftist  orientation and cannot be blamed for framing their understanding of whatever topics are at hand in familiar terms.
 
They love government because they see it as the means of achieving societal and individual salvation. Barack Obama, a community organizer-turned politician, does, too, and he gives them hope of winning big-time in November.

It's not the fault of folks on the Left that folks on the Right have been much too slow to appreciate what is happening right before their eyes on the technology front.  To the credit of the PDF organizers, there were a fair number of folks like myself on the various panels who come from the Right, including Patrick Ruffini, Matthew Sheffield, Chris Kinnan, Soren Dayton and others.

I am told that the number of PDF attendees has been scant in previous years, but more recently has been growing. We are still a distinct minority but a group of us thought about gathering together and singing "We Shall Overcome" during the concluding session. We prudently let the idea go upon further consideration.

But here's the point: The Internet and the voluntary collaborative networking it makes possible on scales not even previously conceived is fundamentally opposed to the heart of the Left's conception of the proper relationship that ought to exist among state, society and individuals, with that sequence representing the flow of power in descending order.

The Left wants always to give Leviathan more power, not less, in order to impose "change," regardless whether the change enjoys popular support.  It also tends to view opposition to its means and ends as evidence of criminally sinister conspiracies to turn back the clock of progress and thus always runs the risk of succumbing to the totalitarian temptation.

The Internet on the other hand empowers individuals and voluntary groups to be simultaneously independent and networked, and thus able to achieve desirable and productive ends without government direction or favor. Indeed, Leviathan stands opposed to this fundamental nature of the Internet because the former centralizes power and authority inwardly to itself, while the latter redistributes power and authority outwardly to individuals and groups. Glenn Reynolds' "An Army of Davids" does an excellent job of describing this process in a number of realms.

As Shirky says, "... we are living in the middle of a remarkable increase in our ability to share, to cooperate with one another, and to take collective action, all outside the framework of traditional institutions and organizations."

I wonder if we are about to discover that the Internet empowers the wisdom of crowds operating within the constitutional framework of a democratic republic to expand the realm of individual autonomy and group cooperation, while minimizing and rationalizing government power, much as Adam Smith's invisible hand - the movement of supply and demand in a free market - empowers individuals and groups to pursue mutually beneficial economic activity with a minimum of government restriction.

But like all tools, the Internet can be used for good or ill. In the context of individual liberty and government,  Mr. Jefferson's maxim  - "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" - is as on point as ever.

And Jefferson points to the crux of the coming debate - should the Internet be public or private. To see where it can go in the hands of Leviathan, one need no further than China and Total Information Awareness. With Leviathan, power possessed, sooner or later, becomes power applied.

Lesson? Keep Leviathan as far from the Internet as possible, then stand back and watch what happens when people are free to choose their own destinies.

I suspect that I will return to this topic frequently and, being in Washington, D.C., thus reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

Cross-posted at The Next Right.