MEDIA BEAT
Can "E-Government" Bring Us Point-and-Click Democracy?
There's a slick new term surfing its way into the mass media. "E-government." Al Gore has given it a big shove forward with a major campaign speech. "The power of government," he proclaimed, "should not be locked away in Washington, but put at your service--no further than your keyboard." Gore promised online access to almost every government service by 2003: "Together, we will transform America's collection of ramshackle bureaucracies into an e-government that works for every American."
Many citizens would be glad to see the Internet streamline their dealings with federal agencies. But we're now hearing claims that go way beyond matters of efficiency--to conflate convenience and democracy. "You should not have to wait in line to communicate with your self-government," Gore said in his June 5 speech, evoking visions of "a new system of e-government." The vice president correctly figured on a spate of respectful news stories when he declared that his plans for booting up an "Information Age government" amount to "a second American revolution." But let's get a grip. These days, even accounting for customary political hyperbole, the rhetoric about e-government is somewhere between exaggerated and absurd.
No matter how much officeholders vow to level the digital playing field, the barriers will loom much higher for some than for others. Ability to take part in government should not be determined by economic resources. Imbalances in access to state-of-the-art computers and the latest software just exacerbate the kind of chronic inequities that the Internet supposedly alleviates.
The digital divide is far from the only problem with the e-government boom. While Gore asserts that it will bring remedies to "an electorate that is too often alienated and often feels voiceless in a system corroded by special interests and powerless to make change," the whole idea of online government is a cyber-placebo. The notion that e-government gives power to the powerless is nice--but delusional. No matter how dazzling, technology doesn't empower people. People can empower themselves. And they remain supplicants to centralized economic and political power if they rely on sitting in front of screens, downloading government documents and filling out forms on official websites.
As a matter of fact, the prevailing concepts of e-government are fully compatible with a wide variety of regimes that have little or no use for democratic decision-making.
Four days before Gore's big e-government speech, he announced that Jordan will become the thirteenth nation to participate in the Clinton administration's Internet for Economic Development initiative--which aims to "foster the development of e-government." Jordan's rulers, led by King Abdullah, are moving to integrate the trappings of e-government into their authoritarian monarchy.
One of the charter members of the American initiative for e-government is Egypt, which continues to commit serious human rights abuses. According to the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists, the press laws in Egypt are "draconian."
Or consider Singapore, where the government is so arbitrary and repressive that it has maintained a ban on chewing gum since 1992. As the country's Straits Times newspaper noted recently, "anyone caught importing, manufacturing or selling chewing gum can be fined"--up to $5,800.
The defense minister of Singapore, Tony Tan, cheerily boasted on June 6: "We have begun the process of transforming ourselves into an e-government." He did not mention any plans to lift the national ban on gum, which Premier Goh Chok Tong describes as necessary for the smooth functioning of Singapore's transit system: "There were urchins who put the chewing gum where doors open, holding back the schedules."
For autocrats who don't want to gum up the works with messy liberties, "e-government" can provide a sheen of ultra-modernity without disrupting basic power relations. Singapore officials plan to spend $872 million for e-government during the next three years. Who knows, the program may even help to keep the subway trains running on time.
In a country such as Singapore or Egypt, the e-government pretensions are likely to be transparent. In the United States, the pronouncements of politicians and media commentators are apt to encounter credulous enthusiasm when we confuse convenience with democracy--and technical advances with civic ones.
Point-and-click ersatz democracy may be perfect for a governance system tacitly predicated on illusions of choice. And if it all seems "interactive," so much the better.
Holy Smoke and Mirrors: The Rise of Centrist Theocrats
It's always dangerous when politicians claim to be doing God's will. So, as the novelty fades from Al Gore's selection of Joseph Lieberman, journalists should ask some probing questions about the ticket's conspicuous piety.
Over the years, Republican policymakers have been fond of saying that they rely on divine guidance. Cementing his alliance with fundamentalist Christian groups, President Reagan loved to perform at high-profile prayer breakfasts and the like. All too often, political leaders--especially conservative ones--have tried to blur the separation between church and state.
Now, the Gore-Lieberman campaign has launched itself with a very public display of devout posturing. For them, the Old Testament has become fine grist for the centrist mill. The New Democrats are morphing into New Theocrats.
At the formal announcement of his selection for the V.P. slot, Lieberman declared that Gore "has never, never wavered in his responsibilities as a father, as a husband and, yes, as a servant of God Almighty." The vice president stood a few feet away, beaming.
Evidently, in the current political milieu, private beliefs and personal prayer aren't sufficient. To really do the trick, faith must be flaunted. What good is religiosity if you don't wear it on your sleeve and get a lot of good press?
Colleagues laud Lieberman as someone of impeccable morality, a judgment echoed by countless reporters and pundits. Yet a strong argument could be made that he promotes extremely immoral policies--if we look beyond such matters as sexual behavior and public profanity.
By all accounts, Lieberman is personally nice. But he is politically cruel. For instance, his scrupulous morals do not extend to Iraq, where several hundred thousand children have died in recent years due to the US-led sanctions that he enthusiastically supports.
Connecticut's junior senator urges quick deployment of the perilous "missile defense" boondoggle. And this Bible-quoting moralist has continued to push a wide range of new multibillion-dollar weapons systems, which just happen to mean huge revenues for the arms manufacturers that have fattened his campaign coffers. For military contractors, Lieberman is a visionary prophet for profits.
Whether Al Gore is truly "a servant of God Almighty" can only be a subjective matter. But the guy he chose for his running mate is certainly a devoted servant of Dollar Almighty. Few Democratic members of Congress are more eager to undermine the public sector. Lieberman wants taxpayers to subsidize vouchers for private schools. He has been outspoken in support of partially privatizing Social Security.
In contrast to his media reputation as a consumer advocate, Lieberman joined with only three other Senate Democrats in 1995 to put a cap on punitive damage awards in product liability cases. He's on record in favor of slashing capital gains taxes. Like Gore, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, he is a fervent backer of NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, and other devices for globalization on corporate terms.
The world's poor people rank quite low in Joe Lieberman's universe of values. As for Palestinians, his brow does not even furrow for them. A down-the-line supporter of Israel, he has proved to be comfortable with the systematic violations of human rights in occupied territories, underwritten by billions of dollars from the US government.
"Lieberman may be a committed Orthodox Jew in his personal practice, but in his role as a public spokesperson he has gone far away from the best aspects of the Jewish tradition," Rabbi Michael Lerner points out. "He has none of that prophetic voice that leads Jews to criticize our own Jewish community and Israel in the name of Torah values. He has none of that Jewish sensitivity to the oppressed that would place their needs above the needs of the wealthy."
Like most other senators, Lieberman has built his career by serving the interests of the rich. Now that he looms very large on the national political stage, Lieberman is well-positioned to further corporatize the Democratic Party. Lerner is on target when he comments: "Lieberman is likely to accelerate the process in which the two major parties seem to be merging into one pro-business, pro-wealthy, elitist, and morally tone-deaf governing force."
The men on the 2000 Democratic ticket represent a new theocratic style. Eager to evoke Judeo-Christian unity, they make a show of rejoicing in shared monotheism. But judging from policy priorities, the one god that they most revere is Money.
Corporate media outlets keep praising Joe Lieberman as a paragon of moral virtue. But actions speak much louder than pious words. He is a disaster.
--Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media"