Democracy and Cyberspace: Reply to Barber and Cohen
by Ira Magaziner


In listening to the respondents, one of the things that I think is that, if you live long enough, you'll hear almost anything. I've been called many, many names since I've come to Washington--never "Republican" though. "Communist," "socialist," "radical," "anarchist," but never "Republican." So that's something new. I'm not sure what to think of that.

I would take issue with a couple of things that Mr. Barber said and actually agree with a couple of things - if you strip some of the anger out of it. The thing that I take issue with is that the president needs a course in democracy. Today, somebody who runs for president has to listen to people. This particular president does this even during the course of his presidency. I would posit that Bill Clinton has probably talked and listened to more people in this country from all over the country, representing almost all points of view on all issues than almost anybody else. I think it's a healthy thing. I think it's a bit condescending to suggest that he needs to take Mr. Barber's course in democracy to understand what democracy is about. There are negative things about having these year- and two-year-long campaigns for president, but one of the healthy things is that a presidential candidate really does have to go out to listen and talk to people. This particular president does that all the time.

Let me deal with a couple of the substantive issues. I think that the fundamental question that Mr. Barber raised is the correct question. Certainly, I wouldn't want to be construed as saying that governments are not there to play important democratic roles. I think that the distinction that he makes between a civic responsibility or role and a consumer role is a very good distinction. There are certainly two different roles there, and they're both important. Certainly, I would also agree in the areas related to health and education. I also agree that there are certain civic roles where we should act collectively through the democratic institutions of government. Certainly.

One other issue that I think is worth mentioning, although I won't go into the whole health-care thing; that's not the purpose of tonight's debate. I apologize for using the sports analogy, but it's inevitably when you try to score a touchdown, and you throw a pass that is dropped, everybody else's idea on what you should have done is, by definition, better than what you did. Even if those ideas are completely at odds with each other. So that defense and that discussion takes a longer time than we have tonight.

I would just like to comment on two other things.

The first thing is the question about the pornography and the graphic material and so on. I think concerns about advertising to children which are very legitimate concerns. These are things that we are very much concerned about, and we are trying to make some decisions on how to deal with them. Butm I would say that the interest of free speech is very important here, and there is a slippery slope. Consider the comments about what goes on in television. I have children who are l4, l3 and l0, and the average sit-com that the kids will watch every night has a lot in it that, all things being equal, I would just as soon my kids not see. But I think one of the things you have to realize, at some point, is that it's a very slippery slope when you start restricting speech and closing down content avenues. I think it's something you've got to do with great caution. I still go back to the idea that this is something that parents need to have primary responsibility for, not the government. Having said that, I think we may try to do some things in the way of children's advertising and so on, which possibly might border on the area where government should get involved.

The final thing I'll say to Mr. Barber's comments. There is one fundamental thing which he hinted at which, in my experience in Washington, has the most debilitating effect on the functioning of the democracy. It's not really solely related to the Internet, which is why I didn't mention it in my speech. That thing is the influence of money on the political process. I certainly agree with Mr. Barber, and I would favor the public use of the airwaves for election campaigns. I think if we could do that, in some organized fashion, it would take a very high percentage of the money out of politics and allow communications to take place in a way that would be much healthier. In my experience, the influence of money in politics, not just in the campaign process but also in the lobbying process, is probably the greatest threat we have to our democratic institution right now and the success of that democratic institution.

I think we saw in health care and elsewhere that there were tremendously talented people using tremendously sophisticated techniques in this country, district by district, in the way of orchestrating campaigns with respect to talk-radio programs, with mail, financing of think-tanks to come out with things, and a whole variety of other methods--quite apart from what was visible as television advertising--which was, by far, disproportionate to what the supporters of health-care reform could muster. They are particularly active in swing-districts where there were congressmen or senators who were viewed as somewhat vulnerable or up for election. In any campaign of any sort, whether it's a commercial advertising campaign or a political campaign, when one side can outspend the other 50 to 1, it makes it an uneven fight in trying to reach public opinion. I think the nature of the influence of money in politics in this way, and also through the campaign finance system, is very debilitating.

Just a few final comments. I think the principles that you enunciated about ensuring fair access, being careful about filtering content, and being cautious in general are ones that I would share. I think the trick on the filtering is that when a system is created which filters without people having the choice about what to filter, then it's pretty much the same as government censorship. I think when there are multiple filtering systems that people can choose among so that it becomes a matter of choice, I think that you're getting closer to something which can support democratic principles.

I think the fair-access piece is absolutely crucial, and I should have put more emphasis on it in my remarks. I do think free and fair access is absolutely crucial, and the Internet provides a tremendous opportunity for increasing access. That's one of the real strengths that can contribute to the democracy.