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.