CDR: RE: Parties

Mon Oct 30 08:30:25 PST 2000

Rush,

You certainly are an earnest fellow, but that doesn't get you very far. It 
seems to me that folks like you, who are college sophomores with the 
unfortunate experience of one or two undergraduate political science 
classes, don't have much to contribute to cypherpunkly discussions. Your 
points, such as they are, might be better made on alt.politics.banal-ideas.

You:
* Don't seem to understand the nature of modern political parties
* Don't seem to understand the nature of checks and balances
* Don't seem to understand how Washington works, and the interplay between 
the legislative branch, executive branch, lobbyists, and advocacy groups
* Have not read the basic literature that would enable us to take you seriously

My participation in this sad discussion is now over, except that I will 
volunteer a reading list for you at some later point.

-Declan

At 10:10 10/30/2000 -0600, Carskadden, Rush wrote:

>Comments below:
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Declan McCullagh [<mailto:declan at well.com>mailto:declan at well.com]
>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 5:17 PM
>To: Carskadden, Rush
>Cc: 'cypherpunks at algebra.com'
>Subject: Re: Parties
>
>
> >Rush is clearly someone with too much time on his hands and too little
> >(demonstrated) ability to think things through. I apologize for being
> >uncharacteristically blunt, but the essay below is terribly
> >naive. You might as well try to draft C.J Parker for president.
>
>I appreciate your candid approach. I am admittedly pretty young and 
>uninformed compared to you, which is why I sought opinions anyway. It can 
>only lead to more information and access to varied points of view.
>
> >First, political parties are not single-issue parties, at least not
> >right now. Education and taxes and health care will likely continue to
> >be more important in most people's lives than technology policy for
> >the foreseeable future.
>
>Agreed.
>
> >Second, privacy is an amorphous issue. It's used by leftists to
> >regulate the private sector and outlaw transactions between consenting
> >adults. Liberals use it to talk about abortion. Conservatives link it
> >to everything from the FBI files under Clinton to Carnivore. What do
> >*you* mean? And why do you think everyone else is going to agree?
>
>By no means do I think that everyone will agree with me on my own personal 
>views. I started out by pointing out in the house voting record that the 
>actual rift between Democrats and Republicans in voting records (based on 
>scores that I believe you put together) in technology issues was not too 
>large. I then further hypothesized, based on this observation, that 
>partisan politics were not creating a strong stance regarding privacy and 
>technological freedom either way on either side. So, the conclusion I drew 
>was that if I were to have a strong view on technology (EITHER a 100 OR a 
>0 on your scale), then that strong view would not be fit to serve as a 
>factor that may align me in any reliable way with either party. A second, 
>personal, conclusion was that I was not content with the relatively 
>mediocre (according to your scores) standing on technology by both 
>parties. I do not feel I am being represented on this issue, though I do 
>feel I am represented strongly on other issues, such as education, taxes, 
>and health care. What I was looking for on this list was not agreement. I 
>was looking for some points of view on a question that this line of 
>reasoning left me with. If I want stronger representation in Washington on 
>technology issues (EITHER WAY), is it easier to try to influence an 
>existing party to take up my stance, or would it be easier to align myself 
>with a "third" party that already has a strong stance on the topic (EITHER 
>WAY) and try to maneuver it into a position where it could provide the 
>needed strong representation. I would have liked to be able to say to 
>myself, for instance, "Gee, certain vocal members of the cypherpunks list 
>seem to think that it would be easier to just try to gain partisan support 
>than to get a "third" party the strength it needs to represent me, and 
>here's why...", but I can't because my naive nature is so overpowering 
>that people would rather try to inform me of the Libertarian party, in 
>which I have been active for years, than answer my question.
>
> >Third, there already is (as others have suggested) a party that's
> >concerned about personal freedom: the LP. If you mirror their
> >positions -- or even a substantial subset -- you will be similarly
> >marginalized. If not, don't look for support -- I humbly suggest --
> >on the cpunx list.
>
>The Libertarian party does not have enough power to strongly represent me, 
>assuming that I agree with their stance on technology, which I don't know 
>that I have said. This does not answer my question at all.
>
> >Fourth, nowadays it seems that political parties can be formed (Ross
> >Perot, Ralph Nader) or popularized only by a strong and well-known
> >personality. It will help if they're a billionaire. May I suggest a
> >recruiting trip to the Redmond suburbs?
>
>You seem to think that I am trying to start a political party. I am not. I 
>specifically said that I was not.
>
> >Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, technology issues are an
> >outgrowth of a canadidates' general stand on regulation. If they don't
> >like taxes, you can bet they'll be against Internet taxes. If they're
> >a national security hawk, they'll probably like encryption and
> >supercomputer export regs. Etc.
>
>This is the kind of opinion I was looking for. Thank you.
>
> >Sixth, you don't seem to need a political party but a thinktank or
> >similar creature. Why not try that instead? I was thinking of starting
> >a nonproit group devoted to a subset of cypherpunkly topics; perhaps I
> >still will.
>
>I don't see how a thinktank would represent strong views on technology. 
>Unless this thinktank happened to be a subset of Congress, I don't see how 
>this has anything to do with representation, which is what I was talking 
>about. However, if you did put together such a group, I would be 
>interested to know. I am trying to overcome my naive tendencies and 
>achieve a level of knowledge that will enable me to be confident in these 
>areas. At that point, I may very well ask you for a position. In the 
>meantime, however, I am still learning and trying to get opinions from 
>ornery bastards on mailing lists.
>
>ok,
>Rush
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Carskadden, Rush wrote:
> > Scott and I have been discussing (from a theoretical standpoint) the
> > possibility of a third party that focuses on privacy and personal freedom,
> > and the difficulties in gaining creedence for this third party, as opposed
> > to the difficulties associated with influencing existing major parties
> > (either of them) to take a stronger stance on these issues. Assuming that
> > you could reconcile your differences with either Democrats or 
> Republicans in
> > order to gain a strong Washington D.C. presence on a few key issues, would
> > that approach be easier than creating a viable "third" party? What
> > percentage of the voters do you think are holding on to a very few key
> > issues from their party of choice, and would be willing to vote for 
> another
> > party that could give them equally strong representation on those issues?
> >
> > ok,
> > Rush Carskadden
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Schram [<mailto:scott at schram.net>mailto:scott at schram.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 4:14 PM
> > To: Carskadden, Rush
> > Subject: RE: Bachus
> >
> >
> > Hi Rush,
> >
> > I mentioned the "third party", inspired by my frustration with the two
> > leading parties, and their apparent lack of understanding about 
> technology,
> > and privacy issues.
> >
> > Some thoughts about the current parties:
> >
> > Al Gore's populist rhetoric about drug companies which completely 
> overlooks
> > the fact that we're on the eve of incredible discoveries and it costs lots
> > of money to research and bring new drugs to market.  Despite what Gore has
> > indicated, big pharma spends about 4 times as much on research as they 
> do on
> > advertising.
> >
> > George W. Bush's hints at dropping the Microsoft suit (and the tobacco 
> suit
> > for that matter.)  The recent Republican (I think) proposals to link 
> Social
> > Security information to IRS information.
> >
> > Our government is (probably justifiably) paranoid about attacks from
> > external and internal terrorists.  It is easier for terrorists to cause
> > problems than it is for the government to prevent them.  Each time an
> > incident happens, people call for more preventative measures, thus we 
> have:
> > Secret searches (and bugging) of homes, no-knock entries, the Carnivore IP
> > monitoring system, etc.  Did you see the recent HBO special about 
> extremist
> > groups and their use of the internet to encourage action by "lone wolf"
> > sociopaths?  Nobody wants to appear soft on this kind of crime.
> >
> > Libertarians have some cool ideas (at least they sound cool), but I can't
> > imagine withdrawing all of our military force from the world and limit
> > ourselves to defending our borders.  Our enemies would have a field day.
> > Further, while I'm pro-business, I'm all for them playing "in bounds" and
> > only a strong referee can keep some of them from dumping PCBs at the local
> > playground.
> >
> > The Reform Party is basically an old-time circus freak show, and I mean no
> > disrespect to circus freaks.
> >
> > A number of issues are no longer "Right" or "Left".
> >
> > So, back to your question:
> >
> > The third party route would probably be very difficult.  It's not clear
> > whether it would actually dilute efforts to influence the major 
> parties.  I
> > offer this hypothesis:  The way the system works now, with third parties
> > being excluded from debates, often excluded from matching funds, the
> > electoral college that makes for artificial "landslide" elections for the
> > major candidates... all of these things tend to squash the life out of any
> > third party.
> >
> > I believe that people interested in the new issues are growing, and we 
> might
> > find allies in unexpected places.  For example, my southern baptist 
> friends
> > were not very happy with the long census form.
> >
> > I have used the following techniques with some success:
> >
> > Letter writing to congress still works.  I have written to other
> > representatives in the state if they happened to be the only one on a
> > committee, or even representatives for other states.  www.smokefree.org
> > <<http://www.smokefree.org/>http://www.smokefree.org/>  is an excellent 
> example of publicizing issues
> > and encouraging people to write letters.
> >
> > I don't think phone calls work quite as well, but I recall influencing an
> > issue in this way.  It was a niche issue, and I got some attention with a
> > careful explanation.  (The issue was:  For a while, songwriters and 
> authors
> > were not able to deduct business expenses unless they were able to relate
> > directly to the song or work that was produced with that expense.)
> >
> > One of my favorite things to do is write a short, punchy (often satirical)
> > letter to the editor.  Their paper starts out blank every day, and I have
> > yet to get one rejected doing it this way.  If it's a technology issue, 
> you
> > might be the only one writing in on that topic, and thus more likely to 
> get
> > in print.
> >
> > Give money, either to candidates or groups like EFF or whatever.
> >
> > There's some random thoughts for you Rush, and you can repost any of 
> them if
> > you see fit.  Thanks for your questions!   What do you think?  What are 
> the
> > most important issues in your mind?
> >
> > Scott
> > <http://schram.net>http://schram.net <http://schram.net/>
> >
> > At 09:41 AM 10/25/00, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Scott,
> >      Thank you for the link and the clarification of my info. I agree 
> about
> > your assertion that a "third" party may better see to our concerns, but do
> > we think it would be easier to create a third party and give it enough
> > creedance to fill our needs, or do you think it would be easier to 
> influence
> > existing party members to take a stronger stance? My assumption has been
> > that existing party members are not very concrete about the technology
> > issues. I don't think there is an old school party line in regards to
> > technology in and of itself on either side. Do you think that we can sway
> > them? Or are we forced to create a new party just to get an issue 
> addressed
> > as we wish it could be? Possibly a harder question still is whether we 
> could
> > live with either of the parties even if they did take a strong stance on
> > technological issues... Maybe a question for the entire list, but I didn't
> > want to stick your private reply up there without asking you. What do you
> > think, though?
> >
> > ok,
> > Rush Carskadden
> >
> >