Luddites and Apologists

(Cross-posted from cmcabroad.com/abhi just to add some fresh content and get your input.)

I'm something of a technology elitist, sure. Just today I scoffed at my boss's old floppy disc, and regularly I mock typographical missteps. Nonetheless, I understand that people have different levels of experience and different points of view, so I can at least appreciate this opening to Lee Gomes's recent op-ed, "Note to the Next President: Avoid Computers."

"The two presidential candidates this year, in addition to all their other, more-significant differences, also present two contrasting perspectives about the extent to which personal-computer technology can be integrated into someone's everyday life."

That was about all I could appreciate.

Gomes makes the obvious diagnosis of McCain's computer illiteracy, but then, instead of dismissing, let alone lamenting, the candidate's technological conservatism, he rationalizes it, arguing that it's best for a president to keep distance from computers, the internet, and (those dreaded) blogs.

"The severe time rationing is necessary because a computer, far from making you more productive, instead loads you down with things to do, and it's important for the machine to know who is boss."

He just threw the 21st century under the Straight Talk Express.

To be fair, there is some force to Gomes' argument. Yes, the president can have an aid check his email, and sure, the computer wouldn't sit well on the Resolute desk. But no, we shouldn't enroll the president in computer class, as Gomes wishes: "If I were the chief of staff at the White House, I would have some sort of computer, not in the Oval Office itself, since it wouldn't match the furniture, but one office away. I'd push the president to spend, say, 20 minutes a day on the machine -- whether he would complain about the limit or about the mandated time." Or at least, we shouldn't have to.

This compartmentalization of new technology is crux of Gomes' pitch, as it hopes to free the president from the "distractions" of the internet, but it betrays his skewed worldview. He views the internet and the information age as small areas of our life: at best, a useful business tool, at worst, a distracting indulgence. It is a necessary evil in his mind, something to be used sometimes, but controlled always.

This is the modern equivalent of seeing the trees but missing the forest.

The information age has already transformed the way we work and the way we interact. We're more connected - and sure, sometimes more distracted - than ever, but the Blackberry isn't the enemy. It's a tool, one of many; tools that are breaking down the top-to-bottom communications structure of the 20th century and piecing together increasingly wide and dense networks. In fact, some expect this structural change to strengthen and develop our democracy (read this compelling call for "Politics 2.0" by members of the Sunlight Foundation). In a recent Atlantic Monthly article, Marc Ambiner explained that, already, Britain and other European countries have incorporated internet into governance, expanding access and increasing participation: for nearly two years now, British citizens have been able to seek redress from their government with online petitions. The Atlantic piece rightly notes the shortcoming of the system, as many petition go unattended to and none have guaranteed affect. But, it's just a start, and there are always blunders at the beginning. Moving forward, it will take attention, understanding, and willingness to unlock the full potential of internet participation--and that potential could translate directly to political power, as Ambinder explains:

"But it’s worth noting that some of the best-known presidents in U.S. history have stood at the vanguard of past communications revolutions—and that a few have used those revolutions not only to mobilize voters and reach the White House but also to consolidate power and change the direction of politics once they got there."

Here we see the political cost to Gomes' (and arguably McCain's) skewed worldview: by compartmentalizing the internet, you squander its potential. The Luddites thrashed about London, wrecking the machines and factories of modernity, denying its promise of a better future. Similarly apprehensive, a Luddite-in-chief is in some ways more damaging: muting the enthused, clamoring for a new way to participate and strengthen our democracy.

It's not simply a matter of updating his facebook page, the next president will lead the country, and hopefully the world, during an exciting and sometimes tumultuous technological revolution. To lead, he should, at least, know what's happening--let alone look to what's ahead.