A very different kind of Public Service Announcement.
Law Professor Lawrence Lessig is the author of three important “technology/culture” books, chair of the Creative Commons project, and teaches in constitutional law, contracts, and the laws of cyberspace.
He’s qualified to do so because he has a BA in economics and a BS in management from the University of Pennsylvania, an MA in philosophy from Cambridge, and a JD from Yale.
I’ve always been impressed not only with what he has to say, but also in the coherence of his thought. He has a habit of reaching into the complex aether of thought and pulling out the essence of a problem.
He made a video (consider it an audio podcast with bonus graphics) which I’ll embed below, but frankly, you’re much better off downloading the high-quality quicktime, as the youtube is a bit too compressed for comfort.
He makes a number of points that I’ve felt in my gut but been unable to articulate about the reasons I find Barack appealing and Clinton unappealing that have nothing to do with “likeability” or their remarkable similarity in policy statements.
He makes specific assertions about integrity and moral courage, and then he backs them up with specific instances. It’s the kind of thing I only wish actual candidates did, you know?
For those of you reading my journal who intend to vote democratic, or just those who’d like to see an interesting perspective on what separates these two people, I suggest you listen, and (of course) start a good conversation about it, either here or in your own journal.
Don’t be bored.
(as with all discussion, try to be civil)
EDIT: My dear religiously inclined friends, I would very much like to know your opinions and thoughts after listening to this speech. I will warn you that it is over thirty minutes long, and as such may be beyond most people’s tolerance for youtube-size video. However, I listened to the whole thing, and really want to know what you think of what he had to say about Religion and politics.
I think my favorite point of his is that we need to think beyond the simplistic question of whether or not to ‘bring the troops home’.
We do not want to become the next Israel/Palestine, with a war that spans generations, becoming so bitter that there can be no end. We need to find a strategy that does not create as many people willing to die in order to kill us as it destroys, or we’ll be stuck here, spending a quarter of our budget on national defense (which is, according to a statement I heard on public radio, more than every other country combined) instead of on education and health care in order to compete with India and alternative energy sources so we don’t compete with China’s ravenous need for oil.
When I hear how many billions of dollars we’ve spent on this war already, it makes my jaw go slack with awe. To think of the medical research, the energy research, the infrastructure benefits we could have created with that. I know I’m drifting a bit on this, but I don’t think “pulling the troops back” without a deeper understanding of how we can change “hearts and minds” is, frankly, productive.
I heart Obama. *nodnod*
Thank you for pointing this out, it was extremely inspiring and satisfying to watch.
also, why is youtube’s framerate on this video so pathetic?
I’m not entirely sure, but I do know that some compression standards convert to youtube better than others. At least the audio works.
Ohhh, wait. I bet I know why. It’s a long video, and in order for youtube to include it all in one segment, it probably had to be highly compressed.
actually I’m pretty sure it has to do with the slide nature of the video. With long periods of areas that aren’t updated, the key frames won’t necessarily catch the changes, or don’t catch sufficient changes. With full screen motion, there’s a lot of action going on for the codec to catch and display. Slide videos typically need to be encoded with different parameters so the compression algorithms don’t lose large areas of static content.
A very good point.
that should actually read “so the compression algorithms aren’t fooled by large areas of static content” :P
obviously it’s not missing large areas of static content – au contraire, it’s overly static, heh
First of all, given Lessig’s track record, this endorsement may in fact be the kiss of death to the Obama campaign.
Frankly, I find Lessig’s comments to be hopelessly naive. It’s a fine thing that he favors Barack Obama, but the prospect of an Obama Presidency, or even pulling our troops out of Iraq doesn’t increase the likelihood that the extremist fringe in the Islamic world is suddenly going to have a moment of clarity, get all misty-eyed and lay down their weapons. On the contrary, I suspect they will merely view it as America showing that we are in fact weak and will continue their actions in the world.
For a historical analogy, the Iron Curtain wasn’t fazed when John F. Kennedy gave his historic “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in Berlin. Rather, it fell when Ronald Reagan engaged the people behind the Iron Curtain with his foreign policy. The combination of actions which Reagan took: modernizing our conventional forces, and working to remove nuclear weapons from Europe, while simultaneously calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and challenging Gorbachev to “tear down [the Berlin] Wall,” were all concrete actions which led to the unprecedented peace of the 1990s.
Likewise, in this instance of foreign policy, we must show that we are simultaneously capable of defending ourselves and seeking a just peace (though I’m honestly not sure what that means when dealing with amorphous private organizations like Al Qaida). We must engage the common people of all of Southern Asia with our foreign policy. In addition, for once, we must have a coherent global foreign policy, which is in harmony with our stated aims and objectives in the world.
In all of this, I do not think that Barack Obama is the most capable candidate. He definitely shows skill as a public speaker, which rivals many of our best Presidents. However, I question whether he has the foreign policy experience and perspective to pull off the deft political and foreign policy maneuvers which will be necessary in the Middle East.
“In addition, for once, we must have a coherent global foreign policy, which is in harmony with our stated aims and objectives in the world.” — I would love to hear a definition of that from anyone, anyone at all, republican, independent, democratic.
As for Lessig being naive, he may be naive regarding Iraq, possibly, but I do not think it is naive to say that voting without criticizing what I’d call immoral persuasion tactics encourages those tactics, and that I’d rather vote for someone I was certain had integrity, intelligence, and capability than someone whose policies I entirely agreed with, but did not have those things.
I certainly agree that by voting in -anyone- and thinking it will suddenly cause a shift in tactics by the organizations we’re fighting in iraq is misunderstanding the importance other people put on our elections. I do, though, think that not only do we not currently have a strategy for what to do except “keep fighting until it’s ‘over’ “, but that Clinton is just as unlikely to find a direction that will lead to a resolution as Bush has.
Also, and no offense, I do think it is incredibly naive to think that some incredible firm hawk (or dove) statesman is going to state that Al Qaida is evil and should lay down arms, and that it will happen. Until we find a way to keep them from producing more soldiers than we destroy, this problem will not go away.
Iraq is just one nation in a region which we have deep foreign policy interests. Lessig brought up Iran at points in his essay, and I was responding on the basis of those arguments. Please bear that in mind when reading my comments.
My conclusion that Lessig is naive is based not only on this essay, but also on the fact that he lost the biggest copyright case to appear before the Supreme Court in our lifetimes. By his own admission, he did so by lecturing the justices at length (trying to educate them, which is somewhat presumptuous) rather than constructing cogent and succinct arguments which might sway them. IMHO, while Lessig is a phenomenal legal mind, he suffers from having spent too much time in academia. He needs to actually practice law again in order to get his touch back.
Also, please take my Cold War analogy as just that. I was certainly not saying that the same foreign policy and strategy which worked in a largely symmetric, conventional strategic situation would also work in the current assymetric, unconventional warfare which the US faces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.
As a start on our foreign policy I propose the following.
1. Since we are a democratic republic, we will ally ourselves with nations who are also democratic in their governments. We will withdraw our support from nations with totalitarian or autocratic tendencies (though constitutional or parliamentary monarchies will still be considered OK, since the people’s voices are heard in such nations.) This means, among other things that we will shift our support to India from Pakistan (a military dictatorship brought to power in a coup d’tat and now kept in power by an assassination) and China (human rights, or lack thereof, ’nuff said.)
2. We will return our nuclear foreign policy to a pre-George W. Bush Administration configuration. That is, we will only target our nuclear arsenal at nations which also possess nuclear weapons of their own. This provides an incentive for nations like Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear arsenals and return to members in good standing with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
3. Any nation which harbors terrorists like Al Qaida or other unconventional, non-traditional combatants who strike at the US and US assets abroad (e.g. our embassies, military bases, naval vessels, or citizens) can expect their sovereignty violated by our unconventional warfare forces and air power assets until such time as the terrorists are brought to justice or turned over to US custody. Note that there is a diplomatic/legal solution available here for former state sponsors of terrorism to come in from the blistering heat.
As for Al Qaida, etc. the drop-off in their numbers will happen organically as a consequence of their increased political isolation. Historically, as this has happened to other terrorist organizations (e.g. the IRA and the Baader-Meinhof Gruppe/Red Army Faction) they become progressively more radical and intolerant politically, while simultaneously becoming more violent in their methods. Eventually, they critically alienate the very people they are seeking support from and then start attacking their former supporters. There was a fleeting chance for this to have happened when Al Qaida attacked the Jordanian wedding party in 2005 or 2006, but our foreign policy did not capitalize on this shift.
Wow, a very impressive response. I was not aware that Lessig lost that case just by reading his Bio – funny, that.
As for your foreign policy suggestions, though I might quibble with the implementations of those 3 items, I don’t disagree with them. Very nice job.
I do believe that Al Qaida has already found more shocking and violent ways of attacking others than the IRA ever dreamed of, from public beheadings to massive civilian casualties. If their numbers continue to grow at this barbaric state, I’m not sure where they can devolve to that will cause their society to reject them outright, so long as that society feels like -we- are at war with -them- instead of just the terrorist organizations.
You are looking at Al Qaida from a typically Western perspective. However, from the Arab perspective, public beheadings are simply their culture’s centuries old method of execution for criminals and infidels sentenced to death.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information that al Qaida is expanding its numbers, because everything I’ve been reading says that they are on the run and operating at a vastly dimished capacity. I recommend subscribing to Michael Yon’s RSS feed. He’s an independent journalist currently embedded with the 4th Infantry Division in Iraq. According to him, just the exact reversal of fortune I referenced is now happening to Al Qaida in Iraq.
Lessig takes on responsibility for Eldred because he is a humble man, and (I assume) because he does not want to admit at the case was unwinnable on the facts. It had nothing to do with naivety, though often optimism is conflated with naivety by the timid.
Of course all of that has nothing to do with his picking a president. However if you want to support your empirical argument, he was a pretty big proponent of Edwards, at least last cycle.
(reposted from my reply in one my entries you asked me to watch and respond :)
I’m not sure what you think or expect my response to be, but I was quite imressed. “Fair minded” for sure. I may not fully agree with some of the things he said, when it came to practical applications of his faith, but the vast majority of his words I certainly found wise and fair and accurate and intelligent.
His points about democratic pluralism vs the christian religion is quite true – by nature, a democracy tends to conflict with a single forward religion. Democracy must be pluralistic if it is to maintain some semblance of peace, else it’s not a democracy. By that admission, I completely agree with how he separates church from state. I’m glad he made the point that keeping church and state separate was initially to protect religion, not the state, though the two go hand in hand.
I disagreed with some of his comments regarding scripture, and what seems to be a fairly loose view of how it’s interpreted – though he seems to very much stand by Christ’s teachings, rather than the old testament (as applied to today). He’s not a theologian, nor an apologeticist; he’s not infallible in his understanding. That said, his words are not ignorant of that fact – he’s clearly stating his beliefs and understandings, and how his decisions are based in those.
“counselling flocks” vs making policy – see above – a very a good distinction, given the ideal goals and expectations of a democratic society.
The country is a moral, religious country. It must attempt to agree on common beliefs and convictions, and continue from that point, rather than forcing convictions of sections of society on the rest.
However, given the nature of a democratic society, it most definitely is within the rights and abilities of those who do feel certain things are immoral, to lobby and defend those views insomuch as they wish to have laws formed by them.
In cases such as abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc – I have always stated that I believed majority rules, therefore given democracy, if the majority support banning abortion, a position I would uphold, then it is wrong to cry fowl if you are in the minority (as it would be vice versa). Gay “marriage” is religious matter – don’t call it “marriage”, otherwise you’re forcing legal matters on a religious institution – the issue is the legal rights and recognitions of homosexual couples. In which case, again, majority rule – support or deny equal marital rights to gay couples. Whoever is in minority has no right to cry fowl. They do have the right to lobby and petition in response, to go through proper channels to change law in their favour.
The base of it is – democracy is majority rule. Keep religion separate from state, but allow equal rights for the religious, as for the non. All have the right to vote on their personal morality, which may very well be religiously influenced. This is a necessity in society, as Obama implied.
In the end? two thumbs up.
Also, I did not know Obama considers himself a born-again Christian. He is also a very good public speaker.
Your idea of our government is a bit off, hey. We’re not a pure democracy — we’re a constitutional republic, and the reason for that difference is precisely to avoid a situation where you have simple “majority rule”. As Ben Franklin spoke about extensively, the majority comes with fears, prejudices, and a tendency to treat others horribly if it’s afraid of them. Our Constitution, court system, representative democracy, all of it is there to protect the rights of every individual, regardless of whether the majority is on their side. The whole idea is that ALL of us deserve to have certain rights, even if we’re unpopular, threatening, misunderstood, or what have you. The idea is that All Humans Are Created Equal and deserve the basic rights: It’s taken us decades to realize that ‘all humans’ equals blacks and immigrants and criminals and women, and we’re still hardly good at ensuring basic rights for all of those groups. But I predict that by the time our kids are in charge, those with non-standard sexual preferences will be in that list of people we’re slowly realizing are human, and deserve those rights too. And that’ll be because we have a system that supports the (granted, slow) realization that diversity is our strength, and if everyone was the model of what pleases the majority, we’d be a much, much worse country.
Heh, he’s preaching to the choir with me.
There are a lot of dems that like to say that Republicans have an irrational hatred of the Clintons and, in particular, Hillary. To a degree, that may be true. However, I like to think that this primary season has opened a few dems eyes to what the more rational Republicans (and conservative leaning indendents such as myself) have seen in the Clintons. Lessig touches on some of that in this video.
Now, you asked in particular what the religious on your friendslist think about Obama. Well, I was impressed by Obama but the moment that I saw his Call to Renewal keynote he had my full support (which I now realize is the one you linked to, I linked to it in my own lj a few weeks ago). It doesn’t hurt, of course, that Obama belongs to the same denomination (United Church of Christ) that I grew up in. And while his church is very different from mine, it is guided by many of the same core ideals. So, in that regard, I can see my own flavor of Christianity reflected back and that does add a certain amount of comfort. What really gets me is not that he shares religious beliefs with me, but that he shares a similar philosophy on the role of faith in our society. For me, I’m actually far more interested in what the non-religious think about that speech. So many of the non-religious argue that there is absolutely no room for faith in our government. They draw a line in the sand just as some of the evangelicals do. However, drawing these lines and declaring absolutes will get us nowhere. That is what I like about Obama – the fact that he can see the gray and use that to find common threads to come up with solutions. If you look at his history in the senate, most of his work has reflected that.
I really hope that he does well tomorrow. I think he is, hands down, the best choice for the democrats and, more so, for America.
though we share different “flavours” of Christianty, I do believe I agree with you here :)
though I haven’t studied the details of Obama and Clinton’s campaigns or policies, nor am I United-Statesian, it’s definitely an intriguing campaigning period for the new presidency, and I’m watching with anticipatory eyes :)
That is what I like about Obama – the fact that he can see the gray and use that to find common threads to come up with solutions. If you look at his history in the senate, most of his work has reflected that.
And that is exactly, PRECISELY why I voted for him today. We need someone who can do THAT, because that is the only thing that can move us forward. We have been so divided… We need someone who can help heal that. And you can’t do that unless people think you are genuine!
I <3 Lawrence Lessig! His blog is awesome, if you don't read it (I get it on my friend's page). He restored my faith in lawyers -- I love almost everything this man has to say. Smart, smart, smart guy.
I think I’m more likely to vote for him now.