Lawrence Lessig’s Corruption
I may be a foreigner, with limited knowledge of the details of American politics, but I recognize propaganda when I see it.
Lawrence Lessig has been one of my reads since I joined the blogosphere because of his work in the copyright arena, and I consider his contributions to freedom in online publishing valuable. I approached his introduction of a new and different area of study and specialty with interest.
The hour I spent yesterday listening to the Corruption Lecture - Alpha Version was an emotionally turbulent one. I listened only once, and do not have a transcript; the following references to the content represent my personal impressions.
The presentation opens with, and is wrapped in, an (unpaid, I assume) advertisement for Al Gore’s book. This is followed by a paean to the cause of global warming which does not state openly, but leaves the listener/viewer to draw, the conclusion that refutation of global warming is a symptom of corruption. Throughout, images of prominent Democrats glow like angels while those of Republicans are offered in a demonic light. Visages of America’s founding fathers which are shown are as stern, forbidding, and authoritarian looking as any I’ve ever seen. No criticism is cast on these venerable personages directly; there is only one non-laudatory but essential statement (which hooks to the conclusion) proposing that those gentlemen would never have envisioned the world we live in today, with its specific challenges. The conclusion is that “re-making our constitution” is the work which Professor Lessig (and whoever else is included in his plural ‘we’) considers important and will be undertaking over the next 10 years.
All of this political dogma is wrapped around an introduction to the topic of corruption. This topic is initially presented from a view of personal and societal responsibility, in a very powerful way, a way which should lead naturally to a focus on morality. Instead, the flow is jarringly interrupted by the substitution of the word money for morality. We are treated to images of the long suffering proletariat, in the form of elementary school teachers and firemen, alternating with oppressor images, which include the sugar and pharmaceutical industries as well as Cliff Richards and Disney aka Mickey Mouse. There is a pointed statement to the effect that this study of corruption will be only about money. After this statement the focus shifts to defining political corruption in terms of indirect influence. Eventually it skips across a small menu of specific issues, such as the limited influence of politics on the Supreme Court, and campaign finance reform.
At the end, I am left with a feeling of betrayal and my abiding concern about schools and education.
I am hardly surprised by Lawrence Lessig’s political beliefs, nor is this the first shameless propaganda I’ve heard from any faction of the political spectrum. If I was interested in reading political views, however, I would be at RedState or DailyKos.
Were I an American, I’d have a difficult personal challenge in voting. Both political parties have held power through my lifetime, and both have increased government spending, as well as inappropriate involvement in the private affairs of individuals. I believe that a non-partisan study of corruption and political influence could have value, and also that both of these factors are directly tied to morality and personal responsibility, and therein to freedom.
The issue that disturbs me deeply is that this piece is presented as an embarkation point for scholastic study by a prominent academic. It isn’t a new issue either, and is intrinsically related to censorship, the banning of books, and the re-writing of history. My support of free speech, freedom of public information, and open access is fervent and based on classically conservative views, which include social responsibility and respect for the public trust. We are accustomed to the concept of betrayal by politicians, yet often oblivious to the same concept in regard to teachers.
What we don’t know can hurt us.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
What most foreign observers are likely to miss is that for the past hundred years, the body politic in the States has responded most effectively to fearmongering - starting in 1900 with respect to McKinley’s support for overt imperialism, and present in every election since. Notable examples from presidential elections:
Wilson “kept us out of war” in 1916
Blame games at the Republicans’ expense in 1932
The “Do Nothing” and anti-union 80th Congress in 1948
“Daisies” in 1964
The “War on Drugs” in 1972
The “Revolving Door” of 1988
Anything that can be presented in a political context will often be presented in the light most unflattering to the nominal speaker’s political adversaries, and it’s become so commonplace that people don’t know what to do when asked to evaluate parties or candidates strictly on issues and policy positions. Dukakis’ attempt to do exactly that in ‘88 resulted in a major trouncing.
…Nor do I see any change likely. Democracy, as they say, gives us the government we deserve.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Without getting into the substance of Ben’s comment, it obviously has nothing to do with the subject of the post. That subject being the politicization of teaching and academics in the U.S.
Most non-Americans would find it difficult to grasp that virtually everything in the U.S. is political. College campuses have been hotbeds of political activity almost from their inception. The mandates that accompany federal dollars given to the public schools have politicized those schools as well.
The socialist ideology, dominant on the higher education levels, has, over the past 2 decades, come out of the closet and into the light of day with the ubiquitousness and virulence of influenza.
Non-Americans are not, by definition, wrapped up in American politics. They do not have American conservative voices on their radios, daily pointing out the foibles, plots, and schemes of liberals to turn the U.S. into a socialist utopia.
Nor do they need any. It ain’t their country.
Also, one point of correction. The U.S. government is not a Democracy. The U.S. government is a Constitutional Republic.
If the U.S. government was a Democracy, Al Gore would be the president. Among other bad consequences.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Hi Ben, how are you? Hello goldenpres.
I am not, as you note, goldenpres, discussing American party politics in my post. The topic is the inappropriateness of political indoctrination in schools. I do have more personal experience than most North Americans of what such a practice can do to the minds and lives of people (and of children). Aside from the Soviet knowledge, I also know a good number of Canadians who obtained their secondary education, accompanied by a full set of left wing political beliefs, in Amercian universities. When I lived and worked in the US I met far more conservatives, as a percentage, than I have here, while our population of liberal American expats, in a tradition established by draft dodgers during the Vietnam war, continues to grow.
Both of your parties profess to care greatly about freedom in a global context. The Republican administration is conducting a war which is justified, in part, by concern for the freedom of non-terrorist residents of the Middle East. The Democratic party members are faster to any photo op related to world hunger and peace than politicians anywhere, including here in Canada or in Europe. Whether these declarations of caring about freedom outside of the US are genuine or not matters less than whether the concerns for and belief in freedom within the US are real.
I could spend 100 hours a day reading Democratic criticism of Republicans and vice versa, and I could spend the same amount of time looking for non-partisan discussion of issues and find little or none. Based on my own knowledge and experience, I lay this first at the feet of academia, before money and before media. We live with the same issues in Canada, and tolerate even less public conversation about them. By the same token, I can’t imagine a Canadian academic publishing such propaganda in the name of scholarship.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Thanks for asking… I’m getting by, I guess you could say. I’ve been feeling remarkably well given my expectations and circumstances, but life is as always filled with rocks, shoals, and eddies.
The point to my initial comment - which I believe was missed, probably because I framed it poorly - is pretty much in line with what’s already been said, that there is too much political context to… pretty damn much everything here.
If I’m going to re-frame, though, I need to be in a better headspace than this.
October 16th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
(((ben))) …just a little extra ‘padding’ between you and those rocks.
Thanks for the elucidation. I can read the list in your comment as a way of saying that it has always been thus. I also confess to thinking you were making a political statement. Since I’m one of the least politically aligned people I know, despite having always voted as well as worked on political campaigns from time to time over the years, I’ll contribute my ‘mea culpa’ as further evidence of the problem. Not being able to ‘climb out of’ a problem makes it that much more difficult to even discuss, let alone solve.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
This is just a test. Please delete it