Book review: The Assault on Reason by Al Gore
I recently finished Al Gore’s latest book, The Assault on Reason, which takes a critical view of the current state of US democratic system and the systematic abuse against it by megacorporations, special interest groups and the system’s own executive branch. This book follows the same story of a good idea abused and turning against the people it was created to help as “The Corporation” and “Discontents of Globalization”.
While I felt that Gore was repeating his main points on almost every page, I think he is fighting a good fight. It did, however, get a bit boring to read on every page at least four of the following: ”The guys behind the constitution were geniuses”, “US was based on the finest principles of democracy”, “Media giants’ oligopoly on television and newspapers hurt democracy”, “Internet has potential to revitalise democracy”, “George W. Bush’s administration is destroying democracy”, “Corporations going unchecked cause havoc, not only to environment but to the society in general”.
The book is extremely US-centric, but in my opinion the issues are worldwide, not only because US position as “the last superpower” has effects globally, but also that the problems Gore points out are popping up in other western democracies.
What was missing from the book was solutions to the problems he describes. It was nice to see the last chapter in “The Corporation” by Joel Bakan dedicated to his solutions to better corporate governance and responsibility. Gore did however bring himself strongly into the book and clearly says what’s his take on the issues. He refers to studies, interviews, news articels and, naturally to his own experience, which brings a nice personal tone to the book. Some might argue that this book is just his manifesto for his upcoming presidential campaign, but in my opinion, the voice in the book sounds more like a guy who’s over that now.
It was also a bit appaling to read how Gore painted saints out of the founders of United States and how the founding documents are sacred and works of genius. Gore also seems to have trusted the new Democratic majority in US to cause bigger changes in the way the country would be run than the recent history shows. What was odd was that Gore didn’t criticise the two-party system itself at all. He did, however point out other pecularities of the US legislative and judical branch. While he compared the current state of all three branches to what the “founders had visioned”, he doesn’t compare the US system to other countries. I think this is a big mistake, as I have hard time believing that the US democratic system is without peers – especially when Gore reminds that pretty much all other democracies are based on the ideas first put into practice in US.
As this is IT oriented blog, I think I should talk a bit more about Gore’s points about Internet and its relationship with democratic ideals. Gore quickly talks about the issue of “net neutrality” and shows that he knows what his talking about by pointing out that the issue is practically the same as the pratice of “nondiscrimination” telcos were forced to accept before.
Gore also believes that internet, unlike television he says only exists to sell stuff, is more like printing press in its availability involve people in discussion and reasoning of ideas. I’m not at all that optimistic, as it seems that pretty much everything on the web is supported by advertising. I agree that internet has the pontential for two-way communication that television lacks, but in my opinion, the media giants are doing their best to turn internet to yet another enterntainment channel. In this regard, it would be vital to keep the internet as free as possible, a point Gore talks about a couple of times, but in my opinion should’ve gone in more detail. In this way, this book was more like Joseph Stiglitz’s “Discontents of Globalization” without its sequel – again, Gore could’ve talked more about the problems’ solutions.
While reading the book, I was somehow reminded of the intro of Dune 2 – just that “spice” was replaced with “information”. For European Union citizens, this book shows what things we should look out for and fix in EU before they become widespread problems. For everyone, this book shows that democracy doesn’t work if the people feel disconnected from the decision-making. For readers of this blog, I hope this book shows that everyone needs to do his/her bit to keep Internet free and open. We can’t afford the Internet turn into a new television.
Related posts:
Economics, Future, Globalization, Internet, Public policy, Technology, Telecommunications, USA, blogging
“For readers of this blog, I hope this book shows that everyone needs to do his/her bit to keep Internet free and open. We can’t afford the Internet turn into a new television.”
So no adverts on tech it easy then? :-p *runs for cover*
Oh, it’s not about advertisements. The point is that the “tubes” are not controlled by commercial interests. For example, we couldn’t run a tech it easy TV show as easily as we can run this blog.
I agree. Though why anyone would want to put a tv-show on the air these days is beyond me. There’s loads of options on the web, ranging from youtube to vodcasts.
About commercial interests. This is a very tricky question.. At least when you’re commercial, it’s out on the table. When someone’s not commercial, it’s hard to see if there’s a hidden agenda or not. Everybody needs to make money, and I prefer to see where it’s coming from.
There’s also such a thing as journalistic integrity. I know it’s not respected by all, but many quality publications do have such a structure. The reason is, I think, because they’ve been commercial for a while and have developed a set of guidelines to separate political/commercial interests from objective reporting.
Anyway, maybe I’m derailing the original intent of your post.
Nice example on tubes, nice article, nice questions come up:
“Gore also believes that internet, unlike television he says only exists to sell stuff, is more like printing press in its availability involve people in discussion and reasoning of ideas”
Does Al Gore dissociate these two (communication / commerce) on internet ?
I agree with you that on internet communication is falling into commerce in search of organizational patterns or sponsors (organized and mature commercial nodes magnetize individual, chaotic, communication)
Openness and freedom are cool, risky though to manage. For example:
My aunt Sofia is communicating (citizen) and Bill Gates is doing commerce (merchant)
Sofia and Bill can share the same or a different idea (or ideology).
One of their ideas is a relative success (more supporters).
If they share the same idea, Bill will get the credit because he has more influence.
If they share a different idea, the looser will pick the winner’s idea and we arrive to the situation that they share the same idea (i.e. creative capitalism)
On this situation, I am neither optimistic neither pessimistic, rather neutral like the networks.
“For European Union citizens, this book shows what things we should look out for and fix in EU before they become widespread problems.”
Vivian Reding (http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/index_en.htm ) is herself optimistic, naming internet a “tool of transparency”, a “democratic enabler”, a “free information flow channel” in Davos’ World Economic Forum. A problem for EU according to her might be the protection of Individual Rights (?for both the roles of a consumer-producer & citizen? maybe/not clear) on the internet.
“For everyone, this book shows that democracy doesn’t work if the people feel disconnected from the decision-making.”
Another idea from the same webcast (http://gaia.world-television.com/wef/worldeconomicforum_annualmeeting2007/default.aspx?sn=19781): democracy as expressed by digital rights is protected by influential behaviors and/or technology and/or policies.
I feel that decision-making seems more accessible on the behavioral axe while distance from people is bigger on the other two.
On behavior patters do you think that internet favours heroes or collective maturity? Is it a question of technology and policy maybe? Oops, into a loop…
Hi Georgia =)
I think Al Gore’s point was that it easy for a person to get his voice out using internet. For example, anyone can create a blog, but only the huge companies can afford to broadcast on television. This means that the opinions and messages on television might not be what people really think about. In less democratic countries, it is easy for the dictator to control television and radio, but it’s harder to silence opposition’s websites or leaflets.
Well, it seems like we’re going to that way that internet communication is more and more commercial. The huge media companies are more and more involved in the internet. Gore just wants to keep internet open for all opinions. If internet is controlled by huge media companies (like television is), this isn’t possible. Does this make individual’s chances to get his voice out more difficult? I don’t know, but I hope it doesn’t.
As for Sofia and Gates, Gore doesn’t discuss commerial ideas or copyrights or anything like that on his book. His focus is on keeping democracy alive in a globalized environment where (especially in US), commercial interests and small groups might have too much power. He doesn’t say that there shouldn’t be patents or copyrights, what he means by “free” and “open” is possibility for discussion and democracy, not commercial ideas.
Of course, in your example, the society as whole benefits in either case.
About EU, The problem is, what are these “Individual Rights”. For example, in Germany and France it is illegal to say that holocaust didn’t happen. Nazi symbols are illegal in Germany. In UK, the libel and slander laws are much more looser than elsewhere. In Finland, the police has censored access to suspected childporn sites (even though they might just be normal porn sites that someone has reported incorrectly as child porn). Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, it is hypocritical to talk about “a tool of transparency” and at the same time try to censor the internet on EU-level because of some country’s laws (that other countries think is stupid).
And finally about behvioral aspects of internet, hard to say. What I and Al Gore hope is that on the internet, ideas would be favoured not because who tells them (heroes or collective maturity or whoever), but because everyone agrees they are good ideas.
Variety is a great thing about EU