Watching the news, it's easy to conclude that "Yes We Can" has been replaced with, "Actually, On Second Thought... We Probably Can't." We can't plug the damn hole, we can't get rid of too-big-to-fail banks, we can't pass an adequate foreclosures bill, we can't pass an adequate jobs bill. The list goes on and on.
Nevertheless, there are reasons for optimism -- even when it comes to the way our government is being run. One of these reasons is Tim O'Reilly, the tech guru CEO of O'Reilly Media. Among other things, five years ago O'Reilly coined the term Web 2.0. And now he's at the forefront of a movement to apply the concept to the way our democracy is run: Government 2.0.
I talked with O'Reilly at last week's Personal Democracy Forum in New York, a don't-miss annual gathering focused on the intersection between government and technology.
We talked about the need to create a new relationship between We the People and those we elect to represent us -- and the crucial role technology can play in it. For O'Reilly, Government 2.0 isn't about every office in D.C. having its own website and posting reams of data. It's about, as he put it in a blog post-cum-manifesto, "a new compact between government and the public, in which government puts in place mechanisms for services that are delivered not by government, but by private citizens."
It's about government as a facilitator, laying the foundation for innovation in self-governance. It's "government as a platform." As O'Reilly notes:
If there's one thing we learn from the technology industry, it's that every big winner has been a platform company: someone whose success has enabled others, who've built on their work and multiplied its impact. Microsoft put "a PC on every desk and in every home," the Internet connected those PCs, Google enabled a generation of ad-supported startups, Apple turned the phone market upside down by letting developers loose to invent applications no phone company would ever have thought of. In each case, the platform provider raised the bar, and created opportunities for others to exploit.
We must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington, and giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision-making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago.
Using government as a platform is all about how the massive amount of information at the government's disposal is used, how widely it is shared, how low is the barrier for innovators to access it. As O'Reilly notes, the Internet itself was a government project. The government built the platform and innovators ran with it. Same with GPS -- a "killer app" that originated with the government.
According to O'Reilly, other examples of innovators building on government-provided information and services are popping up all over the country -- and the web. For instance, sites like EveryBlock and StumbleSafely take public crime statistics and remake them into public safety applications (kind of the opposite of a killer app).
Using government as a platform also means changing the way we think about legislating. "Government 2.0 requires a new approach to the design of programs," writes O'Reilly, "not as finished products, perfected in a congressional bill, executive order, or procurement specification, but as ongoing experiments."
Not surprisingly, many of those experiments are going on at the local level. One leader who has enthusiastically embraced the new model is Newark Mayor Cory Booker. "We are one part of a larger democracy that is learning how to master media to drive social change," says Booker, who was on the same panel with O'Reilly and me at the Personal Democracy Forum. "Social media is a forum where people can come together to connect, talk, mobilize, and create a larger sense of community."
Booker has over one million followers on his very active Twitter page. Using Twitter, along with Facebook and YouTube, he maintains an open pipeline of communications with his constituents. He also uses these platforms to motivate them to take part in night patrols of troubled neighborhoods -- patrols the mayor frequently joins. (Also, if you follow the Mayor on Twitter for a couple of weeks, I guarantee you'll have enough aphorisms and inspirational quotes for a season's worth of commencement addresses.)
And last year he formed an advisory working group called the Newark Tech Corps, made up of leading tech executives who advise him on the newest technologies and how he can best adapt them to serve Newark's residents.
The last 18 months have reminded us of the limits to what government can do. Going forward, it's clear that we are going to have to forge a new relationship with our government. "Citizens are connected like never before and have the skill sets and passion to solve problems affecting them locally as well as nationally," writes O'Reilly. "Citizens are empowered to spark the innovation that will result in an improved approach to governance."
We can't expect a government hobbled by centuries-old tools to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. That's why Government 2.0 needs to be taken out of beta and put into practice across the nation.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Joshua Stanton: YouTube Dialogue: Expanding the Scope of Inter-Religious Interchange
It is time for all inter-religious organizations to seize upon this opportunity for video-based dialogue and imbue it with meaningful content on an ongoing basis.
You're allowing this fake Gov 2.0 thing to do an end run around Congress, and the established interest groups -- all by pretending Tim O'Reilly isn't merely an interest group, too.
Web 2.0 isn't something magical and precious that unites people or empowers people. It's a Trojan horse for the Silicon Valley agenda -- whatever that is, and it can vary -- to override executive power in an elected government in the name of the system being "broken" (a beloved geek concept that always speaks to them as a class fixing it).
Personal Democracy Forum is merely a leftist cult that wants technology to bake the "progressive" agenda into the tools--an agenda of government intervention, collectivist ideologies for governance, and socialist theories lite in managing the complexities of U.S. programs. Do that if you must -- but make a political party and see if anyone joins, stop pretending you are "bipartisan" and "empowering people" when it's only your own perspective that gets empowered.
You claim government is a facilitator? No, Tim Oreilly and his theories are invading the public space and pretending to be a platform when they are code-as-law.
It isn't the public commons governed by the First Amendment. It's a wired left taking over with corporate TOS and theories of "trolling" to suppress dissent.
Arianna, don't do this. The backlash is going to be terrible for letting the hacking culture take over the democratic space in America. You'll get something worse than Bush.
2.) The Internet cannot be free unless taken out of the hands of private companies. We talk about it as if it's just there and people can access it without intermediaries, but it's operated by gatekeepers desiring more control over content to make profits. We've seen how ethical telecoms are, how readily they allowed the gov't to spy on citizens and hand over the spying to two Israeli companies without loyalty to our nation, and how our gov't has given the information gathered to private companies, one of which helped eliminate voters in Florida in the 2000 presidential race. The commercial nature of the Net compromises its democratic use.
3.) The system needs hubs to coordinate information, and these hubs will be hierarchical, privileging certain users and citizens over others. Take the HuffiPost, a hub of liberal chatter: selected bloggers get precedence while most users must express themselves in limited, moderated numbers of words shoved to the bottom of the page. Haves will dominate discussions and moderate them into acceptable borders, and have nots will follow or not participate.
I appreciate that Obama Admin is taking this promise seriously, but it will take years for people to benefit from Information Technology tools like "Web Services".
I really want much more than the ability to post an opinion. I want to get past the spin machinery and monitor what is actually happening on issues that I'm concerned about. I'd also love to be able to group easily with people who share the same political goals, and become more active in letting government know that we are watching them.
Our greatest hope to make government work, and to control corporations is to use technology to monitor their actions. If BP couldnt clandestinely coerce regulators, if regulators couldn't have private meetings or parties with BP, if legislators simply could not meet without the presence of non-governmental organizations, we'd start to see accountability.
Similarly, I think that if corporations want to grow to multinational market-controlling size, they should have to give up some privacy to do that. Make their books and operations more open, and let NGO's attend meetings, participate in regulation and monitor activities. Get corporations to fund NGOs monitoring activity as a way of proving their commitment to fair and open business practices.
Involving non-governmental organizations (NGO's) in both government and business is a kind of technology. Our social network technologies make this easier, and our current situation makes it necessary.
Corporations want badly to harness social networking to reach customers in saturated markets. I think that social networks should reach corporations, and corporations would be smart to lead here instead of follow.
Well, somewhere in our past, the government had decided to take on the approach that it should decide what's best for it's people and no amount of interaction with it's citizens will ever change it's mind.
Our very own government had turned it's back on it's own populace because somewhere along the line, we forgot to think for ourselves, we let the government take control of our lives.
Government isn't taking over our lives or controlling us in any way that we didn't vote for. Government is elected, after all. We can probably both agree that both our election system and government could be better, but that's a far cry from saying that government controls us or decides whats best for us.
Want a good example of how the people is being subdued ?
We have a government agency called the FDA and another called Homeland Security, right ?
Whats the point between them ? The FDA is charged with overseeing our Food supply and it's not doing it cause of budget cuts and the Homeland Security, well, lets just say it's a joke !
BTW, I don't vote and never will ! Before you come back and flame me for that, it's advisable to do a little research into my comments, thank you.
When you post on the official Whitehouse.gov pages, and when you tweet on their official Twitter page, or Facebook ... your actual message is being recorded in the official government archives. Somebody somewhere takes note, so keep hope!
When a persons job is to write rules and regulations , then thats is what they will do.
Use the government to provide for the well being and saftey of the individuals and the Constitution and everything will work out.
rather than resort to social Darwinism (what I suspect you are all about) there may be a way to satisfy you and those that are like minded. Let's allow you and yours to sign a binding document that allows you to opt out of the current system. No social safety net , or public support of any kind. You know, let you rugged individuals have the chance to show your mettle. By the way should you lose and are on your behind well, you made your bed. Get my drift? btw no insult intended.
"When a persons job is to write rules and regulations , then thats is what they will do.
Use the government to provide for the well being and saftey of the individuals..."
I've said it many times, when you seek advice from the military about a possible problem,you will get a military solution. Nothing creative, nothing new, nothing about peace--just a military solution.
And the purpose of a government is exactly what he said--to provide for the well being and safety of the individuals. That would be ALL individuals, not favor-granting to certain individuals or groups, a lesson we still haven't learned.