I love Lessig but speaking of mistakes, he should do a poll about his glasses.
Whether he switches to something more likable or not will be an indicator of how savvy he would be on the job.
Larry Lessig: I'm All In
11–20 of 167 posts
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#12> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others. Now the strongest contrast in substance is the priority that I give to democratic reform. This difference should then press an obvious question for every other candidate: How do you expect to achieve what you are promising without this reform? And if you believe this reform is necessary, then why isn’t it your first priority? But in all th…
"But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways that are so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so high." Same was said about a big-eared Senator from Chicago with a funny name, that gave a good political speech in 2004. Lessig is trying to find a mix between himself, the platform, and the process. You need to be naive if you ever hope to solve any seemingly intractable p…
Obama was a career politician with lots of support and credibility, a best-selling author, and a charismatic speaker, with an absolutely incredible campaign organization. He was running on an anti-war platform during a highly unpopular war.
Lessig doesn’t have any of those things.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#13> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others. Now the strongest contrast in substance is the priority that I give to democratic reform. This difference should then press an obvious question for every other candidate: How do you expect to achieve what you are promising without this reform? And if you believe this reform is necessary, then why isn’t it your first priority? But in all th…
"But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways that are so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so high." Same was said about a big-eared Senator from Chicago with a funny name, that gave a good political speech in 2004. Lessig is trying to find a mix between himself, the platform, and the process. You need to be naive if you ever hope to solve any seemingly intractable p…
"Same was said about a big-eared Senator from Chicago with a funny name, that gave a good political speech in 2004."
Totally different situation. People recognized Obama's potential as a politician, even if they didn't agree with him. They only doubted how far he would go in that period of time.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#14I feel sad because I'm probably Lessig's ideal target audience, but I don't like any of this. I don't like that he backed down so quickly from his first approach, because of the polls. Isn't that what corrupt politicians do? I don't like that he is so vague about what he's going to do to fix corruption - I get it that it's about taking money out of politics, but how do you get there, especially when Congress is seized up?
And I want to hear about other issues, too, if he's seriously running for president. What about local police corruption, violence, and abuse? What about drone assassinations? What about corporate welfare that socializes risk and privatizes rewards? What about poverty and basic income? What about simplifying the legal system so that justice isn't too expensive for most people? What about extra-legal punishment like no-fly lists? What about the goddamn NSA? What about the security theater at the airport we pay for and endure?
From the other candidates all we hear about is "the economy", mid-east terrorism and related problems, immigration, and now and again (against all odds) climate change. From Lessig you just hear about corruption. If you want to impress me as a real Presidential candidate, speak eloquently about the days when the US would never have even considered torturing someone for any reason; when 1984 was a cautionary tale about surveillance, not a manual on how to do it; when we needed to work together to defeat an enemy, we did it, or to achieve a great goal like the moon, we did it, and how we can do it again, but this time we're going to End Oil, worldwide. I want to hear about how we can use technology to make government at every level more accountable and more responsive, and I want to hear more about our aspirations. I want to hear that we will recover the first asteroid from the asteroid belt within 20 years. I want to hear that federal funding will be tied to the creation of independent police review panels in every major city. I want to hear that blanket surveillance will be made explicitly illegal.
But I don't hear hardly any of that, not even from Lessig. Which makes me sad.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…
Okay, but so what? Lessig has no chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination, so his campaign basically amounts to hijacking the primary to promote his message. Even if that message is “completely right”, so what? You think if Lessig gets a seat at the Democratic primary debates, he’ll be able to convince the Republicans in Congress to reverse course on campaign finance? Fat chance. The most likely way to impro…
Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conservative or liberal.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but so what? Lessig has no chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination, so his campaign basically amounts to hijacking the primary to promote his message. Even if that message is “completely right”, so what? You think if Lessig gets a seat at the Democratic primary debates, he’ll be able to convince the Republicans in Congress to reverse course on campaign finance? Fat chance. The most likely way to impro…
Having a single party in total control like that would be destructive to our country, no matter how you spin it. Both parties have legitimate points and interests that need to be represented in our system. I have never understood individuals that buy in 100% to a single party and just can't fathom the idea of the opposing party having any good ideas that need to be heard. Radicalism of any kind is dangerous - conserv…
Campaign finance reform is dead in the water as long as the Republicans control Congress (and as long as, per Citizens United, unlimited corporate spending on political advertising is considered protected speech).
So if we agree with Lessig that campaign finance reform is the most important national political priority, then electing a Democratic majority to the House is the necessary precondition. (I’m not saying you should agree with that, but it’s the premise of Lessig’s campaign.)
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#17> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…
The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…
Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done.
That's a bad example. For even a relatively early stage startup, raising money is the actual job description for a typical startup CEO. They probably spend more than 70% of their time on it.
It doesn't invalidate your point at all, however. Lawmakers are not startup CEO's. By providing every incentive to simply raise more money to ensure further employment, we've created just the worst possible system for functional government.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…
Okay, but so what? Lessig has no chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination, so his campaign basically amounts to hijacking the primary to promote his message. Even if that message is “completely right”, so what? You think if Lessig gets a seat at the Democratic primary debates, he’ll be able to convince the Republicans in Congress to reverse course on campaign finance? Fat chance. The most likely way to impro…
Isn't "fairer" roughly coterminous with "more likely to get people I like elected"?
I don't trust one major political party to draw unbiased boundaries any more than I trust the other.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#19I feel sad because I'm probably Lessig's ideal target audience, but I don't like any of this. I don't like that he backed down so quickly from his first approach, because of the polls. Isn't that what corrupt politicians do? I don't like that he is so vague about what he's going to do to fix corruption - I get it that it's about taking money out of politics, but how do you get there, especially when Congress is seize…
Backing down from an approach that can't work sounds good to me. I wish politicians would do it more often.
Regarding hearing about other issues, near the end of the article:
> But beyond that priority, I would do everything else a president must do, too. Which means I bear the burden in this campaign of convincing America I could do that well. Like every other candidate, I will outline my position on the policies that I would press, once reform is achieved. In every relevant way, my campaign will be like every other campaign—except mine will place democracy first.
I suspect his positions will at least start out closer to something like an academic consensus than any other candidate, but am prepared to be disappointed.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#20I largely agree with Lessig's point about our campaign finance laws being the root of all evil, and I think he's spoken rather intelligently about this in the past. But I'm frankly amazed at how earnestly he speaks about his "discovery" that "elect me, an outsider, to fix Congress" polls so well.
I mean, this is not a novel talking point. Does it really take an expert pollster to tell you that people like this message?