[ NNSquad ] Re: "Net Neutrality's New Enemy: The Mythical Mushy Middle" [and my response]

[Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>]

----- Forwarded message from Barry Gold <BarryDGold@ca.rr.com> -----

Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:23:08 -0700
From: Barry Gold <BarryDGold@ca.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] "Net Neutrality's New Enemy: The Mythical Mushy
	Middle" [and my response]
To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>

On 9/2/2010 11:56 AM, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> Well, I can't help but be somewhat honored by an entire section of the
> referenced essay being devoted to criticizing me (apparently) as a
> charter member of the New Enemy: The Mushy Middle.
>
> Ironically, my foundational views on Net Neutrality could be viewed as
> quite sympathetic to what I believe is Free Press' basic technical
> stance, and I'm quite obviously not a proponent of what's widely
> understood to be the dominant ISPs' traditional positions on these
> matters in general.
>
> Talk about a strange way to treat your friends on key issues ...
>
> It appears that what has Craig's petticoats all aflutter is
> simply my unwillingness to buy into a tactical approach that emulates
> among the worst aspects of traditional politics -- rhetorical and
> other techniques that have managed to drive parties on all sides of
> other important policy issues further apart rather than closer together.
>
> I completely reject such attempts to marginalize efforts to find
> reasonable compromise and common ground, efforts that could best serve
> the community of Internet users around the world.

I think your stance is an important one.  Compromise is possible on every 
issue, and painting the other side as non-human just makes it harder to 
reach those essential compromises.

No matter how far apart you may be, remember the other guy is a human  
being with his own opinions, interests, wants and needs.  Once you realize 
that, you can start looking for ways you can get along.  The chances are 
very good that you have something he wants more than you do, and he has 
something you want more than he does.  On that basis, you can make a deal: 
trade when its physical things, compromise when its ideals, principles, 
etc.

When I was thinking about how to answer this, I tried to think of any  
principle so absolute that compromise is just plain impossible.  My first 
thought was the abortion debate: those who see abortion as murder can't 
compromise on that.  Then I realized: while you can't compromise on the 
basic principle, there's always room for improvement in the details.  Can 
you trade something here for a limit there, and reduce the number of 
abortions?

If you insist that you will only vote for politicians who are  
uncompromisingly dedicated to ending abortion now, you will get  
unelectable nominees.  The majority of the population in the US is  
somewhere in the middle: not happy about abortion but not willing to ban  
it outright.

Or, to take something that's not very controversial today, consider  
slavery.  Say it's 1855 and you're an abolitionist.  You can say, "No, I  
won't accept any politician who takes any stance other than 'slavery must 
end now'.  And again, you'll get somebody who can't win an election.  So 
you look for somebody who has the dedication to ending slavery, but the 
_skill_ to negotiate for any improvement you can get. Could he get some 
loopholes in the Fugitive Slave Law?  Require that slaves be set free and 
allowed to move North after some number of years?
Whatever you can get, it will be an improvement over the current situation.

The same goes for NN.  My friendship circle includes a Public Interest  
lawyer -- one whose interests overlap those of NNSquad, and he recently  
wrote about his experience teaching newly-minted lawyers how to be  
effective.  They spend a year just learning how to apply the law, write  
briefs, etc.  But then comes the hard part: teaching them to raise an  
issue in a venue where you _know_ it has no chance.  Why?  Because it puts 
the idea in people's heads, where it can simmer for a while and seem a 
little more acceptable the next time you raise it.  And so on, and if you 
do it right you eventually get some substantial progress.

[I've written this to you personally: feel free to post it to the list if 
you think it sufficiently relevant.]

----- End forwarded message -----