Coop's Corner: Tech-exec follies
I don't know if you've been sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for the answers -- anybody in a rush should turn to the end of the column now -- but outside Silicon Valley and certain parts of Texas, New York, and the Pacific Northwest, high technology hasn't exactly been a burning issue for the American body politic.
And there's a good reason: most eligible voters aren't going to vote anyway. But if you're not a participant in this passive revolt of the couch potatoes, which candidate will best ensure the future health and wealth of our cyber times?
To be sure, the next president will obviously have a determining influence on America's policy toward Cuba and the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.
But the Internet? Uh-uh.
Folks, it wouldn't make a difference if Alfred E. Newman stole the election as a write-in candidate.
I tried arguing that point with myself, studying the candidates' written and public pronouncements for hints about their prospective policies. This was sadomasochism carried to the nth degree.
The tedious position papers offered up by each side provide the standard mush that goes along with a political campaign. The overriding objective is to avoid offending anybody, and they live down to that safe standard.
Same goes for the so-called tech heavyweights trotted out by the Gore and Bush campaigns. Do you really think Gore is going to lead a tech renaissance because he's got the support of tech bigwigs such as Vint Cerf of MCI and Marc Andreessen of Loudcloud? Same goes for Dubya, who has folks like Bob Herbold of Microsoft and Michael Dell on his team. (I'm leaving Nader out because the only tech support of note he's received comes from vegan stalwarts.)
I say that not because political support is without any value at all. Fat cats do pay for a lot of press luncheons -- a fact for which I am eminently grateful -- but dot-bombs and market meltdowns notwithstanding, the Internet is long past its booster phase.
Here's why it doesn't matter.
The Internet got up and going primarily because of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the central research-and-development organization for the Department of Defense. Had a previous administration pulled the funding plug anytime along the way while people like J.C.R. Licklider and Leonard Kleinrock of MIT, or Frank Heart at Bolt Beranek and Newman were carrying out their research, the future that we now take for granted would have been very much in doubt.
Fast forward three decades: Commercial and entrepreneurial forces have fostered a huge and still burgeoning e-commerce and communications infrastructure. There's always a chance that some politician will do something monumentally dumb, but at this stage of the game, government's role in this 'new economy' has become that of sideline cheerleader.
For better or for worse, the Internet is going to continue to grow apace, no matter who winds up renting the Oval Office for the next four years.
Answers to leadoff questions:
Is Dubya too dumb to preside over the "New Economy"? Of course he is, but that's why God created Alan Greenspan.
If Al Gore gets the nod on Tuesday, will the Internet drown under waves of anti-business populism? Only Microsoft and perhaps AOL will feel the pinch. The best comeback to any would-be trustbusters: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but if you force us into Chapter 11, there'll be hell to pay at the polls.
What about Ralph Nader? Good question: What about Ralph Nader? Give the guy a Corvair to tinker with and he'll go away happy.