Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Two technology balancing acts

information technology
d3sign/Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

The internet and social media have provided organizations and people with a great many windows on the world compared to the three major television stations of the 1950s.

There have been positive and negative implications of this information technology development. On the positive side, everyone is a publisher and an advocate. You do not have to be NBC to reach 3 million or even 30 million people with a story. You might be a celebrity or an environmental advocate who reaches 50 million or even 500 million people with a tweet. Citizens have more power as a result of having a laptop or smartphone at their fingertips.

Moreover, everyone can access news, stories and blogs that are of interest to them. The information technology smorgasbord, like humility according (to T.S. Eliot), is endless. Information technology has also led to the development of countless new forms of medical technology, defense technology and consumer goods.

On the negative side, the internet and social media frequently spread lies and false statements. They enable authors to fabricate claims and stories with digital tricks. Hacking and other forms of cybercrime are everywhere. Moreover, experts have observed that citizens can easily channel information that only represents one point of view. This leads to political polarization and can foment prejudice and hostility along racial, gender, sexual identity and religious lines.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The internet and social media have been blamed for helping to create a red coat/blue coat war in which there are very few centrists in our government. And while there are more centrists amongst citizens themselves, they lack representation in Washington.


We continue to live with this chaos – boundless freedom, endless capacity to learn, clear tendencies for rigidity, intolerance, polarization and even violence.

Is there a way out? No, there is no way out.

Information technology, like industrialization, is at once a blessing and a curse. The industrial revolution changed the world. It accelerated the development of capitalism and gave birth to new forms of transportation, communication, food production, medicine and consumer goods. It also led to poverty, exploitation, alienation, pollution and class war.

We have not resolved the inherent tension within 19th century industrialization, and thus we should not expect to resolve the inherent tension within late 20th century information technology either.

But what can we do?

Perhaps the main thing we can do is recognize that information technology, like industrial technology, is inherently conflicted. Indeed, there have been two IT revolutions, not one: first industrial and then information technology. Nuclear technology has the same tension. IT1 and IT2 are neither inherently good nor inherently harmful.

This recognition must be made more explicit in our politics. We need a Congress and a president, and state governments, that accept the tension and work weekly to balance it, recognizing that it is impossible to overcome it. Several things that could be done include: establish a congressional oversight committee and a presidential commission to devise metrics to measure and track the two IT tensions. The media can also create scorecards.

Various newspapers and media oversight websites have "fact check" services. There could be a monthly scorecard on the "technology balancing acts." What is to be avoided at all costs is dismissing or oversimplifying the two IT tensions.

Wisdom involves accepting the tension but working constantly to balance the values of efficiency, economic growth, freedom, equality, safety and stability that are at stake in our country and civilization itself.

Read More

Young adults shopping for clothes

Members of Gen Z consume at an unsustainable rate: clothes, makeup, technology and every other imaginable product.

RyanJLane/Getty Images

Mass consumerism and the hypocrisy of Gen Z

Pruthi is a professor of entrepreneurship at San Jose State University, where she is a co-founder and director ofHonorsX, and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project. Kharbanda is a senior at Presentation High School in San Jose, Calif.

California lawmakers recently approved two bills banning grocery and convenience stores statewide from offering customers reusable plastic bags. These bills are the next step in combating plastic waste, but what about the waste from mass consumerism that has come to pervade our lives?

Through the past decades, we have been trained to shop, purchase and consume products to solve our problems. While mending old clothing or refurbishing used goods have become things of the past, new products that are ubiquitously promoted are cramming our stores, screens, mailboxes and nearly every aspect of our lives.

Growing up in the digital age, Gen Z is the prime target for this consumerist culture. Their lives are catered toward finding flaws with what they currently own and buying the next best thing. In the process, our world lays waste, proving the disastrous effects of those spending habits.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.

Keep ReadingShow less
hand reaching out over an American flag
Nikolay Ponomarenko/Getty Images

Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.

Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.

As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.

The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”

Keep ReadingShow less
American flag and business imagery
Sean Gladwell/Getty Images

How your company can follow the model for political spending

Freed is president and co-founder, Hanna is research director, and Sandstrom is strategic advisor at the Center for Political Accountability.

With corporate political disclosure and accountability accepted as the norm, the next step for responsible companies is to put in place a framework for approaching, governing and assessing their election-related spending. The framework would establish policies for when or whether to spend and a process for evaluating the benefits and risks associated with a decision to use corporate resources to advance a political cause or candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less
Superhero businessman revealing American flag
BrianAJackson/Getty Images

Are U.S. companies living up to their commitments to democracy?

Fordham is a PhD student in political science at the University of Washington. Brumbach is an associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

“[A]s a company, we have a responsibility to engage. For this reason, we are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote.”

These were the words of AT&T CEO John Stankey, responding to a Georgia law that limited absentee voting. A similar bill proposed in Texas prompted Dell CEO Michael Dell to issue the following statement: “Free, fair, equitable access to voting is the foundation of American democracy. Those rights — especially for women, communities of color — have been hard-earned. Governments should ensure citizens have their voices heard. HB6 does the opposite, and we are opposed to it.”

The pattern is clear: U.S. business leaders are increasingly vocal in support of democratic institutions.

Keep ReadingShow less