Liberalism, Progressivism and the Internet

The Constitution of the United States is for many the proud by-product of Enlightenment liberalism. One of its chief concerns is preventing the unjust consequences likely to result from the concentration and abuse of state power. Accordingly, it enumerates rights, or liberties, of the individual citizen against which the state, generally, may not unduly abridge or infringe.

The Constitution is also the centerpiece of American “anti-progressivism.” I define progressivism in the American context as the political philosophy concerned with ensuring that the dictates of the Declaration of Independence are realized, irrespective of legal-formalistic barriers. To the casual reader then, it might seem that the attribute ascribed to the Constitution in the first paragraph conduces to the realization of the political philosophy described in this one. Yet, I will argue that there exists a real tension between the two, that the Constitution, at least as conventionally understood and interpreted by the Supreme Court, is often the fundamental legal impediment to removing the constraints on individual autonomy and true freedom that economic, political and social progressives seek. That is, the Constitution is the authoritative expression of the underlying problematic philosophical tenet of liberalism. Moreover, I hope my juxtaposition of liberalism and progressivism will show why it is crucial that progressives recognize the power of the Internet and related technologies in advancing progressive social movements, which arguably have proved more instrumental in revolutionary economic, political and social change in our nation’s history than the subsequent legal reforms that ostensibly embody such changes.

The fundamental difference between liberalism and progressivism is not the subject matter of the respective ideologies - individual liberty - but rather the perceived threats to the shared subject of concern. Because liberalism focuses on state oppression, its emphasis is on ensuring that negative liberties are protected. Progressivism, alternatively, is focused on any legitimate threats to the opportunities of individual flourishing, whether state or private power concentrations, whether expressed privately, or through the engine of the state. The most prominent example of a contemporary threat discerned through progressivism’s lens (but not through liberalism’s), a threat of a state-implicated private power concentration, is the recent phenomenon of media conglomeration and the power such entities wield in the halls of Congress and at the FCC. Because liberalism does not perceive of the prohibition of private power abuses, the Constitution (and the Supreme Court post-Brennan and Marshall) does not, generally, comprehend or prohibit private power abuses. Indeed, one could persuasively argue that in many cases it buttresses and advances private power abuses (e.g., Telecommunications Act of 1996, Brand X). Details of a recent experience, while anecdotal, will show why I believe understanding this distinction between liberalism and progressivism is not just of academic concern, but matters for progressive lawyers, politicians and technologists.

I was one of several students who traveled down to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region over winter break as part of the Student Hurricane Network – a coalition of law students around the country mobilized and organized almost exclusively through websites and blogs. Our goal was to support the recovery of the region, primarily through working with non-profit legal and political organizations. Once we arrived in New Orleans, several of us took a tour of the city and got to witness firsthand the devastation from the storm and its aftermath.[1] Yet the physical eye-openings paled in comparison to the political eye-openings. Two separate incidents involving that ever-present intersection of law, politics and technology are informative.

Several New Orleans residents, displaced by the storm, lobbied the city to offer municipally-funded wireless access, both as a means to expedite recovery through citizen communication with city agencies and to spur economic redevelopment. Yet, in early December, it was reported in the Washington Post that “[h]ours after New Orleans officials announced ... that they would deploy a city-owned, wireless Internet network in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, regional phone giant BellSouth Corp. withdrew an offer to donate one of its damaged buildings that would have housed new police headquarters.”[2] Of course, BellSouth’s response is consistent with what we’ve seen in Philadelphia, San Francisco and elsewhere – concentrations of private power using the state to advance their interests at the expense of the masses. They argue, consistent with liberalism and the Court’s jurisprudence, that municipalities funding wireless networks is tantamount to taxpayer-funded competition [and of course we can’t ever put the interests of the laity above those of the wealthy!]. And of course, in the spirit of liberalism, some states have enacted laws prohibiting city-funded wireless networks. Progressivism works differently, however. It is not limited to the boundaries imposed by those in power; it seeks to expose and usurp them a spirit similar to Alexander Meiklejohn’s theory of the “fourth branch of government” – the sovereign people. Progressive-minded individuals and groups must recognize their opportunity to do more, to not succumb to the powerful and influential - even if it means establishing “pringles-antenna” based networks around the city![3]

The second incident in New Orleans that bears on the liberalism-progressivism distinction has to do with a suit filed against the city by local progressive attorneys. The city had sought to bulldoze 5,500 homes, purportedly those worst hit in the lower 9^th Ward section of the city, without any notice to the displaced homeowners, on the ground that the buildings, or the remaining debris, were a public nuisance. This was a very questionable motivation.[4] It is more likely that the city wanted the precedent set for its authority to undercut the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees under the guise of a state emergency, in part to satisfy local and regional commercial entities who had expressed interest in developing the land unencumbered by eminent domain legal wranglings. But here, at least to my most recent knowledge, progressivism and the Internet won out. The student volunteers mobilized and were able to help secure an injunction against the city’s planned actions and also to use web-based databases to locate the titles to many of the challenged properties and then locate and contact many of the property-owners to notify them of the city’s plans. We’ll have to see how this ultimately plays out, but what is clear is that mobilization of progressive forces can be accomplished through the Internet and the Internet can be instrumental in advancing progressive agendas.

To be sure, the Internet is not a political-socioeconomic panacea; but it can be - and from my perspective ought to be - an important cog in the wheel of progressive revolution.

---

[1] See photos at: http://tinyurl.com/akdwx.

[2] See http://tinyurl.com/b44yy.

[3] See http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/448.

[4] This argument falls flat when one realizes that there was no public to be “nuisanced,” and the city had yet to determine whether new residential development would be allowed in that part of the city.