A Democratic Party think tank has released new "rules of the road" describing the role the US government should play in the future of technology. But this particular highway has the same old scenery.
The Progressive Policy Institute's road map stresses several things Democrats have been talking about for decades: the problem of racial inequality, the need to regulate corporations, and how more federal money should be spent on public schools.
It's not surprising. Just as Republicans usually kowtow to big business, Democrats generally hew to the demands of labor unions. It's no coincidence that the AFL-CIO was represented on the "new economy task force" that came up with the PPI guidelines.
"Education in public schools has to be a national obsession," said Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-California) Monday at a conference held to tout the proposal.
Columnist David Moschella, who has written about the "problem of access" to the Internet, complained that when he spoke at a software conference a few years ago, "there weren't any people of color in the room."
That hasn't changed, he said, "There's a persistence in the digital divide between the information-rich ... and the information poor."
In language apparently crafted to avoid offending anyone, the 10-point plan says the feds must "empower people with information" and "invest in knowledge and skill."
It also raised more questions than it answered. Should bureaucrats regulate the Internet, or not? Attack Microsoft on antitrust grounds, or ignore alleged violations? Follow the Europeans' lead, and restrict what customer information companies can share, or permit groups like Truste to take the lead?
Nobody at the conference answered exactly those questions, but many decried "laissez-faire" or hands-off approaches to the Internet, a style which the PPI also denounces in its Third Way philosophy.
That's long been a key part of the New Democrat movement, which Bill Clinton joined before becoming president in 1992, and which Democratic speakers stressed Monday.
"The marketplace alone won't give us optimal solutions," said Paul Lippe, a vice president of Synopsys Software who is a member of the PPI's New Economy task force.
Washington needs to be involved through "forging a governmental approach for the new economy," said Tom Vartanian, a lawyer at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson.
A former banking regulator, Vartanian said the Internet posed special problems for governments. "Who should we regulate? The buyer, seller, or perhaps even the consumer who is allowed to post comments about a product on a computer company's Web site?"
One panel featured a series of hypothetical scenarios, including what should happen if the US banned online gambling but a foreign government encouraged firms to set up shop on its soil.
The speakers didn't seem to like it one bit. It would encourage spendthrifts and give them instant access to cash, said management consultant Regis McKenna. "Think of people with gambling problems who have an ATM in their living room."
Here's another hypothetical problem: A direct marketing firm buys an online advertisting firm and uses the joint database to sell products or target ads at consumers. What should the Feds do?
"I don't think it can be complete laissez-faire," said Christine Varney, a former Clinton administration official, and Hogan and Hartson partner who also complained about the current "rash of mergers."
Other comments were more banal. "These are big, complex issues we're dealing with. Things are changing," said Gateway CEO Ted Waitt, who co-chairs the PPI New Economy task force.
