Ah yes, here we are at the crossroads of yet another election year.  I had really thought that the year 2000 would have been a bit more interesting.  I mean, where are the online elections?  Seems like infusing technology into more than two centuries of political process is a bit more difficult than most folks had anticipated.  Still, we did see the first online balloting in Arizona this year.  I suppose that is progress, however slow coming it might seem to be.

The choices for candidates aren’t all that interesting either.  I used to watch the presidential debates in past years because I found the speaking and presentation skills of the candidates to be educational and because the issues presented generally gave me great insight into the potential of the candidates as leaders.  This year I quickly grew tired of watching Bush and Gore try to cut one another down without actually saying much of anything of substance in the process.  Reminds me of a quote from Plato, “Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.”  I think that the jury is still out on which of the two Bush and Gore fall under.  I will say that both Chaney and Liberman impressed me.  They were witty, intelligent and spoke on the issues.  Two bad we can’t reset the clock and make these two the presidential rather than the vice-presidential candidates.

Of course, at this point you might be asking why I am writing this for a technology magazine?  Simple, I wanted to point out that you, as a technology person should be especially concerned about the outcome of this year’s election,

Now both Bush and Gore claim to be techno-savvy with Gore at times claiming to have invented more than his fair share of the stuff we use.  They both have positioned themselves as friends to the entrepreneur and they both claim to support high-tech issues such as visas for technology knowledgeable immigrants wishing to find work in America and copyright protection, but there are some clear differences in the two both at the party and the personal level.

The Democrats, and Gore particularly, see the government as an apparatus for making changes in the economy and ensuring that everyone is equal.  Bush and the Republicans believe that the government, while a necessity, should interfere as little as possible.  These differences have historically shown up on the legislation written to regulate business.  Keep in mind that at the core level the Internet is technically a business.  The companies that keep the Net running from the carriers that transport the backbone traffic, to the ISP’s that get that pipe to you, to the guy in his garage building web sites for a few bucks on the side, the Internet is an industry and how the government controls that industry could affect the Internet as we know it.

The Clinton regime, and we can extrapolate Gore’s will as well should he prevail, has over the last eight years taken a relatively hard line on anti-trust issues.  Should this continue we could expect greater scrutiny of business by the government broadening the scale of issues like the investigation of Microsoft.  The previous Bush administration allowed greater flexibility for businesses to succeed or fail based on their ability to satisfy their customers and it is likely if the junior Bush should win the election we could enjoy a return to the days when folks were allowed to enjoy the fruit of their labor.

On issues of privacy, it is likely that Gore would lean towards introducing yet more legislation instead of allowing the Internet to continue to police itself as it has for the past thirty years.  One potential positive of heavy-handed government involvement would be increased funding of high-tech development.  Personally, I would rather investment come from private sources because though I would personally benefit from the government dolling out checks for high-tech initiatives, I don’t believe that the governments roll is to pay us a check, that is what we have jobs for.  Since more government handouts would inevitably mean higher taxes my response is, “I would rather work hard and earn my own keep thank you.”  Besides, free money like drugs is an addiction that is hard to kick.  Once the high-tech industry starts accepting handouts, they will have little reason to work to be more competitive and earn the money themselves.

It’s OK if you disagree with me. Lord knows my wife does.  That is the beauty of our country; we can disagree without fear of being shot.  But this freedom has a price.  You must become involved.  Whether you chose the Palm Pilot toting, “I invented the Internet” Al Gore, or creating jobs for the future and keeping the government out of your business George W. Bush; go out and vote for the candidate of your choice.  Get involved. Find out about the issues by reading, watching the news, and doing some research on the Internet.

I will leave you with just one more quote from Plato, who centuries ago envisioned a government similar to ours, “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”  In other words, if you refuse to get out there and vote for the candidate of your choice, then you have no right to complain about the idiots that end up leading you.