Every now and then, readers comment on a column they think is “too political,” or that they believe stems from a particular political bias on my part. In these polarized times, that belief is understandable. But it’s generally a mistake.
For one thing, folks who think they can easily categorize my politics might be in for a surprise. As I’ve told a few readers directly, I’m a churchgoing, gun-owning, free-market-supporting, civil libertarian. I’ve voted both Democratic and Republican (and have voted a split ticket in most recent elections). Regular readers know that I grew up in a military family and have a deep respect for the U.S. armed forces (although I know the military is often called on to support controversial policies).
I read both The New Republic and the National Review (plus The Wall Street Journal and my hometown paper). I’ve been both a union member and a serial entrepreneur who’s helped create hundreds of jobs. Over the years, I’ve both supported and opposed various flavors of government intervention and investment.
In short, you and I can probably find many significant issues to agree on (or if you’d prefer, to disagree over).
But more importantly, if I have an overarching bias, it’s toward pragmatism. I’m an engineer by training and temperament. I favor things that can demonstrably be shown to work (as opposed to things that merely fulfill someone’s ideological framework).
That’s the real reason it’s a good idea to avoid political pigeonholing: Sometimes people on the other side of the political divide have ideas that actually work.
Take telecom policy. My friend and colleague K. Claffy recently asked me to provide examples of cases in which government regulation inhibited innovation and competition, and cases in which the free market inhibited innovation and competition. I listed several in both categories – and cases in which telecom and communications regulations actually encouraged innovation and competition. (Details in upcoming columns.)
In short, there’s no one-size-fits-all philosophy or ideology that leads to the creation of perfect telecom policy. For pragmatists like me, neither government intervention nor an unfettered free market is ipso facto the right (or wrong) answer. Each can work: Government funding created one of the greatest communication innovations in modern history (the Internet) – and the free market transformed it from a feat of engineering into an economic force.
Now we’re at a critical inflection point in telecom policy. Deregulation of the old Bell system, the maturation of the Internet and the rise of new technologies and models such as VoIP, satellite services and Wi-Fi municipal networks means it’s a whole new world out there. If you agree that the best policies are those that are actually effective at accomplishing their goals, then it’s time for a pragmatic look at what does and doesn’t work. Stay tuned!
