With both of the two major parties latching on to the issue, political demagogues are already filling the void. So why aren't tech's best and brightest mixing it up? If for nothing else but their own enlightened self-interest, you would assume that the computer industry has a vested interest in defending its interests and offering an informed voice on the matter.
Don't hold your breath.
Purposeful blandness so much defines the pronouncements of technology CEOs on any subject of consequence these days that few top executives--Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers being the refreshing exception--take a position on anything, anymore.
Too bad. I remember a time in the computer industry when CEOs weren't afraid to burp without first getting permission from their handlers. The tech industry I started covering in 1985 was chockablock with people who had conviction and brains. Most thought nothing about challenging convention to make their mark, even if it ruffled a few feathers here and there.
I fondly remember Jim Manzi, former chief executive of Lotus Development, once telling me that I had asked "one of the dumbest @#$$$ questions" he had ever heard. Truth be told, I wish we had dozens more like him nowadays. Can you imagine Michael Dell ever going off message to say something halfway as colorful? I don't think so.
Nowadays, I can count the number of free thinkers on my left hand.
Purposeful blandness so much defines the pronouncements of technology CEOs on any subject of consequence these days.
"I wouldn't let my CEO go near (offshore outsourcing) with a 10-foot pole," a PR advisor at one big software company told me. "I've gone both ways on this, but this is one I wouldn't let him touch right now. There's no upside."
Actually, I think there is a big upside here--more about that in a moment.
Free South Africa!
In the 1980s, the technology industry found itself in the middle of another hot political debate--this time over the divestiture of manufacturing operations in South Africa.
Under pressure from interest groups opposed to the apartheid policies of the South African government, companies were faced with a dilemma: Should they stay or go?
The divestiture story was front-page news, and before long, computer companies had to go on the record. Some suppliers, including IBM, argued that the best way to incite change was to tough it out through constructive engagement. Its argument: The lives of average blacks would improve, because IBM (and others) helping the domestic economy helped create more jobs. Others, including Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and Apple Computer, ultimately opted to pull their subsidiaries out of South Africa until the government ended apartheid.
Either way, companies did not pretend to hide under a rock, hoping the issue would go away.
In the 1980s, the technology industry found itself in the middle of another hot political debate--this time over the divestiture of manufacturing operations in South Africa.
That seemingly antediluvian era compares oh so favorably to the current insipidness of a computer industry obscenely overscripted by PR hacks desperate to sell us happy pills. Sorry, but I'm not buying.
We can debate the pros and cons of offshore outsourcing until November--and beyond--without reaching unanimity. Temperatures on both sides of the divide are climbing. Supporters say the offshore phenomenon is the natural outcome of an open, free-market system and will lead to greater growth and opportunity here and abroad. Detractors decry it as a dangerous trend that will inevitably lead to the hollowing out of America's high-tech job base. The only point of unanimity is that this is destined to become a hot-potato issue during fall campaign season.
Pretty soon, it will be crunch time. The computer industry's leadership can try to shape the outcome by getting involved--and possibly tick off a few customers in the process. Or it can do nothing--and guarantee that others will decide the issue for them. You tell me which the nobler course is.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
Our politicians are bland. There is no discernable distinction between either major political party.
The country is crying out for a leader, and noone steps forward. We have no one willing to step forward to the microphone and decry the unfair, or even applaud the laudatory.
Tech in particular is going through a sea change, no new leaders have emerged out of this recent downturn, unlike others. Where is the direction? The courage of convictions? Who will step forward?
We are washing around like a boat adrift. War abounds. Economic recovery without jobs. And worst of all, our educational systems is deplorable. We filled our pockets and depleted our soul.
Someone worth millions, who has nothing to fear regarding job loss, should be screaming at the top of their lungs, "We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore." Education in particular, and war and the malaise in business management are issues that affect are well being and capitalism.
This is America. The miracle can happen here.
But all we get is radio silence when what we need is a cacaphony of debate.
Who will go first?
Rob Gelphman
If he has a point, we all would be better off if we were to make it a little more explicitly. Maybe the gutless wonder is to be found eleswhere!
rgds
Abhinav
If you need any help with the big words, I?d be happy to help you.
The answer, sadly, may be long enough to do irreparable damage to the economy.
Your article, Mr Cooper, is outstanding for a journalist. The most obvious reason for the censorship that has silenced all substantive public debate is that the media have firmly sided with corporate interests. This isn?t a first, but it is unusual.
I can?t come up with a better explanation than that technophobic and technoilliterate reporters have been so thrilled at the chance to dance on the graves of those loathsome ?geeks?, that they?ve sold their integrity and common sense to the devil.
If someone has a better explanation, let us all know. Even more importantly, if someone has a way to get the news out to the general public, now is the time to present it.
It may not be possible to fool all of the people all of the time, but you can come close enough to win an election.
?"(Corporate and political) man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself." ? Animal Farm by George Orwell
If you promote offshoring as a good thing the people who think long term will agree with you but the short term people will cry havoc about losing their jobs.
If you say offshoring is bad for the economy the people who only see short-term will love you for it and agree with you but those that see the long term will hate you for wanting to turn the US economy into a stagnant pool.
Since you cant win on this subject by taking sides the only way to keep everyone happy is to just not choose a side.
- Message has been deleted.
-
by searce
April 15, 2004 10:21 AM PDT
-
Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)