Recent commentary from National Journal: Legal Affairs: Cabbies, Cops, Pizza Deliveries, and Racial Profiling, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (June 20, 2000) Racial profiling by police is not worth the costs. Racial profiling by cabbies is another matter. Media: The Signed-On Majority, by William Powers (June 20, 2000) Think those political Web sites will help you form your decision about the next President? Think again. Media: Drama Club, by William Powers (June 14, 2000) In New York, the media's tried-and-true script provides plenty of hisses and cheers for Hillary and Rick. Political Pulse: Growing Doubts About the Death Penalty, by William Schneider (June 14, 2000) Suddenly, the politics of capital punishment appears to be changing. Social Studies: The Microsoft Case -- Fair, Necessary, and Totally Random, by Jonathan Rauch (June 14, 2000) Let's be clear with ourselves about what the law is doing in the Microsoft case: whistling in the dark. More from National Journal. Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.

Political Pulse: High-Tech Queries, Slow-Mo Answers Things have changed a lot since Al Gore invented the Internet by William Schneider June 20, 2000 Bill Gates may be the richest man in the country, but Washington has cut him down to size. Cut him in half, in fact. Federal District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered Microsoft Corp. split in two because, he said, Microsoft "has proved untrustworthy" and "unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law." Gates called the ruling -- which his company, naturally, is appealing -- "an unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into the software marketplace, a marketplace that has been an engine of economic growth for America." We know exactly what Microsoft has done for the economy, responded antitrust chief Joel Klein of the Justice Department -- things like "intimidate computer manufacturers who choose to select other people's products" and "illegally tying two products together as a way to force them on consumers." According to a recent Gallup Poll, the American public is inclined to believe that Microsoft is a monopoly, and that breaking it up into two companies would be good for consumers. So people must approve of the judge's decision, right? Surprise! In both the Gallup Poll and an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, most Americans opposed a breakup. Why? Because they're not sure Microsoft has done anything bad. Two-thirds of the public has a favorable view of Microsoft and of Bill Gates. We're a long way from the trust-busting days of Teddy Roosevelt. To ordinary Americans, the decision against Microsoft looks like a solution for which there is no known problem. What Americans are convinced of is that the new economy has been good for the country. By 5-to-1, people endorse the view that changes in information technology have done more good than harm. How relevant, then, is the old politics to the new economy? The old politics works like this: Democrats say government should do more. Republicans say government should do less. Then they fight. But that framework doesn't necessarily work when it comes to issues raised by the new economy. You might expect Vice President Al Gore to be an ardent defender of the government's case against Microsoft. But he refused to comment on Judge Jackson's ruling, calling it an "ongoing legal matter" (unlike the Elián Gonzalez case?). The ruling could prove to be a big problem for Gore in Microsoft's home state of Washington, where both Democrats and Republicans quickly condemned the decision. You might expect Texas Gov. George W. Bush to be a vocal critic of the Microsoft ruling. Congressional Republicans certainly were. House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas said the decision "will send a message to innovators around the world that in America we punish success." Bush said back in February that "I think the great fear is that Microsoft will be broken up." When that fear became a reality, however, Bush refused to comment. Microsoft has a lot of foes in the computer industry who would welcome a breakup. Anti-government ideology may drive congressional Republicans, but it doesn't seem to drive Bush. How about privacy, another issue raised by the new economy? All that personal information floating around on the Internet. Gore has jumped on that issue the way you would expect a Democrat to: The government will protect you. He has called for "an electronic bill of rights," and has said, "If we are to move full-speed ahead into the Information Age, government must do more to protect your rights." Bush has also expressed concern about electronic privacy, but he wants to look more carefully at different ways of safeguarding it. "Let's take our time before we make policy on e-commerce," he said earlier this year. "I don't know where this is headed." Should Internet sales be taxed? Sounds obvious. Republicans oppose new taxes, right? "Extend the moratorium," Bush said in February. In other words, no new taxes -- for three to five years. Bush has been unwilling to support a permanent ban on Internet taxes, however. He's a governor, and he's fully aware that as Internet sales grow, state sales tax revenues will disappear. Gore backs a shorter moratorium, to pressure Congress to come up with a new way to collect sales taxes on Internet purchases. The "digital divide" is a big issue for Democrats. It's about the gap between rich and poor, after all. "In the first term of the next President," Gore has promised, "we must finish connecting every classroom and library in America to the Internet." Except that Internet connections may quickly become obsolete, as new wireless technology becomes available. Technology moves a lot faster than government. Things have changed a lot since Al Gore invented the Internet. And change has left both candidates groping for answers. When asked in a primary debate whether he uses the Internet, Bush replied, "I e-mail my mother. She told me to stand up straight." As computer junkies guffawed at Bush's confusion of e-mail with the Internet, the governor added, "I can click around and surf around. I don't have much time, you know, running for President." The bottom line is, we're dealing with two cultures here. Government is the culture of regulation and control. It moves slowly and sets boundaries. Technology is the culture of innovation and flexibility. It moves fast and recognizes no limits. The culture of politics and the culture of technology will never understand each other. They'll just have to figure out some way to get along. What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. All material copyright © 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.