In Thomas Friedman’s recent (7/22/05) New Times Op-Ed piece, "Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide," he asserts that we should make a point of shining a light on hate-mongers and truth tellers where they exist in the world. As I have always been a believer both that shadows are scarier and more dangerous than light, and that the resulting clarity created by the persistence of light forces a "need to know," this got me thinking. In the age of global connectivity, why not create a moderated polling web site that ranks public figures, religious organizations and social groups based on their record of spewing hate, supporting violence and fighting free speech?
Here's how it would work. The rankings would be based on a continuum (e.g., 1 = spews hate; 10 = espouses peaceful co-existence), and the results would shine a light on global perspectives and public opinion on what constitutes the true Axis of Evil on our planet. Just as importantly, it would showcase the corresponding Axis of Goodness that too often toils in obscurity.
A volunteer advisory board representing differing political, religious and social perspectives would work together to agree upon the criteria to be an individual or group rated in the poll, the frequency with which polls are taken and how the conclusions are to be disseminated.
By "how the conclusions are to be disseminated" what I mean is that there is real value in determining how different groups of people in different places think about the Axis. Hence, U.S. college students (with a verifiable .edu email address) are very likely to have a different perspective than employees at major global corporations (with a verifiable corporate email address). The same can be said about participants in countries like Jordan, Israel or China, as well as the religious, political or social "thought leaders."
I can envision three primary mechanisms -- two formal and one informal -- to keep the process of creating and iterating the Axis Poll organic, vibrant, open and dynamic. One is the use of formal editorials that are "official" interpretation of polling results.
Two is the use of formal editorials that attempt to provide a "moral of the story" in terms of how and when a particular Axis member crossed the line from non-descript to truly good or truly evil, and what they are doing right now to maintain or diverge from that arc. These conclusions would be backed by transparent information sources so readers can reach their own conclusions.
Three is the creation of a Blog where individuals can informally express their opinions, as well as provide links to information sources and other postings of interest. This would have the effect of creating a dialog between different communities based on openness and acceptance of contrasting perspectives.
I can think of few better ways to hold people and organizations in a position of power and influence accountable for what they do and what they say than by creating a mechanism like the Axis Poll. It is inexpensive to implement, could leverage the good work of many other related organizations, including the media, and above all, is an inclusive, highly democratic way of shining a light in the areas that matter most.
What do you think?
