Slashdot Mirror
Disintermediation and Politics
code_rage writes "Everett Ehrlich (capsule biography) writes an article in the Washington Post that examines Howard Dean's effective use of the internet to create a political organization. He says that Dean has created a 'virtual' party that has taken over the only remaining asset of value, the brand name of the Democratic party. His analysis refers to the theory of Nobel-winning economist Ronald Coase: that the size of an organization is determined by the cost of gathering information. Ehrlich's article makes some predictions about the effect that Dean's strategy will have on the political system." In a related story, there's an mp3 interview with Dick Morris, along with a couple of (appropriately) blog posts about it.
Actually the Democrats have more money from large organizations such as unions and PACs than any other party. Truth be known the Republicans have more small donations. The really out there parties such as Greens and Libertarians are close to 100% small donors. I don't see the Internet INFLUENCING voters much at all. Sure they have another medium to get information, but web presentations have technology issues. If you don't have broadband then streaming video is difficult, and why get if off the 'Net when you can see it on CNN or Fox 17 times a day? TV and Radio are by far the more influencial medium with the majority of the population. The Internet is popular with younger age groups, but not older people. Income levels affect Internet usage. I wonder how active in the local/regional/national level those who are recruited or who donated thru the Internet are versus those who were recruited in person. The Internet offers a fair degree of anonynimity just in case your candidate has views that are all of a sudden no longer popular, thus you can easily disavow your support. I think way too much is being made of this concept, and IIRC the AlGore campaign in 2000 also was big on using the Internet and that didn't work out [no BS about Republicans stealing the election..it's a fact of life now that GWB won..BushHaters win get a chance in 2004].
He wants to pull out of Iraq before reconstruction is complete, they voted to go there.
He wants a massive tax hike, they want a smaller one.
He wants Hillary Clinton -style single-payer health care, they want more modest reforms.
So he wants more taxes, less military, and more government than they do. In other words, he's to the left of them.
Next question?
That's rediculous. Firstly, President Bush is not far right. The new medicare entitlement is a clear indication of that. Secondly, Dean is by no means a moderate. Howard Dean is a far left radical. The libertarians are not going to replace the republican party by any means in the foreseable future, and probably not ever. Nor is the religious right wing about to fall. The younger population is more conservative on issues of religion than our parents were. As far as republicans not voting for President Bush because he is not a fiscal consertative, that's ludicrous. Give any republican the choice between a republican, non-fiscal conservative and a democratic, radical, liberal, pro-entitlement, pro-socialism western european wannabe, and they're gonna vote republican every time. The US has become the most powerful nation in the world because of our founder's commitment to limited government, personal freedoms and our constitution which protects those principles. And we did it all in under 250 years. Now these liberal, big government crack pots want to change what it is that made us great because they're so concerned about how our success makes other nations feel. Well boo-hoo for them. The only thing that is ever going to make other nations like us is if we reduce ourselves below their level. They're envious of our success.