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.
I am not necessarily a big fan of Howard Dean, but I love what he is doing to political fundraising and grassroots organization. His campaign team's efforts have really reversed the equation and empowered the small-money donors to make a difference. I think it is much better for the American political system for a candidate to raise $100 from 2 million donors than $200 million from some very large donors and interest groups. It's bottom-up campaign finance reform. Once again a technological and social solution can do what convoluted legislation cannot.
I don't consider somebody who resorts to libel and slander to get her point across as somebody who is a "strong woman". I don't think anybody who hates another group of people because their views and opinions differ from her is "strong" or "mature" or any other adjective you could use to describe anybody from either gender who can behave in civil society.
I sure hope it doesn't mean the death of the two party system.
Why? A multi-party democracy can still produce strong governments. In my eyes, a two-party system is only one party away from being a single-party dictatorship, especially when the minority party is very weak; the current situation in the USA is a good example of this problem with two-party systems.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
This isn't any different than how the NeoConservative movement hijacked the Republican party in the 1980's (under the threat of Soviet Nuclear Annihilation), and how the Christian Wackjob movement hijacked the Reform party in 1999 (under threat of the previous Reform party being the only alternative for rational sane Americans).
Dean's hijacked the Democratic party on the basis of the Anti-Plutocrat movement. More power to em. If the internet was a key vehicle for that, I'm not really suprised, but since the internet exists for all people, that sword cuts both ways.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
How will it help moderate, hum-drum politics and politicians (probably > 90%), or even interesting politicians without a drum to beat? It won't.
That's correct. Politicians who rose through the ranks based on their connections with party-elders and got into office due to the intertia of the voters are, in fact hurt by the internet. They will be vulnerable to politicians who are able to create networks of loyal rank-and-file supporters who "believe" in their candidacy.
The radical change is that politicians who depend on the inertia of voters are suddenly vulnerable.
Dean's improbable sprint to internet cash-and-glory will only get him so far. And then the incredibly labor intensive huge Democratic machine will have to take over.
If you look at Dean's main Website and official blog you'll notice that it's not just fundraising that's going on. There are 150,000 people involved in Dean Meetups and thousands more have already sent over 100,000 handwritten letters to voters in New Hampsire and Iowa. Plus there are scores of independent websites discussing and promoting Dean from various perspectives. He's got more troops on the ground than the Democratic Party - particularly if you count the union troops he's already recruited as his and not the Democrats', per se.
What Dean's doing isn't taking over the "Left Wing" or even the Democratic Party so much as it is taking over the middle of the road. He's steamrolling right down the center with a good dose of traditional American common sense (although his invocation of Thomas Paine is a bit lame, at least it's an error in the right direction). He's redefining what the center of the road means.
And this whole thing about his - and his fans' - "anger" is just off the point. George W. is an idiot, and he's calling the Emperor naked and saying clearly that we should replace him with all haste. People aren't angry at Bush so much as disappointed and disgusted because Bush doesn't live up to the Main Street American values that Dean invokes.
The cynicism of the corporate-owned press is that we don't have any values to speak of beyond consumerism and the money to support our "American way" habits (and their advertisers). According to this cynicism all politicians are a bit false, so calling them naked is a bit beside the point. Dean's not a cynic, not false, and is using the Net to communicate directly with others who love America and see higher ideals as once again attainable by it, rather than a continued slide into blustering corruption.
He' proving the Republic still has some blood in its veins. He's no Thomas Jefferson (alas), but could well become the best US president since FDR.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
You are deluded if you think wage-earners are the wealthy of this country. The truely wealthy don't work for money, the have money "work for them" by investing it, and owning bussinesses. If you are a top wage earner, you are, by definition, upper-middle class. If Rush thinks otherwise, he's been on more then pain medication.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
Drill baby drill - on Mars
"Muslims hate the west because their culture has stagnated by their own choosing for half a millenia."
Uh, no? Don't bother strawman-ing the issue, that's not the reason.
Muslims dislike the West because the West wasn't the nicest to them. The British ruled India and portions of the Middle East, and weren't the nicest to the indigenous people. France had similiar, I believe. We really didn't care bout Iraqis for most of this century, in pre-Gulf war times the Europeans divided up the land and separated them into separate countries, nationalism and all. The West, including the US, propped up dictators and non-democratic governments in these countries, which angered the people. Look at today, the democratically-elected Islamic government in Algeria was overthrown by military dictators, and many criticize the US and France for their tacit support of it.
The West had other things that alienated people. First, the West snubbed all non-Western people as savages, basically. They didn't have "modern philosophy", or our morals, like secularism or Christianity. The West had this nasty way of imposing their culture on others, like the British pushing English on their colonies, or France forcing Algerians to learn French and study French literature. The West didn't like the Muslims, myths from the Crusades are STILL propagating in some literature I've read.
Currently, Muslims in general dislike the US for its unconditional support of Israel and its injurious manipulation of other countries for its own sole interest. However, I should point out that the Muslims really weren't bothered by the US pre-9/11. 19 foolish people really stirred things up, but if you didn't know, the terrorism was widely condemned by every country (including Afghanistan), except Saddam Hussein's government. Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs all over the world condemned the act, and prayed for the victims. Iran had public candlelit vigils on the streets, there were public anti-terrorism demonstrations in Bangladesh and Indonesia.
Post-9/11, things got a little different. The US invaded Afghanistan, which upset some, but many said it was a natural consequence of 9/11 and revenge. Even television preacher Sheikh Qaradawi said that he could understand why the US was invading, and he said it was legitimate. But honestly, the threat of terrorism didn't really get worse, Muslims all over the world still said they didn't support Al Qaeda, terrorism, or Bin Laden. Sure, they got angry when Christian evangelists made statements that insulted Muslims, but Bush denied it was a war on Islam, so it never boiled over.
What really Fubar-ed the whole thing was this war on Iraq. The US government did things that infuriated the Arab world and Muslim world at large. I don't have to go into why, but it really turned the tide. People now refuse to support the US; everyone, including me, feels that the US government is untrustworthy. Who else can they turn to? Bush's actions became a top recruiting tool for terrorists. Turn on a TV and watch soldiers raid homes, drag women out of their homes not fully clothed, harrass old men, hear about how civillians died every day, it's all making people support other groups.
"Their priests tell them they are the good, the faithful, the chosen, and yet they are the poor, the weak, and the oppressed. How can this be?" Two things. Respite, and there's a hadith "God will allow a fair government to survive, even if it isn't Muslim, and God will cause an unfair government to fall, even if it is Muslim." They declined, and lost it.
"Of course the truth is comical. They're the most corrupt, the laziest, the most decadent." Blah blah blah.