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.
The cover story in this week's New York Times magazine described Howard Dean's hardcore support as consisting primarily of impotent nosepickers hoping to make some friends and unsuccessful auditioners for Gap commercials. That is to say, the followers (as opposed to leaders) of tomorrow.
Their passion for Dean was aptly summarized by 24-year-old Lauren Popper - the "official representative" at a Dean campaign office one particular night. Though she "broke into tears several times while trying to explain" the allure of the Dean campaign, Popper managed to convey that she was first attracted to Dean based on his policy of having a state social worker visit every new mother in Vermont (not to be confused with the Arkansas policy from the 1980s in which the governor would visit every woman who was hoping to become pregnant). Not that I'm trying to privatize anything here, but in my home state of Connecticut, a new mother is traditionally visited by her own mother.
Popper added that Dean's becoming president was "a side effect" of the Dean campaign. Cold comfort to the candidate, I imagine. Rather, she said: "This campaign is about allowing people to come together and tell their life stories."
With quotes like that, it's not going to be easy to tone down the Republicans' overconfidence in the coming presidential campaign. But lately I've noticed that a lot of Democrats are comparing inevitable nominee Howard Dean to George McGovern and wearily predicting a landslide for Bush. That's not the fighting spirit we expect from the party that will go to the smallest town in North Dakota to remove the Ten Commandments!
Whenever liberals all start singing from the same hymnal, they are up to no good. (Or since we're talking about American liberals here, maybe I should say, "when they all start reading from the same Quran.")
I believe the game plan is this: The Democrats will spend the next 11 months ruefully admitting that it's going to be a 50-state landslide for Bush. Republicans will engage in their normal partisan cheerleading, and everyone will seem to be agreed that Bush is going to win a 50-state landslide. Then, if the final tally is anything short of that - if it's a 40-state landslide for Bush - the New York Times will be able to crow about Bush's poor showing and run headlines like: "Americans Still Deeply Divided on War."
This is precisely what happened in the 1998 midterm elections. That year, Republicans made history by winning a majority in both Houses of Congress for the third straight time. Just four years earlier, millions of Americans who had never voted Republican in their entire lives did it for the first time. In 1998, they did it a third time. Though Republicans lost five seats in the House, they held their majority. The Democrats half-century stranglehold on the House was over.
The Los Angeles Times headline the next day was typical: "Democrats Exult in Victories as GOP Takes Stock of Losses; Elections: Republicans Retain Control of Congress, But Their Leadership There Is Weakened. Defeats Undercut Impeachment Drive and Reopen Party Divisions."
I suppose it's possible the Democrats' predictions of catastrophe and ruin in the upcoming presidential election are genuine. It is beyond dispute that Howard Dean is a more appalling candidate than George McGovern ever was.
McGovern was an authentic war hero in World War II. Howard Dean showed up at the Army recruiting office with a note from his doctor and a fake limp to get out of serving in Vietnam - before repairing to Aspen for several months of skiing. In Dean's defense, I suppose that, technically speaking, "spinelessness" would be considered a debilitating back condition. (According to the New York Times, this is the same as taking off in jets that fly at the speed of sound while training to be a fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.)
Moreover, the North Vietnamese were savage beasts, but they never attacked America on its own soil. It's a little different to be anti-war now
First, Gore invented the Internet. After he lost the election, he invented the beard, and the beer gut. Now he has invented the Howard Dean campaign.
What amazing wonders will come next from the Thomas Edison of our era?
..what a shocker!
If you want stereotyping, just listen to any "englightened" "progressive" spout off about how
-- every successful company is an example of "Corporate Greed",
-- every white person who disagrees with a non-white person is a "Racist",
-- anyone who makes things but doesn't give them away for free is an "Oppressor",
-- anyone who thinks that what he makes should not be open to forced confiscation by those who don't make things is "Mean Spirited",
-- and every argument that even questions leftist dogma is "Hate Speech".
And you thought "name calling and stereotyping was primarily the tactic of the conservative[s]".
Think again.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Like all that success we're having in Iraq?
Like all that success we had in Iran?
Like all that success we had in (insert virtually any South American country here...)?
Being a big bully is *great* - so long as you can always be the winner. (I don't actually believe this, but it *seems* that way at the time.)
What you need to remember, is that someday that bully isn't able to force everyone into submission. When that happens, there a line around the block to stick the knife in and twist it.
It's in our own best interest to act honestly and humble ourselves. Someday, we'll have to pay back, and if we've been jerks - I can tell you - paybacks are a bitch.
I'm not sure what Bush is - a talking monkey - who knows.
I'm a strongly religeious protestant, socially liberal, and find Bush's policies simply deluded.
I'd have voted for McCain, and I'll probably vote for Dean.
What I won't do, is vote for a dishonest chameleon who will sell me down the river for a piece of bubble-gum to the largest commercial interest. (And BTW, I didn't vote for Clinton - either time. But I'd generally prefer his *policies* to those of GWB - even though he did belong to the chameleon class.)
When the Republicans figure out they need to dump the crazy ass religeous right (Reid et al.) and really embrace the "personal freedoms" they espouse and actually get serious about smaller government (think less corporate welfare) then I'll vote Republican. Till then, I pick the least evil of the candidates I can. Dean and McCain before him fits that bill, not GWB.
Cheers,
Greg
The Moral Majority turned into the Christian Coalition. At this point it is not unusual for 70% of the board of a state republican party in the south to have come from the Christian Coalition.
The thing that has changed is that MM and CC are no longer able to bring out voters the way they once did. Having got their place in the party the apparachicks are less willing to work for it the way they once did.
Curious fact is that the Democrats regularly outpoll Republicans amongst Christians. The big divide is between the evangelicals who believe that the moral of the parable of the good samaritan is 'love thy neighbor' and the fundamentalists who claim the point Christ was making was the samaritan had the money to be able to afford to help.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/