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've always wondered why Republican political figures such as Bush don't just tell the bible-pounders to go pound sand. It's not as if they're going to vote Democratic just to spite the administration, right? Ehrlich's point explains just exactly why: because if the torch-waving asshats of the American Taliban ever take their ball and go home, the Democrats will win by default, forever and ever Amen. There will be no single party capable of stopping them. And once unopposed, the Democrats will start to look a lot more like old-school Democrats (read: socialists in populists' clothing) than the Stepford Republicans they now resemble.
Scary stuff for a right-leaning person such as myself who thought he had no use for the religious wackos that infest the Republican party...
I don't buy it. As far as being able to organize a campaign based on emotionally-charged issues, and thus being able to recruit volunteers with little or not effort, the internet will and has had a dramatic impact on politics (i.e., Howard Dean). But just because it allowed Dean to expand his base of support much more rapidly and widely than was ever possible before, that does not automatically mean the death of organized politics and our two-party system. How will it help moderate, hum-drum politics and politicians (probably > 90%), or even interesting politicians without a drum to beat? It won't. It'll help the radical and/or disaffected fringes to have more of a voice (which is usually a good thing), but most Americans are firmly in the middle of the road. The group that appeals most to the middle is going to be the one that wins. I'm not saying our current system will be the way it is forever (god help us if so), but I don't see any radical change anytime soon.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
The Dean candidacy is likely to cause great damage to the party come November 2004.
Dean, a far-left candidate, is campaigning to the far-left in order to win the nomination. He has given little thought to the "middle": a group which is necessary to win the election. He has Bush landslide written all over his face.
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.
Just as JFK utilized the nature of the televised debates to triumph over Nixon, Howard Dean will attempt to use the power of the internet in order to take the Democratic nomination.
Just a prediction.
This is a discussion about Dean, not Kerry!
How does this internet fund raising effect the current climate of pro-campaign finance reform?
According to Kerry, Republicans have been contributing to Dean's campaign on the Internet.. Whether this is true or not, it very well could be. How would we ever know?
I'd like someone to explain to me how this is actually "grass roots," and not possibly one of the major parties (if not both) giving large sums in small packets under various proxies?
...I'm a Democrat
What a wonderful theory. If only it fit the facts. Howard Dean has taken the internet and done amazing things with it, but the concept that he is somehow hijacking the Democratic party simply isn't accurate.
* Dean was governor for 11 years. He got there through traditional Democratic party politics.
* I remember having a conversation with some Vermont relatives back shortly after the 1996 convention about whether Dean would run in 2000.
Basically, Dean has been an up-and-coming force in the Democratic party for a number of years. While his outsider rhetoric and outspoken opposition to the war has helped fuel his candidacy, he is still a product of the Democratic party, with its grassroots activists and door-to-door campaigning.
Lastly -- a quick anecdote. Ralph Reed (formerly of the Christian Coalition, all around brilliant evil-doer, and now chairing Bush's reelection campaign in the Southeast) recently gave a speech talking about how according to all their polls, on the Friday before the election, Bush would have won all of the key battleground states had the election been held then. But instead, the Democratic apparatus came out in force and turned the election into a statistical dead heat. His best line went something like this:
Republicans think the campaign ends the Friday before the election, after the last television ad is bought, the last billboard put up.
Democrats believe the election starts the Friday before the election. GOTV (get out the vote) efforts don't really begin in earnest until those last 72 hours. The Democratic machine was what turned a sure Bush victory into a fraudulent mockery of an election (I try to be even handed... really I do, but facts is facts).
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. The article completely misses that fact. While the internet portion of the campaign may allow for a small control group, the actual work still has to be done by what is essentially a huge national corporation with a precense in every precint in America. That's a large group of people.
A pretty theory with some definite substance -- just not as clear-cut as the author would have us think.
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.
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.
Coase's theory of the relationship between information gathering costs and organization size is interesting, but not the most interesting impact of the internet on politics. One side effect of low-cost high-speed information gathering (and distribution) systems is that the competing parties can adjust their offers to voters using a much more rapid feedback cycle. Intensive use of polls, focus groups, trial balloons, e-mail, etc. let candidates fine tune their message like never before.
The two party system engenders a careful political calculus of stepping just far enough over the middle to steal an opponent's votes without alienating the extremists in the party. The democrats will try to appear just far enough right of center and the republicans will try to appear just far enough left of center to win. Everyone is shooting for the same 50.1% of the electoral votes and has the information gathering systems and information distribution systems to get it.
Unless one side achieves a huge advantage through external events (e.g., Dean wills if the economy tanks, weather disrupts voting in a key state, etc.) this will mean more close elections that reveal the statistical inaccuracies of our voting systems. It won't surpirse me if the Supreme Court will again decide the outcome of a presidential election in the near future.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Quoting the link (a Robert Novak column)
The other interesting thing here is to consider the source. Novak was the journalist who outed CIA agent Valerie Plame. Also, notice how it's the "Bush-haters" who listen to NPR, but "mainstream viewers" who watch Fox News's Sunday morning news.
Krauthammer also misrepresented Dean's interview on Hardball when Chris Matthews asked Dean if Deam would break up Fox. Everybody, including Dean started laughing, and Dean jokingly answered "On an ideological basis, yes." Anybody who was watching the show knew he was joking, plus the transcripts indicated [LAUGHTER]. But Krauthammer used the famous ellipsis (...) to eliminate the [LAUGHTER], and then criticized Dean for being "unhinged", which seems to be the current right-wing meme that is going around.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
I'll bitch, cause I think we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Instead we diverted forces over into Iraq, and it hasn't gained us anything. That's what I was saying back last year, it's what numerous other people were saying, it was what General Clark testified before Congress saying. The choices weren't "Invade Iraq" or "Let terrorists take over", we had other options. Don't listen to the Republican spin.
Look, ultimately we were going to have to deal with Iraq because sanctions don't work. But Colin Powell admitted in 2001 that we had Hussein under control and there was no threat of weapons... link
But really that's all water under the bridge now anyway. We're in there, we've got to fix it. I don't like what's happening over there, and I'll be damned if I let the prick who created this mess be rewarded with reelection.
Man, is that a strawman if I ever did see one.
Just compare the planning for the NATO interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo with the near total lack of planning for the intervention in Iraq. One example is to compare the large number of civilian police that were lined up and waiting to move into Kosovo immediately after the conflict. There were no pre-war efforts made to recruit international civilian police for post-conflict Iraq.
And no, this isn't a case of 20/20 hindsight. I spent 6 years in a U.S. Army Reserve Civil Affairs Bn. The professionals in the Army who know how to plan for and handle post-conflict problems were simply ignored by Rumsfeld. The outcome was frightningly obvious to those of us who have done this sort of work professionally. The Bush Administration is paying the price for their hubris.
FreeSpeech.org