A talk by Micah Sifry on the impact of the Internet on politics.
Intro [DI]: Author of iraqwarreader.com. Brother of David Sifry. Writes for The Nation.
Was editor at The Nation. Freeland write. “Public campaign” group – change the nature of money inpolitics. “Spoiling for a fight” book. “Is that a politician in your pocket” book coming out.
Is this the end of politics are we know it? Are 2m moveon members, 1m meetups just dazzle that’s irrelevant? Presidential campaign that relies on small donors? Or just seeing intensification of patterns of power and voice?
Mark Hannah – Two things important in politics. Money. And can’t remember the second.
Money shapes what can be discussed. Can view politics as a contest between organized money and organized people. Decline of organic mass-membership orgs with local ties (1950s). End of fellowship pursuing large civic purposes and community support. Since then 800,000 people with money dominate. 0.25% of population give contribution of $200 or more.
Don’t get elected unless you are already rich, or know someone rich. A universe of professional interest groups. Give voice to people with money or high levels of education or both. A few exceptions like NRA or Christian Coalition lower down socioeconomic scale.
Gatorade demo. Politics is a duopoly. Two sellers, have driven out all other competition. On the beach. Situate themselves next to each other. Can jointly act to raise prices, take a vacation at the same time. Can give vendors money to sell one type of ice cream.
Most politics conducted under duopoly conditions. Paralysis, lack of accountability. Dominated by one party, and person with most money. Ability to write govt regulations to protect themselves from competition. Gerrymandering. District boundaries. Choose the voters before they choose you. No competition eliminates accountability. Bipartisan = buy one party, get one free.
Many costly blunders. Degregulatory excess caused Enron etc. Before 9/11 couldn’t secure airports. Wolves investigate how the chicken coop was broken into.
Social s/w, many-to-many – do they tip the balance? Answer – I don’t know. History suggests we should be skeptical. Cable TV came out, people assumed community TV would revolutionize politics. Didn’t happen. Direct mail, new communications tool, bring little people bacik into politics. George McGovern started, new right perfected it. Hasn’t changed politics. Lots of organizations with letterheads and mailing lists.
Still want authenticity and honesty. Used to have double the voter turnout in 1800s as a true multiparty democracy (80%+). Some things that route around duopoly do well. Talk radio a quasi public forum. Victory to stop Congress giving itself a pay raise in 1980. Raised 8m dollars through 800 numbers for campaign. Ross Perot similar, shame he was a madman. Howard Dean could have succeeded if Dean had been a better candidate. Changed the discourse, injected a different message. Told people their $50 or hour in a precinct not wasted.
Optimist tells be broadcast politics not ending, but mass self-organization arising in parallel. Anything organized like a cathedral will be routed around. The swarm can be smarter than the queen bee. Institiutions that don’t open to dialog will be routed around.
Dean campaign successful because people asked for input. Cluetrain manifesto. The range of things people themselves can do is enlarging. Meetup doesn’t meen the people who turn up know how to run a meeting. Get echo chambers, not propogation.
Does this extend to people who aren’t college educated? The upper ranks already express themselves through professional organization when they are constrained personally. Maybe will move from representing top quarter of population to top third. These people already looking to get involved.
American Legion was prime mover behind passing GI bill in 1944. Very progressive piece of social legislation. Had chapters everywhere.
Most of us never experienced how to have a meeting, how to have a leader.
May intensify existing affiliations.
Q [DI]: Ralph Nader?
I supported Nader in 2000, don’t support him this time. He should have done it in 1992 when conditions ripe. Terrible campaign in 2000. Should have run like Jesse Ventura. Have to go right up the middle and crowd out the parties. Need name recognition. “Debates” are controlled by the parties. A quirk that Perot got in in 1992. So many similarities between Bush and Gore. Wish Nader had focused on Perot voters. This time it is insane. He’s stuck in an old paradigm. Looks at this analysis. Was one of the leaders in 60s and 70s that said don’t need a mass movement org. GM tailed him, sued, and money from settlement was used to build grassroots base. Nobody has elected him to anything. He’s just another lobbyist. Out of touch with new technologies. Someone asked if he was bothered about lack of meetups, said he didn’t have time for virtual reality. Will route around him too.
Posted by Martin Geddes at 02:44 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telepocalypse.net/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/mgeddes/MT/mt-tb.cgi/208.
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WTF Sunday Morning Sessions - Sifry:
»
selling a vote is illegal, but selling a policy is not from meta-roj blog
i've been waiting for a hook to hang this on, and it had to come from ebay... of course. what else could it possibly be? Authorities: Don't Sell Your Vote On eBay [ap, august 27, 2004]"Simply tell me who to...
[Read more]