Disintermediation and Politics 817
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.
Now, if Dean would just (Score:0, Informative)
right on (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Ignore the right wing spinner... (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, let's see: Social issues? Dean is pro-civil-unions, pro-abortion-through-the-third-trimester-without-p arental-consent, pro-affirmative-action. Fiscal issues? Dean wants
a massive tax hike, a massive new government medical bureaucracy, and increased spending. Foreign policy? Dean wants to pull out of Iraq before
reconstruction is complete, ``reach out'' to state sponsors of terror, and pay off North Korea.
In other words, I can only think of one issue on which Dean is anything but far left, and that's gun control, where he has indeed earned a perfect score from the NRA.
`down the middle'? I guess I'm just not seeing it...
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not at all true, and I have facts to back up my argument...
http://www.opensecrets.org/president
The impact of unions and PACs has been negated by the McCain-Feingold prohibition against soft money donations to candidates and parties.
Re:Now, if Dean would just (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Interesting but doesn't wash (Score:3, Informative)
What about other countries? America is virtually alone in having only two viable political parties. Most of the rest of the world's democracies have more, and some have embraced a much more dynamic multi-party coalition form of government. Was their "cost of information" a lot lower?
I think the author's analysis discounts many other factors. American politics is affected by American's much weaker community affiliation, propensity for movement, high economic mobility, etc. Under these conditions the cost of information may be important.
In countries where (for instance) tribal or religious ties are strong, you could lower the cost of information/political organizing all you want and have no significant effect.
Then again maybe I should be over on k5 with this...:)
Re:Nah. (Score:3, Informative)
So that's taken care of.
Re:Lots of small donors (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Interesting but doesn't wash (Score:3, Informative)
Here in the UK, you end up with huge amounts of tactical voting. People might like Labour, but prefer the Liberal Democrats, and dislike the Conservatives, but if they perceive that the seat is Conservative vs Labour with LDs trailing, they will not choose who they want, but who will defeat who they don't want.
Then, there's the issue of "safe seats". If you live in somewhere like Henley or Huntingdon, and you don't support the Conservatives, is it worth voting? Your vote doesn't count for shit because they have such huge majorities in those seats.
Also, it creates a huge disparity. No-one chases the votes of people in Henley. They are more interested in the votes of people in Worcester. Opens up huge potential for jerrymandering.
Re:Dean is Bush's best hope (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The end of the (non-)religious right? (Score:1, Informative)
Washington Post, September 14, 2001 [washingtonpost.com]
The bait and switch(medicare boondoggle) (Score:1, Informative)
President Bush signed the Medicare "reform" bill Monday. The event got
lots of attention. Less noticed, but reflective of what is wrong with the bill,
is that John Scully will take a new job next week.
Mr. Scully has run the Medicare program in the Bush administration. Over
the past few months, he was a key part of negotiations that produced the bill.
As The New York Times reported last week, all during that time he was
discussing job offers from firms representing clients that had major
stakes in Medicare legislation. Mr. Scully hasn't said which of five offers he
will take.
As is typical for those caught exploiting a public position for private
gain, Mr. Scully defended his action, saying he had consulted the ethics
office at his soon to be ex-employer, the Department of Health and Human
Services. Supposedly, department rules forbid government employees from
discussing an "official matter" related to prospective private employers.
The five firms seeking Mr. Scully's services represent, among others,
medical trade groups, drug-makers and health insurers. Medicare would seem
to be an "official matter." But HHS gave Mr. Scully a waiver to work on
"matters of general applicability like the Medicare reform bill." Why? HHS
would not show the waiver to the Times.
So, is Mr. Scully's job search why HMOs will get help from the "reform"
bill before the seniors on whose behalf supporters of the legislation were
acting? Could it be because, as the liberal group Public Citizen reported, a
company that operates HMOs and is run by one of President Bush's 2004
"Pioneers" -- people who have raised at least $100,000 for his campaign --
would get $14.2 billion extra over the 10 years of the legislation?
Just in time for the holidays, Americans will see regular disclosures that
undermine the myths Mr. Bush and others have been spreading about the
benefits to seniors and to the country from the Medicare non-reform bill.
The administration cleverly has focused on the fact that seniors will start
getting their discount cards next year, when Mr. Bush will be on the ballot.
After the program starts officially in 2006, however, seniors will start
paying more in premiums, face higher deductibles and get less
prescription-drug coverage. Based on budget numbers, The Associated Press
calculated that by 2013, the deductible and the size of the coverage gap --
set to be $2,850 in the first year -- will increase by almost 80 percent.
Want to buy a "Medigap" policy? That won't be allowed.....[snip]
It would have been helpful if the man who runs Medicare had had the
program's welfare as his priority. But John Scully and "reform" supporters
were worried more about those who profit from Medicare, not those who depend on it.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/au
Coase amnd Open Source (Score:2, Informative)
There's a great paper applying Coase's framework to explain the sucess of Open Source software.
It's available here [benkler.org].
Anyone who wants to understand why open source works should read it.
South Park Republicans? (Score:3, Informative)
An interesting interpretation is that many non-religious-right GOP members are "South Park Republicans". I would call them Libertarians who don't know it. Maybe the Libertarian Party should buy some commercial airtime on Comedy Central during "South Park" and "Tough Crowd"?
"South Park Republicans"
If Republicans are so different from mainstream America, then who voted for them? The nation has more Republican congressmen and state governors than any other political party, plus control of the White House.
The answer could very well be the "South Park Republicans." The name stems from the primetime cartoon "South Park" that clearly demonstrates the contrast within the party. The show is widely condemned by some moralists, including members of the Christian right. Yet in spite of its coarse language and base humor, the show persuasively communicates the Republican position on many issues, including hate crime legislation ("a savage hypocrisy"), radical environmentalism, and rampant litigation by ambitious trial lawyers. In one episode, industrious gnomes pick apart myopic anti-corporate rhetoric and teach the main characters about the benefits of capitalism.