deaning Dean
The hardest yet most important thing to keep in focus about this presidential campaign is not the positions, but how the candidates got positioned. Dean is where he is because he used the Internet in the best way it could be used: to organize people around movement. That movement was born in his clear and strong message about the war. Some joined because of that message. Some joined because they believed anyone with such strength about that issue will show strength elsewhere too. Both groups started to organize around this long-shot candidate. Less than a year later, the long-shot is the front runner.
Dave urges the campaign to take one step further. As he writes, "Dean only reports to and about people who are already Dean supporters." He has a point (though I'll confess, they've never demanded a loyalty oath from me). I share the view that it would be something truly amazing to see it done well: Imagine these spaces reporting on and reporting to people other than Deaners. What should it look like? A blog with threads reporting criticism, with space for the criticism to be debated? Simple pointers to contrary views? At a minimum it should include bloggers on the bus who are not Dean bloggers. But what beyond the minimum?
I can well understand the hesitation. Campaigns are not about giving space to the opponent. And the key to Deans' successful use of the net is not the replication of /. for politics, but using the net to get people to do something in real space. Nonetheless, it would fit with the theme of this open source presidential campaign that forks are allowed -- indeed, encouraged -- as a way to demonstrate the commitment that remains.
In the buzz of disagreement about particular policies or particular quips, it is this that should be remembered: whatever the twist of views and positions is that carries one to 1600 Pennsylvania, there is only one candidate so far who has demonstrated a process that is different. And only one who has demonstrated a process that could translate into government that is different as well.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (25)
I'm waiting to see how many of the other candidates catch onto the weblog idea, and how many potential voters it actually entices. A certain part of me wants the blogs to become "fireside-chat"-esque, in that they would reveal a personal side of the candidates, but another part of me wants them to just deal with the issues. Well, like I said...we'll see how this all shakes out and who it really benefits next Nov.
Look at what happened with Dean's "confederate flag" comment. That was a well-intentioned off-the-cuff remark (in my view) that was savaged since it presented a good political target. No candidate who is serious is going to be honestly personally open in a bloggish ranting way. It's not their "business".
Dean's not a bad guy. But I'm far from convinced he's a very good guy either. I really dislike the odor of bubble-blowing around him. But I probably shouldn't get into that.
i like the idea of a blog reporting criticism with the criticism debated. If done well, I think it would be a great wealth of knowledge for people.
Groklaw has shown a way to organize an issues and have hold good and intelligent discussion on it. I would find it interesting to see that applied in other areas, like politics. Instead of just passively listening to what a politican says, you can actively take part in the discussion. Create a better sense of community through interaction and debate.
Of course, politics are one of those areas where people seem to have short tempers, so it could be easy for a debate to go downhill fast. I'd be interested to see that play out.
Although the idea of having an open discussion is an appealing one, it would not work on Dean's site. Simply, what would happen is.... Rush Limbaugh would send a bunch of dittoheads over to the site and any chance of a real discussion would be drowned out.
I don't know which is bigger news today for Dean's campaign: Al Gore's expected endorsement, or these words of praise from Lessig. It appears that, within a 24 hour span, Dean has garnered support from the guy who "invented" the Internet, and the guy who revolutioned our thinking about it. What a coup.
There are already plenty of places on the internet to have discussions. Blogging by/around a candidate would necessarily focus on the candidacy itself. A campaign is not going to dedicate valuable resources to either fostering or managing criticism. As Professor Lessig has said, the point is not to recreate Slashdot.
The advantage of using the net right now in campaigns (other than a fund-raising tool) does not seem to be that a huge variety of ideas will flow to the candidate. [Heck, Dean was unable to find a meaningful position on intellectual property while he was blogging here in an ocean of good ideas about it.] I believe the internet will change politics when it comes to organization, voter turnout, feedback (eventually software tools will turn the internet into a giant focus group), and the customization of campaign messages to specific interest groups. (Just as Amazon tells me when a new sci-fi novel is out that it knows I will like, one day, a campaign will remind me that their guy is in favor of free trade - and by the way, his opponent is a supporter of the DMCA...)
Gore to Endorse Dean:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/politics/campaigns/09GORE.html
"Gore to Endorse Dean, Remaking Democratic Race
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JODI WILGOREN
Published: December 9, 2003
WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — Al Gore has decided to endorse Howard Dean for president, aides to the men said Monday, a move that rocked the Democratic presidential field and hastened Dr. Dean's evolution from a long-shot maverick to a leading candidate of the Democratic establishment.
Mr. Gore will announce his endorsement of Dr. Dean on Tuesday at events in Harlem and in Iowa, Democrats close to both men said.
[...]"
I simply do not believe that Dean would truly author the blog. His "people" would spend hours managing responses and twirling the spin. We'd see the sanitized and wholly PC version of the candidate as dictated by polls, PR flaks and assorted advisers.
Which...come to think of it...is what we see anyway.
I think you're talking about Daily Kos.
Or are explicitly talking about changes to the Dean blog?
Seth + deb:
Although I completely agree that we'll never see a major (presidential?) politician blogging in the sort of candid open way that many of us are accustomed to, I can't help thinking that blog-o-fying the job of the Press Secretary would be a good thing. Right now, what we see is a slew of press conferences where the media "pundits" get to ask questions, take notes, and spin as they see fit in the weekly press cycle. If, however, this were augmented by a more open system like, for example, the moderated question slashdot interviews, or simply a press statement followed by open discussion and perhaps additional commentary intersperced like we have here at Prof. Lessig's blog, I feel the process would be significantly improved.
As I read through these comments, it's funny to think how a candid blog by a presidental candidate would most likely be used again them. But there is something about this idea I like. And I wonder how is the Internet going to shape politics, if it will? It seems we are just at the beginning, the waters are being tested. But where will it go?
I don't have anything to contribute, I just like thinking about the possibilities.
I believe that Open Source Policy is critical and that Dean Team should go with the grass roots groundswell. Trippi gets it. I foresee TV advertising and pollsters taking over however. This would be falling into the trap of traditional mudslinging politics, which is revolting to voters. We all know the LIES that are perpetuated in 30-second sound bites; why indulge in the practice?
The Sunday NY Times Magazine article features our student pal Zack now working in Vermont. He reports to me his enthusiasm to keep the Open Internet issue rolling at Dean Team. He gets it.. And his software is going to take off. Someone on Lessig Bloog says something like: "Any candidate would be foolish to espouse a position regarding Free Speech on the internet." Are you kidding me? Why would you all listen to that reasoning?
I think it's crucial for rallying voters. I like Dave's comment:
"Dean breaks the number one rule of the Internet, he takes from the Internet, but doesn't give back. "
"Dean breaks the number one rule of the Internet, he takes from the Internet, but doesn?t give back. "
Come, come, he's a politician, and his focus is winning the election, not satisfying some endlessly navel-gazing internet pundits atwitter about (this week's) greatest media revolution in human history : the blog; nor the slashdot crowd
I think Dean's blogforamerica.com is halfway to where you want to be. It links news stories right in the body of the official blog and could link to anything the administrators want to link to as you read and you can link or not as you choose. It also has associated bloggers like dKos. I read and link constantly to get lot of different opinions and artlcles and read the Dean comments which are an eclectic mixture of serious ideas of supporters and the fluff you complain about But I get a kick out of the fluff because it is so spontaneous. I get a kick out of the worriers. It makes for eclectic reading too. Anyway, I even get a kick out of the trolls and the freeflowing discussion on dKos. I think you and the Dean boys are really onto something. I read it the deanforameric blog before I read the Manchester Guardian on the web every morning. As long as the campaign reads the comments seriously, the whole thing will evolve.
"he takes from the Internet, but doesn’t give back."
No? So far as I know he's the only candidate who's spelled out his Internet policy - and it's a good one:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=InternetPrinciples
Any candidate who argues in favor of the "end-to-end" principle is a candidate who is "gets it," imho. Not talking about this stuff on TV at this point in the campaign is a tactical decision, and not necessarily a bad one...though I definitely think this page should be easier to find on his website.
A very good point. But what do those internet principles mean in terms of policy if he never mentions them? I could post the Ten Commandments on my website and say, "This is how I view morality." OK... but if no one can discern those principles in my words or deeds, what does their posting mean? I guess we'll have to wait and see if the principles lead to platform planks.
The message has to fit the audience. When you're talking to unions, you talk about issues labor is interested in. Everybody who's interested in Internet issues is on the Internet, so I don't think it's a problem if he doesn't discuss it on TV.
As for deeds...the decentralized way he's running his campaign, and the fact that he's even distributing open-source software, says a lot I think. It's a far cry from the more controlled, "on-message" campaigns we usually see...definitely an implementation of Principle 5, at least.
Based on that, it looks to me like he really believes the stuff in those principles, since he's staking his campaign on them...I see that as a more important indication than whatever gets stamped as part of the official platform.
OK - but I'm not going to vote for Howard Dean to show my support for changes in how campaigns are run. I'd vote for him to show support for changes in how America is run. Sure - it would seem logical that his campaign's use of the Internet during the campaign would lead to greater concern about the Internet in other areas. But given a big chance to showcase these kinds of concern (by blogging here) - he said little of value. (You'd think he'd show some respect to Professor Lessig and at least take a position on the Eldred Act. )
While Dean certainly is ahead of other candidates in this area - I have yet to see a bold policy statement based on his principles. At this point, I only have evidence to believe that Joe Trippi "gets it" - but alas, not the Governor himself.
p.s. The only technology-related comment I've heard him say on TV was at the CNN/Rock the Vote debate in Boston, where he said that he was a PC guy and not a Mac guy. This disappointed me and the ~250 Dean supporters around me at a nearby bar. I'm sure Trippi (a linux guy) must have winced.
"I only have evidence to believe that Joe Trippi gets it"
Good point, but it applies universally. It's painfully clear, for example, that Bush himself didn't believe a lot of the words his campaign manager put in his mouth in 2000.
Yeah, it'd be nice if Dean could kick back and chat about all this stuff. But he seems the best of the major candidates on these issues.
It's pretty unlikely that Dean will have a position on Eldred any time soon. He always took policy matters pretty seriously in Vermont--as a matter of fact, he is something of policy wonk. He doesn't discuss policy details on the stump, but he has a reputation for doing it in private. If Dean hasn't had time to read the Eldred case and mull it over, he's not very likely to have an opinion.
On the other hand, Dean certainly has a history of listening to his advisors, so the Net Advisory Net is a good sign. There's no guarantee that he'll ultimately agree with this group, but every scrap of evidence suggests that he will listen to them and understand what they're saying before making up his mind.
Ooops. Here's the correct reputation link. I haven't quite figured out the comments on TPM yet.
I really wonder whether, in fact, Dean or his people are smart enough to figure out the economic and cultural benefits of a free culture. (Or more accurately, if they are smart enough to figure it out in the very small of time that they will spend thinking about it).
When Sen. Edwards blogged here - I tried to switch on the lighbulb in his head by comparing the benefits of letting drugs go generic (which he understands through the senate health committee) to letting other intellectual property into the public domain. I also tried to link the economic benefits of a free culture (more IP-related goods produced) to his concerns about unemployment and competing in an international labor marketplace. But there was no sign he understood.
It's possible Dean will see the internet as a fantastic fundraising and organizational tool - but miss the incredible potential possible when you combine pervasive Internet connectivity with a forward-thinking intellectual property policy. I hope he gets stuck in an elevator with someone who reads this blog! :-)
There's a lot of evidence that Joe Trippi gets it already, but the real kicker will be to learn what they have planned around using the net and technology tools as instruments to get out the vote. The real advantage of unions has always been primarily in the fact that their organizations rent vans and organize getting people to the polls on election day. OK there are other things they have done, but getting out the vote cannot be underestimated.
Standing against that is the fact that a LOT of the projected $200M plus that will be in the Bush coffers is not simply for TV and such, but to build an infrastructure, precinct by precinct, that will give Republicans a similar ability to convert intentions into action.
If Trippi and the gang can trump that by layering on a massive grassroots campaign to go along with the traditional union (and other community group) campaign on election day, that will be something to behold.
All this by way of saying that in terms of the internet and policy, at this point I am more interested in seeing action. Action becomes evidence to be deliberated and acted upon later. It makes the democratic and the cultural impacts of the internet and other new technologies real enough as experiences. I'd rather see that than a million bold policy statements. Because without the experience, any statement on the subject is partial, tentative, and subject to the natural wind shifts of any campaign.
I think it's great what Dean is doing to slowly change the process of politics, but us Internet folks have to be realistic about how unimportant the Internet issues are to his election. Appealing to swing voters in key states is the critical issue for him. It's easy to say that he 'doesn't get it', but we have to accept that he has to appeal to a very specific audience of swing voters if he is to have any chance at the White House.
I am sure he will do whatever it takes to get in. If he does get in though, we will all have big expectations of how he is going to take his ideas for an Internet-based democracy forward.
We sawed not all things; any of others can afford it! In the beginning, I followed others behind silently. When I have no blood, he gave me a lot rappelz rupee!