On Change

Responding to TforA's post on change, replying to my post on change below:

John says: "I think 'change' includes a major shift in technology, even if the same types of candidates continue to win. Thus, if the success of the Dean campaign induces all future presidential candidates to make heavy use of the Internet, it's fair to say that he 'changed' the nature of campaigning even if the results don't change."

Change clearly does include technological shifts. Our differences in perspective aside, it's important to clarify the issue of causation. Even if, after the Dean campaign, elections are changed in some dramatic way (which we don't think they will be), it's important to recognize that it was not Howard Dean doing the changing, but simply Dean who rode the wave of technology most successfully. Furthermore, technology is always changing - the candidate who can use technology most effectively will have (but always has had) an advantage over the others. Dean was certainly not the only one using technology. The Bush campaign had very active support during the campaign by folks at Blogs for Bush. Each of the candidates had websites, e-mail lists, online coalitions of supporters, etc. Hype for America acknowledges that online campaigning will continue to increase in prevalence, but with the realization that elections with an online component still have the same priorities, goals, and political channels of power that they always have had.

Continuing, John says: "Once financial resources are less of a barrier to participation in politics, people who were previously excluded from the political process will become involved. People who posted on Dean's blog knew that thousands of people around the country, including higher-ups in the Dean campaign and perhaps Dean himself, would read and respond to what they had to say. When Internet access is nearly universal, there will be more room in our system for candidates who are not beholden to the wealthy."

The fundamental question here is whether someone will one day be able to rise from the blogosphere and rally enough support to win a national election. Even if the internet did lower the barriers to participate in politics, real world factors will always be crucial. Real world resources (i.e., cash, connections, etc.) buy influence and power in the real world. TforA supports Trippi's argument that "a candidate who can get $100 each from two million Americans will be able to compete with candidates funded largely by the wealthy." The fundamental flaw here is that the candidates funded largely by the wealthy can also get $100 each from two million Americans".

The Internet is Yet Another Political Forum. The netroots groups can benefit greatly from the lack of participatory transaction costs. But so will the wealthy, the elite, and the established. Each will benefit from the new forum and exploit its benefits.