March 12, 2003

Emergent democracy and money politics

Adina writes about emergent democracy and political fundraising.

It’s important to remember that fundraising is a means to an end for politicians. The end is buying votes.

What happens when people organize in opposition to a politician, either through modern means or traditional ones?

My first response was “each vote gets more expensive.” That is, the politician needs to work harder to get enough votes to win. Strong opposition to money-grubbing politicians could simply result in more money-grubbing. This nicely accords with the wisdom that, in a crisis, creatures do what they’re accustomed to doing, only moreso.

On further reflection, though, I’m not sure if that’s how it would work. If the opposition can be neatly compartmentalized and seems to be monolithic within that pigeonhole, the politician might logically reason “well, I’m not going to bother trying to reach group X. I’ll save my energies for groups Y and Z.” In which case, the opposition could be doing the politician a favor, by allowing him to target his message more accurately. He’d get more bang for his buck.

If the opposition appears to be very broad-based or the race is very tight, only then would a politician respond “Damn those Xists, I need their votes, I’m going to have to throw them a bone.” I wonder how often this would actually happen. If a politician came out against pie, the “pie is good” coalition would certainly be broad-based. Anything short of that, and I expect opinions would be more fragmentary.

Of course, a politician’s strategy team could make mistakes: it could read the opposition as being broader or narrower than it really is, in which case it would pick the wrong strategy. The trick here for any opposition would be to appear as broad as possible (which is generally true anyhow).

That’s how things look from the politician’s perspective. How do they look from the public’s perspective? Organizing can have a polarizing effect: it can help people crystallize their opinions and causes opposition groups to accrete. But this works both ways: can also cause the other side to organize and work harder.

Name dropping

A couple people suggested that I should go to Bruce Sterling’s for the post SXSWi party he was throwing. Although I prefer to get invitations from the host, I decided to show up anyhow. After all, he lives just a few blocks away…

Being there was sort of like being at a wrap-party for a Hollywood blockbuster, only all the celebrities are geek celebrities, not beautiful-people celebrities. Ben Trott and his lovely wife Mena. Anil Dash, who I spoke with for a bit. Cory Doctorow. Dan Gillmor. Probably lots of other people I should have recognized but didn’t (at one point, Anil buttonholed some former Pyra employee to corroborate a point about features for Blogger Pro that existed in the beta but were dropped from the final). A little while after I got there, Gwen joined me.

Gwen and I chatted with Rebecca Blood at some length, and told her details of the construction of the house we were in–I had never been there before, but had seen it under construction. We talked about 37th Street, right around the corner, where I used to live.

In one of Bruce Sterling’s earlier novels, The Artificial Kid, the story opens with his protagonist surrounded by a swarm of his own tiny, flying cameras; he edits the footage of his life down later and makes it generally available (as do, apparently, many of his peers). Although this bears a vague resemblance to a certain popular activity today (cough-blogging-cough), what recalled this to my mind last night was seeing a trashy-pretty woman approaching the Sterling residence with a tiny digital camera in hand. She was holding it high and shooting pictures of herself as she walked up.