The scions of Joe Trippi are at it again. They took down Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. From blogospheric chatter to fundraising coffers, people everywhere are electrified by this new form of political activism. Politics has changed little, but the modus operandi has changed a lot.
But to those who truly understand the power of distributed networks — that is, the potential that lies in our ability to harness what blogger Glenn Reynolds has called an “Army of Davids” — we should be a little saddened by what we are seeing, unless the opportunity presented is recognized.
Opportunity? There will still be big issues and partisan struggles after Iraq, and people will still want to effect social change through the political process. Tapping massive networks will still be one of the best ways to do it.
So why not just invest in the solutions? Why not mobilize the netroots to make social change happen now instead of using the channels of ordinary politics? And why not uncluster specific policies from party platforms through engagement?
Three obstacles to this opportunity come to mind: coalitional thinking, path dependence and righteousness.
Coalitional thinking is the tendency of human beings to identify with a group. Try getting a sports fan to change his favorite team. Indeed, partisan politics is very much an exercise not so much in social change, but in team sports. “My parents were an X, so I’m an X.” (X = Democrat or Republican) Sound familiar?
Path dependence is the phenomenon of an entrenched standard. We’ve been doing something for so long; it’s hard of thinking of doing it any other way. We are not used to thinking of improving our communities, helping the poor or getting something done through alternative channels.
But that’s changing. The term “social entrepreneurship” was barely uttered five years ago and we’re still stuck in a mindset of whoever is right should get to run the show. But why not try a host of ways to make social change simultaneously and let them compete
Righteousness is, of course, aform of raw emotion. People are galvanized by what they read on their favorite blogs and they get jazzed. They feel a part of a movement. If they feel they’re right, then everybody should be on board. Such emotions often blind us to alternative ways of thinking — whether on the left or the right.
Together, the trinity of factors that locks us into ordinary politics is a powerful force; perhaps an insuperable one. But what if we could overcome such difficulties and start mobilizing people to solve social problems directly, voluntarily, to simply to bypass politics? After all, the process is tremendously wasteful.
Every dollar we spend on getting our favorite candidate elected is a dollar that could have gone directly to organizations working for social change. Rather than direct community action, our habit is mass mobilization around political candidates with clusters of errant promises.
Of course, mass mobilizations costs scads of money. Our habit is mass mobilization around candidates who spend money on ads and consultants that could otherwise go to actually helping solve problems. And even when our candidates are elected, their noble ideas get watered down by committees, the media, the experts.
See the problem? Waste from stem to stern. Why not just exit ordinary politics and feed your enthusiasm, energy, and money into your favorite social change venture? (And if they don’t deliver, you cut them off).
OK, so even if one agrees ordinary politics is wasteful and that there might be a better way, a de facto system is in place. The rationale goes: If we don’t do it, our enemies will. This may be the prisoner’s dilemma of our time. I realize that it may be utopian to think that someday citizens will have more choice about the causes they support — with all the market dynamism that comes with choice.
I also realize that some things just strike us as public goods that should be offered universally. But I would challenge any reader to think long and hard about an alternative; for we may be able to unleash market forces on social problems we’ve always taken for granted as the government’s problems.
Max Borders is TCSDaily.com managing editor.
