I post this as a counterpunch to the piece posted earlier written by Norm Solomon.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20040308&s=greiderDean's Rough Ride
by William Greider
In forty years of observing presidential contests,
I cannot remember another major candidate brutalized so intensely by the media, with the possible exception of George Wallace. Howard Dean contributed some fatal errors of his own, to be sure, but he also brought fresh air and new ideas, a crisp call to revitalize the Democratic Party and at least the outlines of deeper political and economic reforms. The reporters, as surrogate agents for Washington's insider sensibilities, blew him off. Dean's big mistake was in not recognizing, up front, that the media are very much part of the existing order and were bound to be hostile to his provocative kind of politics. To be heard, clearly and accurately, he would have had to find another channel.
<snip>
OK, the doctor stuck his chin out, and he got his head knocked off. "Politics is a dirty business," as Hunter Thompson used to say.
The Dean campaign--and the candidate himself--failed to define the man and his agenda on his own terms before the media and his rivals defined him, on theirs, as a one-note ranter. (The campaign did try, I know. Back in the fall, when I was invited to contribute ideas, Joe Trippi and others emphasized the need to go way beyond the Iraq war and lay out a far-sighted reform agenda. A few speeches were drafted, but by the time they were delivered the onslaught of attacks by the rivals and daily "gotchas" by the press was already under way, blocking them out.) I am reminded, by contrast, of the great communicator, Ronald Reagan, who early in the 1980 campaign began broadcasting content-rich commercials--the Gipper talking straight into the camera, articulating his views on government, enterprise, the welfare state and other big subjects--educating the public one-on-one, without filters. My hunch, only a hunch, is that Dean and his staff were beguiled by their own press clippings and poll ratings into thinking they would have plenty of time later (after they swept Iowa and New Hampshire) to flesh out their portrait of the man, and what he believes about the country's potential. Never happened.
<snip>
Despite the spectacle of his cratered campaign, Howard Dean did accomplish something real for democracy. First, he confirmed the existence of an energetic, informed dissent within the husk of the Democratic Party. An amorphous force, to be sure, but I do not think it will go away. Don't hold me to the numbers, but one campaign veteran told me 70 percent of the citizens on Dean's much-admired computer list are over 30--a broader base than the stereotype. On the other hand, 25 percent of the money contributed came from people under 30--impressive too. The Dean campaign demonstrated, most dramatically, that people can make their own politics via the Internet and elsewhere by raising lots of money from outsiders, i.e., mere citizens.
<snip>
What the Dean campaign clearly did not accomplish (in addition to formulating a smart countermedia strategy) was to find ways to develop the flesh-and-blood relationships that can become enduring building blocks in politics--de Tocqueville's "associations" or labor's "collective action." The Meet-Ups are a rough start. MoveOn.org is an impressive organizing engine. We may be witnessing the early stages of small-d democratic renewal, in which people impose new technologies and new social realities on tired old institutions. As Howard Dean's rough ride reminds, established power, including the media, will resist change tenaciously. But the doctor may yet be remembered as the herald of something new.
My comments are below:
I find this article immensely more informative and deep-thinking that Norm Solomon's take on the "internet bubble collapse" and his critique of "non grassroots".
I think Greider lays out a case for calling the Dean Campaign "grass seeds" rather than "grass roots" and although I am not entirely sure I agree, I can see his point.
Finally, in the paragraphs I snipped, you will find a pretty definitive case made for the argument that Media savagery and insider gamesmanship had a LOT to do with the campaign's stumbles and ultimate losses and suspension/demise.
Fire away.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(509 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
