I was interviewed on New Hampshire Public Radio last Friday about the
different styles of the Gephardt, Edwards, and Dean presidential
campaigns (see an imperfect
and incomplete text transcript or listen to the audio here.) Actually,
the reporter, David Darman, asked a very interesting set of questions
(which didn’t come across clearly in the broadcast radio segment) about
what conception of the role of citizens is implicit in each campaign.
My quotes suggest that I’m biased in favor of Rep. Gephardt, which
is not really true. I do believe that if he fails, it will be symptomatic
of the collapse of mass mobilizing institutions, such as unions and
political parties, that used to multiply the power of ordinary people
and connect them to Washington. I do not believe that the Gov. Dean
style of campaigning, which is very “21st century,” offers
an entree to people near the bottom of the socio-economic heap. They
won’t be mobilized by listservs, blogs, and Meetup.com. This is
not only because they lack Internet access and interest in politics.
It’s also because of the basic logic of collective action, which tell
us that people won’t take costly action in the public interest unless
they are assured that others will also contribute. Voting is always
partly an altruistic act, because even if one votes in one’s own self-interest,
it’s more “rational” (meaning self-interest-maximizing) not
to expend the energy. Disciplined organizations such as unions overcome
this problem by guaranteeing that not only you will vote; so will many
like-minded people. Meanwhile, they lower the “cost” of voting
by providing free information. Wealthy and well-educated citizens find
that the cost of voting is relatively low, because they already have
much of the necessary information. Thus they don’t need unions and parties;
and they are adept at using voluntary resources such as listservs or
blogs. Poor and poorly education people are at a disadvantage in this
environment, and their disadvantage is worse than it was fifty years
ago.