Apparently, Gov. Howard Dean’s extraordinary fundraising success

is due to the Internet. In a broadcast email (read

full text here), Mike Weiksner, Chairman of e-thePeople,

writes, "It started out last December when a small cabal of online pundits

started posting supportive commentary about a relatively unknown candidate, Dr.

Howard Dean. These pundits posted their commentary on ‘blogs’." The next

step was Dean’s launch of a campaign website,

which described his positions and requested donations. "Then, www.meetup.com

got involved. Meetup.com hosts informal get-togethers for like-minded individuals,

and offered to help Dean to link supporters together." Finally, MoveOn

held its unofficial online Democratic "primary," which Dean won. Mainly

as a result of these events, he is first in fundraising, having raised $10.1 million

in 2003. He is a leading candidate instead of a protest vote.

Whenever

someone scores a political success by using an unconventional tactic, it is natural

to ask whether the change will last and whether it will benefit or harm the political

system overall. But it is important not to generalize hastily from the first candidate

who uses the new methods. For instance, an insurgent leftist candidate could invent

a tactic that is ultimately used most effectively by mainstream conservatives.

Furthermore, novel tactics may play out very differently once they’ve become routine.

Thus I think we should be cautious about predicting the effects of a new tactic

or technology on the political system over the long haul. But I’ll risk some guesses:

• Campaigns that successfully exploit peer-to-peer networks and advanced technology

  will have highly educated, youthful, reasonably affluent constituencies. I do

  not know the demographics of Dean supporters, but it stands to reason that young

  urban techies would gravitate to a politician who is socially liberal, fiscally

  conservative, anti-war, and conspicuously educated. ("Dr. Dean," the

  newspapers call him.) It wasn’t Al Sharpton who won the "blog primary."

• If

  these tactics work, they will benefit independent candidates who have little or

  no institutional base but who take unconventional positions—to the disadvantage

  of organized movements such as unions, churches, and parties. Dean is a quirky

  guy from a small and quirky state; his success contrasts starkly with the troubles

  now facing Rep. Dick Gephardt, an urban midwesterner who gradually built support

  in unions, his state and national party, and Congress. As a general matter, I

  think that average people (those without special skills or capital) desperately

  need such organized institutions to represent them. Therefore, it may not be a

  good thing if someone like Howard Dean can easily beat someone like Dick Gephardt

  by using new technologies. (And I say this as someone who would probably vote

  for Dean over Gephardt on the issues.)

• These tactics will work best in

  multi-person competitions with small numbers of voters. In such races, a candidate

  can stake out an unusual position, capture a small but energetic constituency,

  and come in first. In contrast, two-person races, especially at the national level,

  require mass mobilization. Blogs and peer-to-peer networks don’t have the necessary

  reach. Imagine that Dean won the Democratic nomination on the strength of the

  Internet. I believe he would be crushed by George Bush, who has a party and other

  organized political movements behind him. In fact, Bush has raised three times

  more than Dean this year, relying on just a few fundraisers. One could argue that

  blogs and peer-to-peer networks will grow until they are truly mass phenomena.

  I doubt it. Their growth will be limited by shortages of education, background

  knowledge, and motivation.