Barack Obama has eloquence (a.k.a. "just words") and has obviously struck a chord among many voters (a.k.a. "the cult").
These things some find disturbing. (e.g. Sen. Clinton and Paul Krugman) The idea that voters would be excited about someone's words and have gotten the idea that they, too, might have some influence on their country's future and political life by:
- Voting,
- Making small contributions and
- Volunteering
is apparently so rare that even persons over 50 can't seem to remember
a time when such a thing seemed possible.
In fact, 1968 may have been the last time something like this seemed remotely possible.
That year, Eugene McCarthy shocked Lyndon Johnson by making a credible showing in New Hampshire, prompting Johnson to decline to run for re-election and Bobby Kennedy to enter the race.
Eugene McCarthy attracted a lot of young people, as did Bobby Kennedy, many of whom showed up outside the Democratic Convention that summer. Kennedy's assassination, along with Martin Luther King's and the "police riot" which greeted the young people at the Democratic Convention were all contributing factors to the sense of cynicism, if not heartbreak, that many of us felt that year.
What was different then, and different even up until 2004, was the way money is mixed into politics in this country. Up until now, people with a lot of money to contribute, either directly or indirectly, wanted to have more than the one vote the constitution guarantees to them. George Bush's "Pioneers" (i.e. those who raised over $100,000 for Bush) weren't satisfied with the one vote they are entitled to cast in the ballot box. They wanted to continue voting when particular issues came up, like tax policy and war policy.
The ordinary citizen, being no idiot, knew that s/he was being outvoted because s/he was being outspent. And this outsized influence was not limited to the presidency, or to one particular party.
What Obama's campaign has done is to bring the influence felt by money more in line with the influence which is felt by a vote. His appeal to a large number of small donors has greatly reduced his dependence on and need to pay attention to large donors. On the other hand, if he is going to win, he needs the votes, money and time of a large number of people.
So, if he wins, he will owe his election to those small donors, each of whose donation is the rough equivalent of one vote. It is in their cumulative effect that they have power.
This also means that, if he wishes to continue to be effective, (and be re-elected) he will have to pay attention to those small donors, who form not only his political but his financial base.
This same model is one that helped many Democrats win in November, 2006 and is made possible by the magic of the internets. Obama has been able to garner the kind of financial support he has by making sure those who come to hear his "mere words" leave their email address. Later, after being contacted, they "vote" with small contributions and their time.
If anyone is unsettled by this, it is only those who are unsettled by democracy. What Obama's campaign has done is to demonstrate that technology has a way of by-passing or leap-frogging problems. And it has the potential of making campaign finance reform less urgent.
If a candidate with genuine appeal can raise a sufficient amount of money to run a campaign from ordinary voters, all in relatively small amounts, then it seems to me that person will have a greater chance of beating someone who has the support of major financial interests, with or without a decent message.
What Obama's campaign has also shown is that the potential of raising money from small donors is not enough. You have to have something they want.
So, Message + Small Donors + Internet = Democracy 2.0