Ed Rendell, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said of the Tea Party movement, “It reflects what people feel, but the actual movement itself has no infrastructure, has no ability to bring a lot of people to key sites at key moments in time." This statement shows both why the Democrats as a whole don't understand the Tea Party movement, and why they don't understand economics. He is basically being dismissive because it wasn't organized from the top-down by some person or committee of people. He thinks that, in order to have a large number of people show up in one place at one time, you have to have some central organizer -- but what he doesn't seem to realize is that the internet has contributed to decentralized organization probably more than any one thing in history. All you have to do is have the Tea Party members connected to each other in a network, and they can self-organize and show up anywhere you want, whenever you want.
Of course, the reason why a Democrat cannot understand this is precisely because they don't understand how the economy works, either. The economy works as a self-organizing system, meaning it is decentralized and doesn't need anyone to control it. The Democrats tend to think that the economy requires control and, thus, controllers.
My hope, in the meantime, is that the Democrats don't come read this blog and learn the truth of how the Tea Party organizes and why it's in fact so powerful and efficient. They need to learn that only when it's too late.
5 comments:
Did Rendell say anything else, perhaps in a linkable format?
I'm not sure what I think about the Tea Party. I agree in principle with their organizing strategies and dislike of government intervention in the economy. However, I find their rhetoric can be tiresome and their tone paranoid. Also, some of their spokespeople (Santelli, for example) just rub me the wrong way. There's something in their eyes that I don't like or trust.
I read John O'Hara's book, which was heavy on the formulaic polemic but otherwise OK. He seems sensible and fairly moderate.
It was in an interview with someone at Foxnews.He said immediately after that comment that he could get 100,00 people to show up to strengthen laws to protect puppies. Which, again, misses the point of the Tea Party's strength.
What you're going to find in the Tea Party is what you would expect to find in any self-organizing system: paradoxes, messiness, inconsistencies, contingencies, etc. That's how you know it's not centrally organized or planned.
I hear on some news outlets, 'without a clear leader, the Tea Party will never become a strong influence or will not last as a movement.' Media top down thinking at work. They think that all things have to have a command element. Command economy, command parties, and command media is their creed. Look at the failure of the Reform Party. Good example of a command party movement that failed.
I think the great Bard himself summed up the zeitgeist of the Tea Party movement: full of sound and fury and signifying nothing (except their own sound and fury).
Do you seriously think that the Tea Party movement has any real answers to anything, or that they somehow provide the key or impetus to the renewal of USA culture.
If anything they are a movement that is looking for scape-goats. That is someone to blame for their situation. How many bloodied heads will roll remains to be seen)
And yes they DO have a lot to be angry and frustrated about.
Why not read Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt instead. Or The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America (remember the Savings and Loan Scandal)
The Tea Party seems to be taking out everyone -- left and right. I think that is a good thing. There is no question that ideas are important -- as per Judt -- but not in the top-down fashion people think. It works more in a trickle-down fashion, then rising from the bottom-up. Ideas only matter when they reach the average person.
But I would say that they are right to look for someone to blame for their situation. The blame lies in every leftist and welfare statist who has had an influence on political economy. Twenty years ago it was the fall of communism -- now it's the fall of the welfare state. Good riddance to them both.
Post a Comment