Crashing the Gate

Associated Articles 2

My Blog's Bigger Than Your Blog

PsycCRITIQUES, American Psycological Assocaition

By William D. Crano

January 2007

When this review was written, you owed approximately $29,000 that you probably did not know about, but it is your share of the U.S. national debt of $8.5 trillion. Luckily, the value of the dollar has dropped precipitously over the past few years, so it is not as bad as it might have been. Imagine if those dollars had held their value. The earlier regime, the tax-and-spend liberals, had generated a trillion dollar budget surplus. In the space of six years, the current regime of fiscal conservatives has stemmed the surplus tide. In fact, their stemming efforts have been so successful that the U.S. Congress was forced to adjust the debt ceiling to $9 trillion in March 2006. This ceiling leaves us a bit of breathing space, but not much. As Senator Everett Dirksen said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money” (U.S. Senate, n.d.). For those with even a passing acquaintance with logic and recent U.S. political history, these apparent political party role reversals might cause consternation, confusion, or at least some complex mental acrobatics. The surplus-deficit figures are factual. Their causes are controversial. In this book, the authors investigate these causal explanations, along with a host of other questions, issues, and Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green, 2006. 198 pp. 1-931-49899-7 (hardcover); 1-9333-9241-X (paperback). $25.00, hardcover; $12.95, paperback answers. For example, they wonder how a political party can prevail after it has abrogated one of its central fiscal principles, begun a seemingly interminable war on the basis of evidence that was at best wishful, failed miserably to respond to one of the country's major natural disasters (and that failure continues in New Orleans today), slashed $15 billion from school aid (leaving yet another five million children behind), alienated most of the country's friends, stirred the hatred of all its enemies… the list could go on, but the question remains, How could such a party hope to prevail? In Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics, Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga provide answers to these and many other questions in this fascinating, impassioned, and zealous presentation.

The authors are not dispassionate scholars—their book begins with “Five years ago, the Republicans took over the government through nondemocratic means” (p. 1). Whether one agrees or disagrees with their statement, it is a fair guess that their opening line will not fail to attract attention. This is not a bad thing. Contrary to what one might expect on the basis of this opening, the Democrats do not get off lightly. This, too, is a good thing, as it balances what could otherwise become a very onesided presentation. The authors' litany of Republican sins of commission and Democratic sins of omission will provoke the former and depress the latter, but the élan with which they formulate their arguments make this an interesting, if for some, disheartening read.

The authors are progressive bloggers, one of whom was instrumental in Howard Dean's run-up to the Democratic presidential nomination, a run that imploded on the cold plains of Iowa with a hearty “yee haw.” Today, they work on two of the most popular progressive blogs, MyDD and DailyKos, which they founded. The insights of these young men enlighten and enliven our more traditional understandings. They suggest that a major shift in the political landscape has occurred and that the Internet will prove to be the engine that powers our political system in years to come. This change will result in a more representative democracy, they argue, and will help to reestablish a revitalized Democratic Party's control of the legislative and executive bodies. Some of this may be wishful thinking—the Republicans have bloggers as well, and some of their constituents know how to use the Web. However, although not new (see Selnow, 1998), the contention that the Internet will revolutionize the Republic is beyond argument, and the authors' experiences in the blogosphere will serve as a useful guide to anyone who wishes to transverse this heretofore terra incognita.

What does this book have to do with psychology? Lots. Although the authors do not appeal to the scientific literature in fashioning their predictions and interpretations, their observations of the political scene are ripe for applied psychological analysis. Consider their critique of the established Democratic Party apparatus that seems wedded to the same political consultants, many of whom have failed miserably and consistently. Their view that the Democrats still act as if they are the majority party is well taken. Have you noticed any change in their standard electioneering tactics? We know from years of social influence research that the minority cannot effectively persuade with tactics that work well for the majority. Yet, many in the Democratic Party appear to hew to the old ways when Congress and (often) the White House were in safe hands. Nostalgia is nice, but is it worth losing all three branches of the government?

Advertently or not, the Republicans have made better use of scientific principles that psychologists have worked so hard to unearth. They understand that message repetition alone is not particularly persuasive. Multiple sources of information—Web, radio, newspapers, television, even the pulpit, all play a role in the persuasive arsenal of the Republican machine. Their message is generally consistent across the party, in contrast to the conflicting one-issue debates that often swing the deliberations of the Democratic Party. In the last general election, multiple information sources, spouting consistent messages, were not nearly as evident in the Democratic approach—an approach the authors found tied heavily to TV ads repeated time and time again. This sleep-inducing approach might have served a useful purpose for a portion of our overworked populace, insomniacs, except that the ads were broadcast on channels that most people were not watching. Much of the vast literature on targeting seems to have escaped most Democratic media consultants' notice.

When the message was delivered, was it effective? In large part, the nod again goes to the Republicans. Although the Bush camp has been accused of using the “big lie” technique—both McCain and Kerry were cowards, according to some of the ads that supported the current incumbent— the Democrats were feeble and late in their responses to these scurrilous and outrageous charges, and almost never took the offensive. Democratic ads did not appeal to individual selfinterest (which motivates action; Lehman & Crano, 2002); they did not create a coherent picture of the candidate; and they did not humanize the man who would become king (Kerry was not, after all, the candidate with whom most would want to have a beer). If they were selling deodorant, we would all stink.

We have known at least since Festinger's (1957) time that a little bit of commitment goes a long way, and how better to commit people to your cause than to have them contribute hard-earned cash to it? One might guess that the Democrats have an advantage here, in that the fat cats typically line up on the Republican side. That would be an incorrect assessment, at least of the Democratic Party as it has been in the past, dependent on few major donors and relatively few smaller contributions. Things are beginning to change with the netroots faction, a wired grassroots movement that promises to rearrange the political furniture in ways that are not yet immediately discernable. Political operatives may not agree with any of Armstrong and Zúniga's progressive positions, but they ignore this book at their peril. Their view of the future is not business as usual, but it probably is business as it will be.