Left In Lowell

Bloggers Are Special Interests Too?

10 Responses to “Bloggers Are Special Interests Too?”

1. Mr. Lynne Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 9:36 am

   “[Disclosure…the cat metaphor was a work of fiction. Names, cats, locations, and events are used snarkily and are the product of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual bloggers (living or dead) is entirely coincidental.]”

   You left out: ” … or actual cats…”.

2. Tim Little Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 11:56 am

   Lynne: Great work!

   Frankly, I think the general term “interest group” is sufficiently broad as to be completely meaningless in the context of a democracy. After all, isn’t the democratic process about looking after our individual and collective interests to one degree or another?

   However, when I think of “interest groups” I do think of organizations like the NRA, NOW, NAACP, ACLU, unions, etc. — and also corporate/industry lobby groups. I don’t think there’s any way one could conceptualize the blogosphere — even the “progressive” blogosphere — in the same way. That’s like saying all citizens belong to a citizens’ interst group. Well, yes, we do: we call it a democracy.

   Just thinking here — and I’m not even sure of the extent to which it’s true — but perhaps the only issue on which the progressive blogosphere might possibly be construed as an “interest group” is on the subject of net neutrality. But even then, how is this separate from the larger democratic process?

3. Tim Little Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pm

   Heh…. Another way of thinking of “special” interests, I suppose, is as any interest to which one does not personally subscribe (e.g., blogging is a “special interest” to non-bloggers; gay rights are a “special interest” to homophobes; civil rights are a “special interest” to people who are uncivil….)

4. Lynne Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pm

   Interesting point about net neutrality, Tim. One thing that I think seperates unethical lobbying from citizens petitioning their government is the method.

   For large corps, etc, the method is only money. Money to buy access in whatever way is allowed at the time (and some not - *coughDeLaycough*). They don’t have large grassroot advocacy because, frankly, not only are they big and powerful and don’t need to cultivate it, but there’s no groundswell of support for them. In so far as they DO have activism, like with the US Chamber of Commerse, they pool their money, and I’m sure there’s a pretty high percentage of people who are paid to be activists for orgs like that.

   On the other hand, citizen groups (environmental, etc) do depend on a groundswell of support from the public, both for donations and for activism (calling Congresscritters, protests, whatever) so are more like what you called “citizen interest groups.” Now, conservatives love to say that the NRDC is as bad as the K Street lobbying firm working for Microsoft, but even the largest, most influential of the citizen groups are still more ground-based and grassroots than corporate lobbying. And the influence very large citizen groups weild (with very few exceptions) is tiny compared to their corporate counterparts.

   This is largely why when thinking about lobbying the government, I have much more sympathy with citzen groups than corporate ones. Because they need to continue to gain the support of their members (if NRDC started advocating for logging I think they’d lose support pretty quick) and they usually (without corporate help anyway) only grow large enough to influence policy if they represent the views of a lot of people, not just a tiny minority, I feel like they are a better componant to democracy than monied interests.

   Now, special interest citizen groups can become seriously myopic, such as when NARAL endorsed Chaffee - despite the fact that his retention of his seat might mean the Republicans would keep the Senate and pro-choice would still be threatened - and that’s a very real problem. They are like silos standing in a field, with no horizonal cross beams to make them stronger.

5. Lynne Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm

   LOL nice, Tim!

6. Tim Little Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm

   Agreed on all counts, Lynne; another example of “corporate personhood” gone awry when a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation is considered on the same playing field as Mrs. Jones down the street. (Apologies to Deval — that was the first name that came to mind.)

7. Tim Little Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 7:48 pm

   Perhaps not coincidentally, I just read this in Barack Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” (p. 116):

   “I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the term ’special interests,’ which lumps together ExxonMobil and bricklayers, the pharmaceutical lobby and the parents of special-ed kids. Most political scientists would probably disagree with me, but to my mind there is a difference between a corporate lobby whose clout is based on money alone, and a group of like-minded individuals — whether they be textile workers, gun aficionados, veterans, or family farmers — coming together to promote their interests; between those who use their economic power to magnify their political influence far beyond what their numbers might justify, and those who are simply seeking to pool their votes to sway their representatives. The former subvert the very idea of democracy. The latter are its essence.”

   Yep; that pretty much hits the nail on the head!

8. Lynne Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

   Wow, I had thoughts similar to Barak’s? Well, that just made my day. My weekend, even.

9. Matt Says:
   January 14th, 2007 at 11:36 am

   Ah. Sounds like a case of the esprit de l’escalier.

10. Matt Says:
    January 14th, 2007 at 11:38 am

    |
    V

    …as I mulled that afterwards on my way to work, I came up with all sorts of responses I would have liked to have said.

Leave a Reply