Spengler's article [Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard
Dean, Jan 13] was entertaining as usual, but with
all due respect I think he would do well to actually
engage in some research of his own before penning his
next composition. I would happily overlook the fact that
he seems to rest his entire case on a single puff piece
from the Gray Lady, but for the fact that this
particular analysis is remarkably shallow, particularly
in a publication noted for its perspicacity. To begin
with, it's worth mentioning that comparisons between
allegedly suicidal organizations and failed dotcoms are
rather old-hat on the Internet. Too, it appears that
Spengler has mistaken an article about a particular
office full of people for a representative description
of Dean supporters as a whole. It appears not to have
occurred to him that it's not merely failed dotcoms that
look like that, but most any modern network operations
center. If the presence of pale, high-strung youngsters
fiddling with computers and spouting jargon in rooms
full of fan hum is his measure of a suicidal
organization, I suggest that he withdraw his money from
the bank immediately, because he'd find plenty of them
there as well. If Spengler had had any contact with the
people who actually comprise the foot soldiers of the
Dean campaign, he would have rather a different view of
both their demographics and their prospects. If Asia
Times Online's new idea of incisive analysis is to have
its writers read a single New York Times article and use
it to draw a conclusion so facile that it undoubtedly
already has its own corollary to Godwin's Law, I shall
be very disappointed. DA (Jan 16, '04)
I am afraid
Spengler has been over-awed by the loose lady from New
York who has just eviscerated her editorial staff to
cover up her part in the Bill Clinton scandal. The old cliches were trotted out
about the dot-com bust and the [youth's] over-hyped
approach to the Internet bruited about by a member of
the five aliases of old money: the ultra-rich, the
corporations, the financial markets, the media and the
Republican/conservative/libertarian [parties].
Spengler's review of Spenglerian and Nietzschean
nihilism and applying it with sophisticated arrogance to
the American scene goes back to a superstitious, less
populated time with a great deal less wealth in terms of
technology. What we are seeing today in the US is a
relatively ignorant group of corporate executives who
are conniving to take over the government without any
real understanding about what technology has done to the
world they are operating in. They have sufficiently
concerned the people at the levels of real power that
Warren Christopher and Robert Reuben, to name two, have
stepped forward to try to head off a catastrophic debt
crisis. Something that Spengler misses is that this is
an age of information that we are all adjusting to and
too much of what he says is too facile and not well
enough researched. It is too easy to dismiss the
American yokels with a lot of their unsophisticated
blather and call that a representative discussion. As
with other writers, I include Spengler's writing with a
lot of other information I get on the Internet where
previously I was limited to the paucity of news by
highly biased media. William Bishop, Sr Oregon, USA (Jan 15,
'04)
I used to enjoy reading
Spengler. He seems to have some knowledge of history,
literature, and a wide range of other subjects. He
sometimes has interesting, if weird, ideas. However, his
latest article on Howard Dean convinces me that he's
just "lost it" [Jan 13]. Spengler says, "The Democratic
Party is engaged in a form of mass suicide reminiscent
of Stone Age peoples." He speaks of "existential
despair" in the same article as the Dean campaign. Does
he have the slightest idea what he is talking about?
Does he know what Dean is actually saying, what Dean
stands for? Does he know why people support Dean? Does
he live on the same planet as the rest of us? Dean is
the only candidate who has new ideas, high intelligence,
integrity, and the drive and enthusiasm to wake up all
the people who have switched off from "politics as
usual". He's a breath of fresh air in American politics
gone stale. He has the ability to appeal to a wide
spectrum of the United States population. He certainly
has the ability to win the next election. He's the next
Kennedy, the next Lincoln, the next Jefferson! Spengler,
please do me a favor. Dust yourself off, get up and open
the curtains, forget about that third pink gin, stop
taking whatever it is you're taking, and realize that
this is 2004, not 1954. When you've done that, go to
Dean's website (that's a place on the Internet), and
read what he actually has to say. Mark Snegg USA (Jan 14,
'04)
In Spengler's Dean essay I
would like to know what "standard-bearers of American
popular culture" are. In a previous article I thought
you said we [Americans] had no popular culture ... I
don't think that making an analogy of the traditions of
the Internet and a 10,000-year-old tribe is significant.
Do we now have cultural evolution and revolution every
20 years? Too much is made of the wish of cultures to
[commit] suicide on Asia Times Online, from Germany and
Europe suffering declining birthrates to this
political-suicide article. The crux is that [US
President] George W Bush has inspired and polarized the
American electorate. Historically election turnout is
less than 50 percent. Hopefully a politically inspiring
and interesting runoff will inspire more people to vote.
Dean could win if he inspires that 50 percent to vote.
Plus he's better than Jewish [Senator Joe] Lieberman,
war-rigid [Wesley] Clark, and other centrist candidates.
By the way, Spengler, good articles, each seemingly
designed to outrage my sensibilities more, excellent
writing! Brian USA (Jan 14, '04)
The
very real phenomenon that Spengler fails to grasp in his
article Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean
[Jan 13] is that the Howard Dean campaign has amassed a
lot of money through use of the Internet. The
unfortunate truth is that money is very important to the
current electoral process in the USA. Howard Dean and
Senator [John] Kerry are the only viable Democratic
Party oppositions to Republican President George W Bush,
as they have refused US federal matching funds that
would cap the amount of money that could be spent in any
election against the very well-funded Bush. The money
generated via the Internet for Howard Dean is neither
speculative nor ephemeral, it is real money that can be
used. Spengler's analogy is really a non sequitur. Also,
the Internet is being used both as an information tool
and a real money generator in Dean's case. Dotcoms were
the objects being traded speculatively during the tech
bubble. Defeating Bush will be difficult. There is a
definite ideological rift in the USA. But, as was
pointed out in the article correctly, the majority of
the people voted for the other guy (Al Gore) in 2000
(Gore has endorsed Dean). Bush won the 2000 election
both narrowly and controversially. Right now, nine
Democrats are fighting amongst themselves to see who can
run against Bush. This process really begins January 19,
everything so far is just positioning. But Dean is
clearly someone to be reckoned with. If Dean does run
against the president, I think pundits like Spengler
will eat their words. When the focus is on Bush policy
and not that of Democratic contenders, the tune will
change to a defensive one by the White House. Dean is in
a strong position because he, more than other leading
Democratic contenders, has opposed Bush policy more
vehemently than others. Steven Kalavity USA citizen residing in Chiang Rai, Thailand (Jan 13,
'04)
Spengler doesn't like Howard
Dean. Fair enough, everyone's entitled to his opinion.
But his preposterous comparison of Dean to [Palestinian
leader Yasser] Arafat and [Zimbabwean President Robert]
Mugabe in his column is a political hate speech at its
worse. It should be vigorously disowned by Asia Times
Online immediately. Richard Einhorn New
York, New York (Jan 13,
'04)
Your editorial concerning the
supposed political suicide of the Democratic Party
through its embracing of Howard Dean displays an almost
comic sense of being sorely misinformed [Electoral
politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean, Jan 13]. It's
obvious that your editors just don't get the Dean
phenomenon. The Internet allows Dean supporters like me
to organize, communicate, fundraise, and feed off each
other's energy, but it is hardly an end in itself, and
it is not a recipe for escaping twentysomething ennui.
As a 51-year-old husband and father of two, I can assure
you that I am not supporting Howard Dean because of the
Internet, but because of who Howard Dean is and what he
represents. His appeal is entirely rational, honest and
refreshing. No other candidate comes close in eliciting
this kind of grassroots political activism. Media
outlets such as yours have been behind the curve
regarding Howard Dean since he was a mere blip on the
political radar, and apparently you have yet to catch
up. It is understandable that you're tempted to put Dean
in a familiar box, but be warned: Howard Dean is a new
kind of politician and the movement that he represents
is a brand-new way of gaining power. Don't think of the
dotcommers; think of the Berlin Wall suddenly coming
down. Once Howard Dean is elected our 44th president,
books will be written about this campaign. Jeff
Tarbell St Louis, Missouri (Jan 13, '04)
Surely you jest!
So many words that say so little with such air-headed
sincerity. So many paragraphs of opinionated folderol.
If you have become the tea-leaf reader of the Internet,
Spengler, perchance a new type of tea would be in the
offing? I am a supporter of Dr Howard Dean. I have been
a lifelong Democrat. We have seen a lot of politicians
come and go. But with regards to Dr Dean, you ain't seen
nothin' yet! But keep a little, yellowed copy of your
free-balling rant in your glove box, Sparky! Take it out
again in 10 months and reprint it if you are right, or
wrong. If you are right, I will gladly pay for the next
bag of whatever tea you use. And if you are wrong, you
can shove it (as we say in Texas) where the sun don't
shine! A J Franklin Clear Lake City,
Texas (Jan 13,
'04)
One would believe from reading
Electoral politics as mass suicide: Howard Dean [Jan 13]
that Spengler is against the presentation of the
Internet in politics. Surely that is not the case. If it
were, he would not be writing political articles via an
Internet newspaper. The "existential despair" mentioned
in the article is his and that of the Republican Party.
They have failed to "visualize the world as an enormous
fair ... [to] seek out kindred spirits at light-speed
... [thinking it] all quite silly". Politics is the
seeking out of kindred spirits, whether by physical
grassroots, mailouts, advertisements, or the Internet.
There is no getting around the fact that Dean's campaign
has shown the populace that this is the new wave in
effective campaigning and the first position:
grassrooting - much to the stunning shock of his
opponents and opposing party. Now, who "does not wish to
adjust to the world as its exists"? V Iloff Houston, Texas
I was disappointed to
read Spengler's editorial suggesting that Howard
Dean's supporters are committing electoral suicide
because "in a rational game, both political parties
would converge on the political center in order to
maximize their likelihood of victory, as George W Bush
and Al Gore did in 2000." That strikes me as an
uninformed view of that election. Bush got the support
he did because the core believers of his party, people
who will contribute, knock on doors, and stuff
envelopes, were motivated to support him. Bush won his
party primary because he was the most conservative
candidate, and has been radically conservative in
office. But though even the most liberal factions of the
Democratic Party favor Howard Dean, Dean himself is not
especially liberal, as would be easy to find out. Dean
is successful because he has best read the mood of his
party's voters, and correctly read the temperament of
the Bush administration. The other major candidates,
having shown neither of these tendencies, have failed to
demonstrate why voters should pick out-of-touch and
easily fooled people to lead them. Natasha Washington State, USA (Jan 13, '04)
Your article on
Howard Dean suggested we, as his supporters, were
committing some form of subconscious suicide and
characterized us all as under-30 dotcommers. First of
all, the latest polls here [in the US] show that [George
W] Bush is only leading Dean by single digits in a
head-to-head match-up. Dean's numbers against Bush are
better than any of the other Democratic candidates.
Therefore, Dean is currently the most electable
candidate for president. Also, [Bill] Clinton trailed
the elder [George H W] Bush in 1992 by 20 percentage
points at this time and went on to win the election. It
is too early in the race to write off Dean. Second of
all, we come from all walks of life; we are not all
under-30 computer whizzes. My dad, who is in his 60s,
will also vote for Dean. While many of us [supporters]
are young, many of us are also older, married, and have
regular jobs. We are a diverse group of people who have
been brought together by a common goal of ending George
Bush's reckless unilateralist foreign policy, making
health care more affordable for all, improving
educational policies, and ending Bush's
corporate-welfare policies. We feel we can make a
difference by voting for Howard Dean in 2004.
Jesse Stark Maryville, Missouri (Jan 13, '04)
Dec 17, 2003
No
material from Asia Times Online may be republished in any form without written
permission.
Copyright
2003, Asia Times Online, 4305 Far East Finance Centre, 16 Harcourt Rd,
Central, Hong Kong
