Book Review: Interface

Whenever it comes to mixing technology, message crafting, and the presidency, people tend to get a little... hyperbolic. From The Manchurian Candidate to The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror, it seems that the entertainment industry is particularly keen on telling stories about how our leaders are probably out to kill us. However, when treated with a deft hand, this kind of storytelling can offer revealing look into the ways in which electoral politics can both free and enslave, depending on perspective.

Neal Stephenson and George Jewesbury's Interface presents a world in which mass media conglomerates plan to seize full control of the United States through a chip-augmented Illinois governor blessed with the power to perceive and adapt to any and all changes in public opinion. For political consultants, this sort of prediction would probably be met with either snorts of derision or shrugs of it-could-happen. With some of the sci-fi gee-whiz peeled away, Interface becomes an interesting examination of the reliance on a fetishization of political statistical analysis.

Interface highlights the worst habits of political strategists and marketers, like the temptation to view the public at-large as little more than poll numbers and demographics. It also serves as an reminder about the power and importance of grassroots involvement in politics. By breaking out of the typical, passive roles that they are often assigned, voters have the opportunity to affect real political change on their terms instead of being lead by the nose by powerful outside forces.

MAINTENANCE!

With the end of the semester fast approaching, I've taken down quite a few entries for tune-up purposes. I know leaving them up would make more sense, but it's easier to keep track of which ones I've gone over if I send them all back to drafts. So, eager fans, bear with me for the next week. After that, everything should be back to normal.

Political Video Tuesday - There are cameras in Florida, you know.

We all know of famous cases of Internet-fueled flaps that brought down both candidates and Congressmen alike. There was Trent Lott's race-tinged speech at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, or George Allen's unfortunate "Macaca moment" during the leadup to the 2006 midterms. During this primary cycle, videos of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright stirred up a controversy that resulted in what some call the most important speech on race in America in over half a century.

Now, we may have another smoking gun clip on our hands. This time, the issue at hand is the seating of Florida's delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Supporters of plans to rescind threats to not seat the state's delegation claim that, among other things, the Florida Democrats were essential bystanders, wringing their hands on the sidelines as their Republican counterparts hatched a dastardly scheme to push up the primary (comment 219 on the New York Times link sums up their case pretty well).

Then, this happened:



DailyKos has all the discussion you need, but I gotta ask: where's the anger towards the state party (the rightful target, if there is such a thing), and how long before this gets picked up outside the blogosphere?