James F. "Jim" Moore

Kaye Trammell is one of
the nicest folks out there.  She studies celebrity, and
celebrities blogging, and so forth. She is also a public affairs
officer in the Navy Reserve, and gave an appreciative link to my piece
last night about the Open Source Naval Intelligence blog.

Speaking of celebrity, I wonder if those who are becoming celebrities
in the blogging world could give more thought to their own new found
power, responsibilities, and opportunities to help others.  My
sense is that there are a number of folks who could do with a bit of
personal ethical reflection (myself included).  We need to do some
thinking about our individual and community values, and what sort of
future we want to create for ourselves.

You can laugh about the ethics of Hollywood and hip-hop-wood and so forth, but “real”
celebrities are encouraged to think about their celebrity-hood, and the
best one’s make something positive of it.

Almost 20 years ago in 1984 Stevie Wonder spoke (yes, spoke) at Harvard Law School,
invited by the graduating class.  He talked about attention, and the special
energy, borne of attention, that comes to celebrities and how, fair or not, it brings real
power to a few individuals in our society.  For him, attention
came to him as “Little Stevie Wonder” at age 12. 

When fame strikes, Stevie said, each of us have just three
choices.  We can reject fame, in which case eventually the world
turns away and the power of celebrity-hood goes away.  We can
accept fame and use it’s special energy for our own selfish ends. 
Stevie Wonder noted that doing this usually drives the person insane. (Hmmm, so that’s what happens..)

Or we can accept fame but consciously turn it’s energy around and give
generously to others.  We can become redirectors of energy. 
In the blog world, I suppose this includes redirecting of “flow.” 
And it also means using our leadership opportunities to build the
community, not to build just ourselves and our allies.

Remarkably, Stevie Wonder’s talk is available in Quicktime video at the WGBH web site. It is also available in audio on RealAudio at the Berkman  Center site.  I recommend it highly!
 
For a current example of the third path, check out Missy Elliot’s refreshing path to celebrity in today’s NYT.

I think that Dave’s recent concerns about “working together” are
concerns that blogging community celebrities embrace their leadership and find Stevie Wonder’s
third path.  BTW, not easy for Hollywood stars, not easy for Dave, and not easy for any of the rest of us–stars or not.

Just in case you missed it, because I’ve been blogging like a maniac, I’ve an earlier post today on political participation, “Ten dollars and a whole lotta love,” and the Howard
Dean campaign.

Here is an interesting question: If a political candidate could get all
the financing he or she needed from 100 donors, should the candidate do
it?  If the candidate had the technology to get the financing
instead from several hundred thousand or even millions of people,
should the candidate do it?

I recall a friend who is a major liberal donor saying with nostalgia
that “back in the good old days you could go to just three or four
people and have the funding for a presidential run.”  Eugene
McCarthy’s campaign in 1968 is the classic example, funded by Stewart
Mott and a handful of others.

Now, hmmmm.  McCarthy didn’t do too well.  Neither did
McGovern.  What if the reason, in part, was not that they were too
liberal for the times, but that they relied upon too few donors? 
And as a result did not connect with enough people, and did not allow
enough people to become connected to them?

Going to a few donors is easy and sweet–perhaps too easy.  Even
today, there are a few kingmaking fundraising networks that Democratic
candidates can go to for help.  But perhaps this is a mistake for
the candidate.  Clark seems to have signed up for a club of
professionals.  He has a great web team, but it is not absolutely
necessary to his fundraising–it is sort of a sideshow.  And
Clark’s reportedly doing well on money, but not doing well in terms of
connecting with people.

Kerry is relying on a small network of big donors, and may end up using
his own and his wife’s assets.  And he feels pretty disconnected from the people.

Edwards had an early “lead” in fundraising from fellow trial lawyers,
and he has spent the most of any of the candidates on TV ads in
Iowa–and he is doing very poorly there.

In the 2000 primary, Republican Steve Forbes used a great deal of his own money, and didn’t get too far.

By contrast we have Howard Dean, who has been absolutely dependent on a
large network of small donors, particularly in the early months of his
campaign.  And he feels highly connnected to people.

By the way, and perhaps most important, it is the Republicans and
George Bush who have the largest networks of small donors. 
Hmmmmm.  And while people like me may not think that Bush &
Company are in touch with reality, no one can say they aren’t in touch
with their base of voters.  Karl Rove’s network is very connected.  Hmmmmm.

Maybe the network is the thing.  And maybe the small contribution is the most important.

Maybe politics is like a mosh pit.  You have to do a sequence of
ever-expanding trust falls, and find out if you will be held aloft by
the crowd…