Larry Lessig: I'm All In
theatlantic.com
Larry Lessig: I'm All In
1–10 of 167 posts
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#2> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point?
Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever.
> But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two of the other Democratic candidates,
“More viable” meaning that when you add up the poll numbers for Lessig plus those other two candidates, the percentage rounds to zero. Likewise they have no budget, no endorsements, a tiny donor base, no institutional support from the Democratic party, no grass-roots campaign organization, etc. etc.
Lessig’s approach to politics is to shout “HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT ME! I don’t have any experience or support, and I haven’t tried to engage with the political system before, but vote for me because all those other guys are corrupt!” That works if you’re a billionaire with universal name-recognition like Trump, running in a primary with a bunch of weak other candidates, targeting primary voters responsive to knee-jerk racism and insults. Lessig isn’t Trump though.
In the 2014 midterm elections his PAC raised a moderate amount of money mostly from Silicon Valley VCs, threw it at a handful of congressional races, and had absolutely zero impact on anything.
Seems like it’s not working out this time either.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#3> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others. Now the strongest contrast in substance is the priority that I give to democratic reform. This difference should then press an obvious question for every other candidate: How do you expect to achieve what you are promising without this reform? And if you believe this reform is necessary, then why isn’t it your first priority?
But in all these words he never gets around to explaining how as President he would actually make the reform happen, other than saying it'd be his "first priority" and (twice) that he would "work with Congress."
Oh, is that all it's going to take to completely upend the deeply entrenched systemic power of elites who are richer than Croesus, Larry? We just need a President who wants it bad enough, and is willing to ask Congress for it nicely? Huh.
I bet Barack Obama wishes he'd thought of that. All this time he could have just gone down to Capitol Hill, clicked his heels three times and made the Koch brothers disappear! Who knew?
Lessig is such a paradox to me. His heart's in the right place, he's clearly earnest, and he's managed to accomplish some remarkable things, like Creative Commons. But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways that are so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so high. It's Mr. Bean Goes To Washington.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#4> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…
The sad thing is that in some ways Trump is actually better at making Lessig's pitch than Lessig is, because while Trump is a clownish, racist buffoon he does have one thing Lessig completely lacks: charisma. He knows how to deliver a line, how to work a crowd. Those are important skills for a politician!
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#5> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…
The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters, and the funders. And there is a very small group of people who give > 50% of all campaign cash and more or less have control over the entire country. This is why common sense laws that have majority support from the voters (gun control, marijuana legalization etc...) never get the traction they should. The funders don't want them, and they have the final say, not the voters. It's crazy how complacent people have become about government incompetence.
The becoming president and then resigning thing was weird. I'm glad he's dropping it, because you can hate the method all you want, and I too think he comes off really distant out of touch sometimes, but what he's saying needs to be heard.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#6It'll be interesting to hear his foreign policy. He's probably the smartest guy running, and the least corrupt. That said, I'd have a hard time voting for someone whose only official job is to be the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and whose only platform is to be a placeholder representing the concept of reform. I want to know how he's gonna handle {the Middle East, Russia, etc.}.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#7> This change now sharpens the difference between our campaign and the others. Now the strongest contrast in substance is the priority that I give to democratic reform. This difference should then press an obvious question for every other candidate: How do you expect to achieve what you are promising without this reform? And if you believe this reform is necessary, then why isn’t it your first priority? But in all th…
"But every time he wades into electoral politics he does so in ways that are so desperately naïve that they'd be funny, if the stakes weren't so high."
Same was said about a big-eared Senator from Chicago with a funny name, that gave a good political speech in 2004.
Lessig is trying to find a mix between himself, the platform, and the process. You need to be naive if you ever hope to solve any seemingly intractable problem.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#8I think many agree with Lessig's policies. But I have serious doubts he wants to get money out of politics. If his voting history's any indication, he wants the money in politics to be from a wider range of the population.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/lessig-lawren...
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#9> But it weakened the credibility of the campaign. Was I really trying to be president? Or was I just trying to make a point? Obvious answer: he’s just trying to make a point, the whole thing is a publicity stunt, and his campaign has never had and still does not have any credibility whatsoever. > But the result was almost no national media focused on a campaign that was actually more viable than that of at least two…
The thing is though, Lessig is completely right. Members of Congress spend 70% of their time raising money. They're not lawmakers, they're professional fundraisers. Think of a startup whose founders spent 70% of their time raising money, they would never get anything done. And since fundraising is now such an integral part of a Congressman's day to day, they have two classes of constitutes to think about: the voters,…
Okay, but so what? Lessig has no chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination, so his campaign basically amounts to hijacking the primary to promote his message. Even if that message is “completely right”, so what? You think if Lessig gets a seat at the Democratic primary debates, he’ll be able to convince the Republicans in Congress to reverse course on campaign finance? Fat chance.
The most likely way to improve things at the moment is to elect another Democrat to office, and hope that Justice Scalia and/or Justice Kennedy resigns within the next few years, and the composition of the Supreme Court changes enough to reverse the Citizens United case. Also, hope that the Justice Department under a Democratic president stays aggressive about promoting voting rights around the country.
Beyond that, the next big hope is getting Democrats back in control of the House of Representatives, which probably can’t happen until after the 2020 census, and only if the Democrats gain control of enough state legislatures to redraw fairer district boundaries.
Re: Larry Lessig: I'm All In
#10Oh boy. Looks like he'll have to show he can be president to get his reform passed... and otherwise his campaign hit a wall, what a surprise. My response: http://magarshak.com/blog/