Item one: Marc Ambinder reports that Barack Obama has set a record for single quarter donations to a Democratic candidate: $31M from 154,000 new donors.
Items two and three: Andrew Sullivan links a National Geographic story on ant behavior to libertarianism, and, in a separate post, lauds Arab and Chinese youth activists who are joining forces in a new Internet campaign calling for the release of imprisoned Chinese bloggers.
Sullivan's connection between ant behavior and libertarianism has to do with the complete lack of political hierarchy in an ant hill. There's no one in charge, and yet there's an extreme level of complex organization. Where does it come from? It emerges from the relatively simple behavior of individual ants, and the interactions between them--much like an ideal free market.
The National Geographic story describes the use of this form of group organization in robot design, computer programing, and in species such as fish, birds, and mammals:
In biology, if you look at groups with large numbers, there are very few examples where you have a central agent...
The bottom line is that a group, taken as a whole, can do better decision-making (even in very complex situations) than any individual or subset can.
So what has that to do with the Arab and Chinese bloggers, and Barack's fund-raising?
The connecting theme is decentralization of power.
I've written before about the advent of kings, and the human race's "fall" into hierarchical culture here, and here, and here. The problem is simple. We have made the mistake of thinking we are better off with one person, or a small group, making all the key decisions for us. What we've neglected to consider is the problem of guaranteeing that those people are both wise and selfless. (Or how much damage can be done, how quickly, when they aren't)
Democracy is a good start, but it can't carry the whole load. We need to find ways for humans to participate in the larger process, and for that participation to make a difference.
Barack's incredible fund-raising comes from very small donations by a lot of people. If it continues, and he is elected, he will be beholden, not to a handful of wealthy elites, but to a mass of average voters. He will have to keep his ear to the ground. (That's a good thing, by the way. Look where Bush's disdain of polls has brought us. Saying "I don't listen to polls" is, in effect, saying "I feel no need to represent the people who elected me.")
The Arab and Chinese bloggers are leveraging the power of the internet in defense of on-line free speech. They are counting on the response and cooperation of others to pull this off. So not only their goal (free communication is essential to sound group decisions), but also their methods are tied up in decentralization.
We are at a kind of crossroads. The growth of corporate power, the revival of religious fundamentalism as a political tool, the globalization of the world's economy, improved techniques of surveillance and control—these could make the world's flirtation with freedom during the last couple of hundred years into a final gasp before a return to slavery.
On the other hand, there are signs, like those above, that the human race may figure it out after all—not in a think tank somewhere, but as free, social individuals, working together.
At least, that's what I think today.
