>Max, I have an alternative hypothesis - the level of bullshit remains
>constant in all of the above.
>That hypothesis is informed by the theory of organizational isomorphism
>(cf. DiMaggio, Paul and Walter Powell, 1983, The Iron Cage Revisited:
>Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization
>Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2):147-160.). In short this
>theory says that organizations tend to become more alike to each other
>because of isomorphic (or homogenizing) forces; on of such key homogenizing
>forces is the professionalization of the organizational cadres, as th
>eprofessional tend to mimick each other to implement what they perceive a
>"successful model" as well as to implement standard models they learn
>through professional training.
>That hypothesis received substantial empirical support. A good example is
>hospital industry where standards of professionalism override any potential
>difference that may come from the legal status (public, nonprofit,
>forprofit) or denominational character of the institution.
>Political parties are organizations - and the level of bullshit depends on
>the level of professionalization of their cadres. As political parties
>become more and more professionalized, their level of bullshit becomes the
>same - regardless of their explicit ideologies. This is so, because
>profesional activists have been processed through that meat grinder aka
>educational system that forces the same pulp fiction into the minds of the
>subjects, forces them into the same mold of thinking considered 'standard'
>(cf. policy analysis, giving 'equal weight' and 'balancing' of diverging
>points of views, quantitative jargon, etc.), kills originality and
>imagination. At the same time, college and later professional
>organizations offer a peer bonding experience aka 'networking' - not just
>fraternities, but the fact of attending the same institution. As a result,
>professional cadres have much more in common with each other (regardless
>which party they work for) than with the constituencies they are supposed
>to represent.
>Professionalization of cadres can explain the isomorphism, and the same
>level of bullshit, among Soviet-style communist parties. I think the
>Soviets pioneered international professional political organizing (they
>probably learned that from the Catholic Church) by sending cadres of
>formally trained professional organizers to their satellite countries.
>That explains the monoculture of communist parties that many educated
>Westerners so much resented.
>The point is, however, that Ivy-League, law-school, policy-analysis
>processed professional cadres instill the same monoculture to various
>organizations they staff or lead - only that their monoculture, schmoozing
>style, shibboleths and jargon are diffrenet from those developed by
>communist party cadres. Same principle - different style.
>>From that perspective - all political parties become more and more alike,
>regardless of their ideologies and constituencies. Just as Blairs,
>Schroeders and Jospins are carbon copies of each other and their boss
>Clinton, so are their professional cadres, and their respective
>organizations. I am pretty sure that profesional cadres of, say, the
>Republican party in the US and, say, Labour Party in the UK or Social
>Democrats in Germany are much closer to each other than their
>constituencies. In the same vein, a union bureaucrat has more in common
>with a corporate bureaucrat than with the rank and file. I would venture
>as far as saying that professional organizers of, say the Green Party in
>the US would not have any major problems switching to, say, Republicans -
>if offered a chance (meaning: professional networks).
>To summarize, professionalism is killing political discourse and driving a
>wedge before "old style" party politics and constituencies.
>Professionalism is transforming political parties into political machines
>full of professional jargon and newspeak aka "bullshit" and "spin." And as
>all political parties become professionalized, their level of bullshit and
>spin is more or less the same - regardless of the political ideology
>(window-dressing) or constituency (milking cow).
>BTW, that supports you original claim that both Doug and Louis would make
>poor cadres of the communist, or any other, party.
>best
>wojtek