>>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