The more things change, indeed! It is no surprise that those in power are the ones who know how to use the new technologies for the greatest power effects. This was true of Napoleon, Hitler, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, and the Bushes. We know, and vocally protest, the concentration of mass media and the cabal among hardware, software and content makers and how their continual efforts are corrupting the democratic processes, particularly in the United States (the stuff that keeps EFF busy).

We have reached a break-boundary at which the principles of Western democracy are reversing due to the intensification of conventional mass media. While the new tech will indeed empower a new segment of those who are adept with the new tech, one of the other effects we observe is the influence of the new tech on the old(er) tech. Again the Dean campaign is exemplary of this effect, in which the conventional mass media are picking up the story that is happening elsewhere.

But the influence is not limited to those who are computer jockeys: There are other social tech structures that bring with them analogous effects - SMS, for instance, that is tremendously influential in engaging masses of disaffected youth in relatively non-computer-saturated societies.

Technology is not a panacea; it never has been. But the history of the progress of democracy is the history of power shifts, and the history of power shifts can be read as a history of technology. So long as the power continues to shift every now and again, democracy has a chance of engaging all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.