After the very charitable reading we gave Rheingold in his conclusion, the point of distinction between the two seems to become substantially smaller. The read of Rheingold that seemed to have currency framed his alternative as a resistance strategy derived from a close personal attention to particular issues, which really isn't that different from the issue based politics that
get spelled out in Dean's conclusion.

As for the quote about ideology, Dean runs an argument that ideology, particularly the ideology of publicity is sustained by fantasy. This then is derived from the particular definition of ideology that Dean is appropriating from Zizek in the Sublime Object, which might inform our discussion of ideology. Of particular interest should be her argument that communicative capitalist ideology is without hegemony. This ideology is different then from ideology that we have read about thus far as the central organizing principle for this system of thinking is best kept secret and is an instance of the title.

Page 8- "fantasy, then, covers the gaps, antagonisms, inconsistencies, and lacks that pervade the social field."
Page 9- "fantasy is the social unit that animates belief in the public."
Page 17- As theorized by Slavoj Zizek, ideology refers to the "generative matrix that regulates the relationship between the visible and the non-visible, between imaginable and non-imaginable, as well as changes in this relationship" (this is a quote of a quote)

This book is running arguments against a few highly pronounced fantasy structures of the public.

Here are a few questions that might frame things about the conclusion:

Practically is there any real difference between the issue linkage paradigm that Dean proposes and the political systems proposed by the other authors we have read? To put this in practical terms, did the DNC try this strategy in the last few presidential elections and fail?

Is Dean beating a dead horse by going after Habermas?

--dan