WP: Campaign.USA
With the Internet Comes a New Political 'Clickocracy'
By Jose Antonio Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 1, 2008;
....Just as MySpace and Facebook change the way we communicate, just as YouTube alters the way we entertain ourselves, just as eBay and iTunes modify the way we shop, the Internet is transforming the way we engage with this never-ending presidential campaign. Like it or not, we now belong to a clickocracy -- one nation under Google, with video and e-mail for all.
Want to find a candidate's position on home foreclosures? In the past we scoured the newspaper or found the phone number for campaign headquarters and placed a call. Now we Google "John McCain," "Barack Obama" or "Hillary Clinton" and drown in the information flood. Want to give money to a candidate? These days all it takes is a credit card and three clicks -- once on the home page, then on the "donate" button, then on "submit." That's much easier than writing a check and making sure you have the right address to mail it to, and certainly more accessible and egalitarian than attending a black-tie fundraiser at the Capital Hilton. No wonder, then, that Clinton and Obama collectively raised $75 million online in February, roughly $2.5 million a day. If politics is money, there's a new bank in town.
Want to create an anti-Obama Facebook group or a pro-McCain video? Who's going to stop you?
This interactive medium is rebooting the first three words of the 220-year-old U.S. Constitution for the 21st century. Online, "We the people . . . " takes on a whole new meaning.
* * *
There are some who question the impact or the value of the new online politics. Andrew Keen, author of "The Cult of the Amateur" and critic of the YouTubing, Facebooking, Wikipedia-ing masses, says the Internet's role in the campaign is "mostly hype, personality-driven, the 'American Idol'-ization of politics." If the Internet is indeed having "great impact," Keen reasons, Ron Paul, the Republican Party's Internet rock star, would have won the nomination. Obama, who's greatly benefited from his online popularity, "would have been successful without the help of the Internet anyway," he says. Then Keen slips back to his general assessment of the medium. "The problem with the Internet is it's the opposite of nuance," he says. "It's media with a hammer."
Keen, however, is in the minority.
For many, the Internet has ushered in an irreversible and seemingly seismic shift -- not only for voters but also for candidates. Sure, the Web, like TV, has its limitations. A campaign's online strategy can't single-handedly win an election any more than its TV ads can. Still, the Web's impact has been profound. For instance, running a serious campaign means raising a serious amount of money. Without the Web, the relatively unknown Obama would have been unable to mount such a strong challenge to the more prominent Clinton. Nearly 60 percent of the $193 million that Obama has raised so far in his campaign -- about $112 million -- came from online contributions, with 90 percent of them in amounts of $100 or less.
"What we're watching is an evolution away from Washington's control, away from the power that big money and big donors used to have a monopoly on," says Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and former Senate majority leader. Adds Richard Viguerie, often called the "funding father" of the modern conservative movement for his effective use of direct mail: "The establishment, the power structure, the Karl Roves, are losing control of the process. There's a new center of power developing."...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102856_pf.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
