Our recent discussions in class, and topics covered in readings, talk about how the Internet, social networks and advanced technology are changing everything. It's almost romantic, the fetishization we've layed on Google, the unyielding belif we've placed on social networks. You'd almost think that these new institutions could make everything right.
But, some things remain. In our discussion of Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's competing YouTube videos, we really didn't challenge the latent sexism present in the way we, and the media at large, scrutinized the two. When Shirky writes about the online cell phone recovery saga in the first chapter of his book, even he has to address the race and class issues that cam into play in the story.
So, while the Internet is a totally new frontier, some of the same -isms we've been dealing with for centuries have seeped into the Web. We shouldn't blame the net for it. But we shouldn't act like these things still aren't there.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
On Talent in Politics
In class we've been talking a lot about what makes a candidate succeed. A lot of this discussion has focused on Barack Obama's ability to galvanize the netroots in securing his historic victory. While the idea that the Internet played a large role in electing Obama, I think that we may put too much emphasis on the means and not the (wo)man.
If Barack Obama had the same online prowess he had, but the charisma of John McCain, he would have lost. If Hillary had the same online operation Barack had, she probably still would have lost. At the end of the day, the personal charisma, appeal and gravitas of an individual is the single most important factor in their election. Because that's what makes people want to join their online campaign. That's what makes them buzzworthy. That's what gets them votes.
Obama's netroot victory was a result of his political ability. As was his electoral victory. I feel that we mght have spent too much time in class glorifying new online fundraising and organizing models, not because they so completely changed electoral politics, but simply because we think these things are really cool.
At the end of the day, politicians must make compelling stump speeches, volunteers must knock on a lot of doors, and GOTV drives have to do a lot of what they were doing 30 years ago. Recognizing the changes new media and the internet has brought to the process is important, but we must not be blinded by the glossy appeal of social networks and intricate online databses. Poltiicians still win elections, as they always have.
If Barack Obama had the same online prowess he had, but the charisma of John McCain, he would have lost. If Hillary had the same online operation Barack had, she probably still would have lost. At the end of the day, the personal charisma, appeal and gravitas of an individual is the single most important factor in their election. Because that's what makes people want to join their online campaign. That's what makes them buzzworthy. That's what gets them votes.
Obama's netroot victory was a result of his political ability. As was his electoral victory. I feel that we mght have spent too much time in class glorifying new online fundraising and organizing models, not because they so completely changed electoral politics, but simply because we think these things are really cool.
At the end of the day, politicians must make compelling stump speeches, volunteers must knock on a lot of doors, and GOTV drives have to do a lot of what they were doing 30 years ago. Recognizing the changes new media and the internet has brought to the process is important, but we must not be blinded by the glossy appeal of social networks and intricate online databses. Poltiicians still win elections, as they always have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
