Friday, November 16, 2007

American Forum

I attended American Forum, a panel discussion at my alma mater, American University on Wednesday night. The theme for the night was “From Grassroots to Netroots: The Impact of the Internet and Other Media Technologies in Campaign ’08.” The panelists were:
  • Cyrus Krohn: director, e-campaign division, Republican National Committee

  • Josh McConaha, internet director, Democratic National Committee

  • Jeannne Cummings, political reporter, Politico.com

  • Dotty Lynch, political consultant, CBS News and AU professor

  • Adam Greene, campaign director, MoveOn.org

  • Moderator: Jane Hall, AU journalism professor

I was expecting a good, lively discussion and I was not disappointed. Much of the themes and ideas touched upon were items and news that have been well-publicized and known to regular readers of political blogs. Information such as: that the Democratic Party is much better in utilizing the Internet as an organizing tool than the Republicans; that Barack Obama is the candidate that is most effectively utilizing the Internet as an organizing and fundraising tool; that no one comes close to Obama’s effectiveness in the Internet both in the Republican or Democratic side; that there is no right or Republican equivalent to MoveOn and why that is so.

Interesting to me and a revelation was how the Obama campaign was able to mount such a formidable Internet-based campaign (by holding massive events and rallies, charging $5 per head to attend the event, and creating a mailing list of all attendees; attracting and raising money from small donors).

Adam Greene made a pointed observation that the Internet is creating a new set of winners and losers in politics. That ordinary people are no longer dependent on the DNC or the RNC for activism and political participation, and what we are witnessing with the advent of technology such as YouTube and 10Questions, is a new, people-powered politics. And that is a good thing.

Questions from the audience were also taken and there were some good ones. One audience member asked what the major parties were doing in terms of turning out the vote. Cyrus Krohn gave a cryptic answer which left me wanting to hear more. He said the RNC was experimenting with Internet-based techniques on getting out the vote which he cannot divulge. But that such techniques were instrumental in the recent election of Bobby Jindal in the Louisiana governor’s race.

Another audience member asked why Obama was doing so well with young people. Jeanne Cummings explained that he was a fresh face but also that he had an active campus outreach to college students—something Hillary Clinton is limited in doing so because of the presence of Secret Service agents whenever she is around.

Another provocative question asked is are we getting better politics out of this? The panel mostly gave positives such as more honesty and accountability among candidates and politicians. However, they also said that the increased scrutiny and accountability also breeds more partisanship and negative campaigning. The increased scrutiny also forces candidates to be more robotic and scripted and unwilling to deviate from “safe” formulas and being “on message” all the time. Toward the end, all panelists agreed that television is still the best medium to reach a mass number of people and is the most important news source for the majority of voters.

The last question posed to the panel was what is in store for the future? Cyrus Krohn said mobile phone technology and a convergence between television and computers. Josh McConaha said that people who use the technology, are ultimately the most important thing that will decide the future.

I found the American Forum to be a good introduction and discussion of the topic of how the Internet has influenced politics. It presented the surface of what exists out there in mainstream politics and resources available on Internet-based activism. All in all, however, I came out of the Forum telling myself that it was a very general discussion that is good for the average layperson who is probably not exposed to this information on a regular basis. To someone like me who is immersed in this world via my blogging activities, subscribing to technology and politics-related blogs in an RSS feed, and an active participant in the blogosphere, I came out of the forum wanting more.

Innovative efforts such as 10Questions were mentioned. But absent in the discussion were resources such as Personal Democracy Forum and MobileActive which are useful sources of information on the cutting edge of the use of technology in politics and culture. Also absent were the role of blogs and blogging in driving political discussion of certain issues.

The discussion also focused exclusively on what the Internet means for political participation along major party lines. I was disappointed with the absence of third-party, Independent, or reform voices and how as political outsiders they are making use of the Internet in their efforts and whether or not they are succeeding. American politics and democracy, in my mind, should be much bigger than the question of who will win in 2008 between the Democratic and Republican candidates. It should also include outsiders like third parties, independents and reform efforts—voices which serve as a potent critique of the limitations of the two-party system and who are trying to do something about it. I would have also liked a discussion about the impact of Internet technologies for ordinary people and its potential for realizing the promise of “we the people” democratic political participation.

Some resources if you are interested:

This post is cross-posted in An Ordinary Person

2 comments:

Brian said...

This appears to have been an interesting event.

Unfortunately, 3rd Parties or independents are not usually taken seriously in such forums because independent or alternative ventures don't garner the kind of financial clout that is needed to compete.

The American public is stuck in a 2Party mindset. The concept of additional parties doesn't even enter the minds of voters, because the 2 Party system is the only system that most living Americans have ever known. This is true even for the so called "progressives".

Most progressives are really enablers for the continuation of the status quo....even when they don't mean to be. Their minds are stuck in the 2 Party box... and most just don't know how to think outside of that box, unfortunately.

There needs to be an effort to develop a long term 5-10 year plan for launching a new party... a party that could attract good candidates. Even then, Americans won't vote for a 3rd Party candidate.... not even if they were better qualified than the other candidates from other Parties.

"Democrat" and "Republican" are like corporate brands today.... like Coke and Pepsi. The generic store brand could taste better than the other two... but without the marketing power, distribution, the branding, etc... consumers won't buy it...

Brand power is very powerful. Americans have been stuck with the political version of Coke and Pepsi for so long, that they wouldn't trust any other brand...even if it tasted better (had better policies) and was better for their health.

I wish I had the answer for breaking this cycle...where dumb Americans vote against their own interests every 4 years in these coronation seasons (campaign seasons). No other Country in the world makes a mockery of Democracy the way that the United States does. The whole thing is a complete joke to me... that's why I don't vote..never have, and never will.

This blog is my vote. I vote with my keyboard. To Hell with a ballot box when you don't live in a Democracy. It's just a false promise...& an empty symbol.

redante said...

Hi AI

I agree with you that political outsiders like third parties and reform activists aren't well-represented in such events, much less taken seriously if they are lucky enough to participate. The big promise of Internet technology was that small operators now have a level playing field to compete with the big interests, and that small operators, if their message is compelling, can have as much of an impact as the big dogs. But reality is still far away from that ideal and the big dogs still are the ones that get the most attention and small operators (inadvertently or not) are often left out of the discussion. The implications of the ideal I describe above for democratic participation and the "people-powered politics" Adam Greene of MoveOn mentioned was barely touched upon in the Forum to my disappointment.