Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts

Saturday, February 14, 2009

We Are Not a Movement?

Interesting article over at the Open Left blog which makes the observation that:

In their articles today on how "the left" is failing under the Obama administration John Judis and Glenn Greenwald decry the lack of a mass popular movement agitating all political actors, including President Obama, to enact a specific policy agenda. However, the decentralized, self-producing, public sphere multiplying reorganization of our society brought on by the self-publishing, network neutral Internet is in direct contradiction with the vision of a discrete, hierarchical organization working to enact specific policy agenda. That just isn't going to happen anymore...

As such, even mass membership institutions themselves will be variable in how, and why, they continue to operate. Their goals will be vague, and even those vague goals will not be fixed. This is less comment on the state of the American Left than it is a comment on broader changes in our largest cultural institutions. There is simply no way for the sort of left-wing movement implied by Judis and Greenwald to come into existing given our larger societal trends.

An interesting take on social movements in the Internet Age -- basically, the type of hierarachical, top-down organizations such as a political party or a membership organization (like the NAACP) will become less relevant for Progressive political action and a diffused, decentralized network will take (or has taken) its place.

I am taking the discussion out of Open Left and bringing it here to MOA to get a feel for how a more racially diverse and politically independent audience might see this argument. Do you agree? Is "movement" obsolete for Progressive politics and activism is best channeled via a decentralized, diffuse network? Can such a diffuse, amorphous network of people be effective in enacting policy changes and forcing political parties to take it seriously if it is not organized in a way traditional organizations are organized?

Saturday, February 07, 2009

The Internet Grassroots vs. the Machine

Here is an interesting article I read this week from the Personal Democracy Forum -- an online hub for news and insights regarding technology and its intersection with politics and democracy:

A striking fact about the current political environment is that despite the ground-breaking Democratic victory on November 4th - whose seeds were planted by progressive online activists - the new administration is dealing with an oddly familiar political brew: the "liberal media" mantra is rekindled, conservative talk radio (i.e. anti-liberal radio) is resurgent, Rush Limbaugh is more relevant than ever, Ann Coulter is once again doing the network rounds, and if online commentary over the past month is any indication, many progressives still feel disconnected from the levers of power.

The assumption that the new presidency would transform the political process, usher in an era of unprecedented citizen empowerment and decimate the old conventional wisdom-making machinery, has been undermined by the reality of entrenched power structures, deep-seated rivalries, die-hard habits and Beltway business as usual.

Read more at the Personal Democracy Forum.

I am currently reading the book "Taking on the System" by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the creator of the influential political blog the Daily Kos. I'll be writing a review when I am finished and publishing it here.

What strikes me about the Personal Democracy Forum posting and what I have been reading so far from the book is how all the giddiness about people-powered democracy primarily driven by the explosion of Internet technology and social media tools seems to be running into the brick wall of the reality of existing, entrenched power structures in politics and the media punditry.

The widespread expectation that the Internet was supposed to usher in an explosion of democracy via citizen-centered advocacy and participation in the democratic process seems to be much easier said than done.

I am not trying to be a wet blanket -- I am after all, a blogger and one of those who got on the "Internet as participatory democracy" train several years ago. But I am interested in how other people perceive the landscape of political participation in the Internet Age and how current challenges to democratic participation seems to look awfully like the challenges ordinary citizens faced BEFORE the Internet era.

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