What is Change?
At HFA, Megan asks an important question--what exactly does it mean to say that Dean "changed" the nature of campaigning?
Megan correctly states that the question is not what happened to Dean, but what will happen in future races. She argues that Dean's success in part the result of his technological edge over other candidates, but wonders if the dynamics of campaigning will be any different once all candidates and all voters have equal access to the Internet.
I have two responses. First, I think "change" includes a major shift in technology, even if the same types of candidates continue to win. Thus, if the success of the Dean campaign induces all future presidential candidates to make heavy use of the Internet, it's fair to say that he "changed" the nature of campaigning even if the results don't change.
Second, I believe that the Dean campaign's innovations will change the results of elections in the coming years. The biggest problem with traditional media is barriers to entry. The average person cannot have any influence on television. At best, they can get a letter to the editor published in a newspaper or call in to a radio show. The odds of gaining any control over the media are virtually nil. As this illustration shows, most media outlets were controlled by ten large companies in late 2001, and my guess is that there has been even more consolidation since then.
In contrast, starting a blog costs nothing. (We wouldn't be blogging here today if there were any barriers to entry.) Getting your blog noticed is trickier, but the blogosphere resembles a meritocracy--if your posts are consistently high-quality, someone will begin to link to them. Although some major blogs today owe their existence to existing media outlets (e.g. National Review publishes The Corner, The American Prospect publishes Tapped, Andrew Sullivan was a former editor of The New Republic), many were started by nobodies. If starting a blog is too difficult, posting on an existing blog is another option. Any diary posted on Daily Kos has a chance of making it to the "Recommended Diaries" list, where it will be seen by literally thousands of people. The Internet is the only medium today that allows someone with no resources except time and good ideas to transmit their statements around the world.
What does this mean for campaigning? Once financial resources are less of a barrier to participation in politics, people who were previously excluded from the political process will become involved. People who posted on Dean's blog knew that thousands of people around the country, including higher-ups in the Dean campaign and perhaps Dean himself, would read and respond to what they had to say. When Internet access is nearly universal, there will be more room in our system for candidates who are not beholden to the wealthy. As Joe Trippi points out in The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, a candidate who can get $100 each from two million Americans will be able to compete with candidates funded largely by the wealthy. The Dean campaign demonstrated that a more egalitarian system of campaigning is possible.
Megan correctly states that the question is not what happened to Dean, but what will happen in future races. She argues that Dean's success in part the result of his technological edge over other candidates, but wonders if the dynamics of campaigning will be any different once all candidates and all voters have equal access to the Internet.
I have two responses. First, I think "change" includes a major shift in technology, even if the same types of candidates continue to win. Thus, if the success of the Dean campaign induces all future presidential candidates to make heavy use of the Internet, it's fair to say that he "changed" the nature of campaigning even if the results don't change.
Second, I believe that the Dean campaign's innovations will change the results of elections in the coming years. The biggest problem with traditional media is barriers to entry. The average person cannot have any influence on television. At best, they can get a letter to the editor published in a newspaper or call in to a radio show. The odds of gaining any control over the media are virtually nil. As this illustration shows, most media outlets were controlled by ten large companies in late 2001, and my guess is that there has been even more consolidation since then.
In contrast, starting a blog costs nothing. (We wouldn't be blogging here today if there were any barriers to entry.) Getting your blog noticed is trickier, but the blogosphere resembles a meritocracy--if your posts are consistently high-quality, someone will begin to link to them. Although some major blogs today owe their existence to existing media outlets (e.g. National Review publishes The Corner, The American Prospect publishes Tapped, Andrew Sullivan was a former editor of The New Republic), many were started by nobodies. If starting a blog is too difficult, posting on an existing blog is another option. Any diary posted on Daily Kos has a chance of making it to the "Recommended Diaries" list, where it will be seen by literally thousands of people. The Internet is the only medium today that allows someone with no resources except time and good ideas to transmit their statements around the world.
What does this mean for campaigning? Once financial resources are less of a barrier to participation in politics, people who were previously excluded from the political process will become involved. People who posted on Dean's blog knew that thousands of people around the country, including higher-ups in the Dean campaign and perhaps Dean himself, would read and respond to what they had to say. When Internet access is nearly universal, there will be more room in our system for candidates who are not beholden to the wealthy. As Joe Trippi points out in The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, a candidate who can get $100 each from two million Americans will be able to compete with candidates funded largely by the wealthy. The Dean campaign demonstrated that a more egalitarian system of campaigning is possible.
posted by John at 2:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home