PJ Rey and I have been following the 2012 presidential campaign on this blog with social media in mind. We watch as President Obama and the republican contenders try to look social-media-y to garner dollars and votes. However, the social media use has thus far been more astroturfing than grassroots. There have been more social media photo-opts to appear tech-savvy than using the web to fundamentally make politics something that grows from the bottom-up. Presidential politics remain far more like Britannica than Wikipedia.
But this might all change, at least according to Thomas Friedman yesterday in the New York Times. He describes Americans Elect, a non-profit attempting to build an entire presidential campaign from the ground up. This might be our first glimpse of an open and social presidential web-based campaign. From their website,
Americans Elect is the first-ever open nominating process. We’re using the Internet to give every single voter — Democrat, Republican or independent — the power to nominate a presidential ticket in 2012. The people will choose the issues. The people will choose the candidates. And in a secure, online convention next June, the people will make history by putting their choice on the ballot in every state.
If FDR was the radio president, JFK the television president, Obama is not the social media president. Yes, Obama participated in a Twitter town hall and a Facebook summit in an attempt to seem hip to social media. However, as I wrote before, both of these events as well as much of Obama’s social media presence come from the top-down, in stark contrast to the social media ethic of grassroots communications from the bottom-up. Obama has largely used the Internet as if it were a television: a one-way broadcast medium. In fact, this leads me to the idea that perhaps executive power and social media are antithetical in the first place.
Much the same could be said for the republican candidates. However, they might be a little ahead of the democrats in using Twitter. Obama has responded by beginning to type his own tweets.
All of this stands in contrast to the Americans Elect mission to bypass the top-down structures of the existing political parties. The Internet allows for the possibility of a Wikipedia president, one whom reflects the priorities and concerns of a crowd that also determines the rules of how the campaign operates and spends its money. As Friedman concludes,
Write it down: Americans Elect. What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in. Watch out.
I share Friedman’s attitude that the old political machine might face serious competition from the web. It may not be in 2012 and it may not be by Americans Elect, but it very well may occur. We can now better visualize how the web may fundamentally change politics as much as it has changed other institutions from publishing to music to pornography.
Comments 5
David Banks — July 24, 2011
I really don't think the American presidency (or any government executive larger than a city mayor or tribal chief) can use social media as it is intended. They use social media sort of like a train. Trains have largely been a democratic technology (when their tracks weren't being laid through your house) but were also a campaign platform (figuratively and literally). The technology is appropriated- the train car is cleared out, the Facebook page is closely monitored, and the twitter feed is vetted.
We choose our presidents like we choose our shampoo. They're a product that we buy. Social media, when it is mobilized for the consuming of a product or service, is meant to show the one product or service that either fits my previous buying habits or correlates well with seemingly unrelated character attributes. A social media campaign can help you choose a primary candidate, since there are a wide spread of those (which is how Obama used social media most effectively- in the primary) but once you get to the general election, and there's only two people, I don't think the marketing offerings are there for candidates. They get more from using social media as a tool for getting out a standard message, but nothing more.
I suppose, if individual citizens were still the ones electing presidents, social media would work. The votes are really the final product of the purchasing of ad time and diesel fuel for your Freedom Liberty Soaring Eagle Express Bus to Justice Tour.
The Problem with Americans Elect 2012 » Cyborgology — July 26, 2011
[...] week Nathan and PJ introduced us to Americans Elect 2012 by asking the question: “Can we elect a ‘wikipedia’ [...]
cameron — August 11, 2011
I signed up and so far it seems to be heading on the right track. The questions they ask about your views are a bit rigid but overall the public opinion should be able to break through.
Compared to the current political machine and media this is a breath of real hope and change which should follow the people not interest groups.
Can ‘Americans Elect’ a Wikipedia President? « n a t h a n j u r g e n s o n — August 29, 2011
[...] This was originally posted at my blog Cyborgology – click here to view the original post a... [...]
Presidential Election — May 1, 2012
The recent news about Americans elect haven´t been very encouraging. They have failed to get attraction. I think in their model the presidential election has too many options of candidates for the user and restricting them according to answers given can be a distraction.
I personally thought that the questions are over simplified and it is too obvious to see which answers are most popular among the voters of the US