This is an essay I wrote for my final in my Political Science class. It just feels like a waste of time for me to write something this long for an audience of one. Hope someone finds this interesting.
Warning this is extremely long!
Politics and the Internet
The American political process, by design, has always been a closed-door affair. Our Government is a representative democracy; we do not have direct say in the actions of our government. We can only influence government at the ballot box, not in the day-to-day operations and decisions. As the scope of government has expanded, the influence of normal people has waned, while the power and influence of corporations and Political Action Comities has grown. This one sided nature of Washington DC politics has allowed politicians to remain aloof from their constituents and unconcerned about issues facing average citizens. Only during election season, do most politicians rub elbows and reach out to the common citizen. This gap in influence has resulted in mass indifference and apathy towards our political process. This imbalance in power is unhealthy for our democracy and is unsuitable for continued governance "of the people, by the people, for the people" (Lincoln).
Participation in our political process is a vital for the continued health of our democracy. Without a healthy, vigorous debate, our democracy is not a true reflection of the will o f the people. However, due to people’s distrust and apathy towards the political process, many people are uniformed and disserved by the actions of our government. The Internet is changing and challenging this disinterest and lack of participation. The Internet is a global communication network that allows anyone to access information from any computer in the world. This computer network has revolutionized how we see the world, and changed the way we gather information. This constant flow of information and participation of people from all over the spectrum creates new opportunities and methods of political organization and activism. The Internet has revolutionized our political process by creating new levels of public participation.
Policymaking is one key aspect of our government that clearly benefits from greater visibility and participation. The current system of allowing lobbyists and other interest groups to be the most vocal influence in policy creation is unwise. It is a little like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Government Agencies can utilize the Internet to create a more open government and allow greater citizen involvement in policy creation. Former Federal Communications Commission chairperson Reed Hundt explains:
We [now] get visits from more than 50,000 unique hosts every month. ... This may not sound like a big deal, since there are now many websites that get over a million hits a day. But, for the first time, members of the public can get copies of FCC information shortly after it’s released or months later and for no charge. We could not afford to duplicate and mail copies of our decisions to every home, or to even every public library in America. But now we can put everything online, where anyone ... with an Internet connection can get access to it. (Hundt 50)
The FCC is a federal agency that affects everyone with its decisions. The decisions of the FCC are more democratic and more in line with the ideals of this nation by allowing greater public feedback and influence. By providing the ability to disseminate vast quantities of information, the Internet allows a greater public understanding of government policy. With access to this information, the public is able to participate in the decision-making process and are able to make our voice heard. When all divisions of government embrace this ethic of involving everyone into our policy making process, we can ensure that all government policy, no matter how esoteric, is fair and proscribed equally to everyone.
The Internet allows the public to assemble communities of likeminded people. Social networking has become the latest trend in online participation, allowing people to build communities and reach out to their friends. These social networking sites allow you to stay in contact with your friends, meet new people, and support issue groups that you agree with. In 2007, the largest online social networking sites, Facebook and MySpace, attracted over 200 million visitors a month (Lipsman, Pars 1-2). These immense social networks have been a great tool for political organization. The Pew Research Center reports:
Fully two-thirds of Americans age 18-29 say they use social networking sites, and more than a quarter in this age group (27%) say that they have gotten information about candidates and the campaign from them ... Nearly one-in-ten of people under age 30 (8%) say that they have signed up as a "friend" of one of the candidates on a site. And the numbers are even higher for each of these activities among young registered voters. (Pew Research)
These new technologies are inviting more people, especially young people, to become involved with our political process. Social networks allow us too easily share news and information relevant to our interests. The quick progress of information ensures our citizens are well informed and able to object or support issues relevant to them. Political Participation increases when we are more informed.
The effectiveness of social networking when used for a purely political agenda can be immense. In the 2008 Presidential Campaign, massive groups of supporters utilized social networking sites to spread information, entice volunteers, and request donations. In The 2008 presidential campaign, the first truly online political campaign, Barack Obama utilized these technologies to create a new method of interacting with his supporters. Obama’s Website, barackobama.com was a storehouse of all of Obama’s speeches, policy positions, guides to volunteer, a complete fundraising apparatus, and fully-fledged social networking site. These resources allowed his supporters to promote his candidacy, fundraise, and volunteer. This social network refined connections between supporters and successfully encouraged people to join the campaign. Trade magazine Information Week explains
"Obama used a combination of television, the Internet, and social media to recruit volunteers and supporters, and cement relationships with them. ... Using a custom social-networking site ... Obama supporters were able to log in and find lists of people they could call, or whose doors they could knock on, to try to persuade others to vote for their candidate."(Information Week)
This clever utilization of the Social Networking technologies created a major tool for presidential campaigning. By connecting various supporters and volunteers, the Obama campaign created a tool for campaigning and fundraising that is unlike anything seen before. Directly from the website, someone could connect with other supporters, organize local rallies and fundraisers, phone bank to other states in support of Obama, and so much more. This impressive use of new technologies by the Obama campaign has set the gold standard for future online campaigns and dramatically increased the turnout of and the effectiveness of volunteers.
Even with increasing involvement and participation, one of the largest obstacles in participating in our political process is the cost of running a campaign. Political Campaigning is very expensive, and is more costly each year. Only those with the best connections and financial support are capable of running for office. In a Journal article discussing presidential campaign financing, George Mason University Department of Economics Professor, Thomas Stratmann, notes
In 1996, the race for the White House cost President Bill Clinton and Republican challenger Senator Robert Dole $80 million altogether. [In 2000]...George W. Bush and [Vice President] Gore spent $307 million campaigning for the presidency and in 2004... [President] Bush and...Senator John Kerry ... [spent] more than $550 million. (Stratmann 135)
As we can see from these trends, campaign expenses are rising astronomically. Typically, the candidate attracting the most high dollar contributions is going to have a major advantage. It is undemocratic when the wealthiest player always wins. Removing this high barrier to our political process encourages people from all lifestyles to become active in our political process. Encouraging this participation creates a more healthy nation and democracy.
To alleviate the imbalances in campaign fundraising, and to remove the impression of big money running Washington, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act of 2002, creating a new playing field for political campaigns. This reform limited the total dollar amounts for political donations and created new rules for political advertising. These reforms remade the fundraising apparatus of the major parties, by removing unlimited contributions from those with very deep pockets. In their book Crashing the Gate, Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas, explain,
"The day after the 2002 midterm elections, the McCain-Feingold law took effect banning the use of ‘soft money’ –donations larger than $2000 for individuals, or $5000 for Political Action Comities. ... Suddenly, organization and entities that could deliver small-dollar donors were relevant and in hot demand..." (Armstrong, Moulitsas 134-136).
Limiting the contributions of people and PAC’s, this law created a more level playing field, and forced the political parties and fundraising apparatus to focus more on small dollar donors and more on the needs of the average person, not the high value donors. Moving the source of campaign funds away from wealthy individuals to everyone increases the influence and importance of the average person, and encourages participation and involvement by those lower in the social order.
The 2008 Presidential Campaign unmistakably revealed the power of internet based small donor fundraising. From Barack Obama’s website, to the many PAC’s and congressional fundraisers, we can see that 2008 was a very successful year for online fundraising. As the Washington Post reports,
Obama's online operation ... broke down the numbers: 3 million donors made ... 6.5 million donations online adding up to more than $500 million. Of those 6.5 million donations, 6 million were in increments of $100 or less. The average online donation was $80, and the average Obama donor gave more than once. ... more than $600 million that Obama raised throughout the campaign was through the Internet ... (Washington Post)
These impressive fundraising numbers shows us the power of online fundraising, and shows us how the increased focus on small donors increases political participation. If we feel our contribution matters, and are contributing to a candidate who cares about our issues, we are highly likely to be more committed to, and participate further in the campaign, and be aware of the proceedings of our government. The very act of donating to a political campaign is participation and increases awareness in our political process.
The internet’s very nature encourages people to communicate and share, qualities that are very useful in a political context. A worthy example of average people using the internet for political change is the organization moveon.org. Members of this organization use the internet to amplify their voice in our government and pursue reform on issues relevant to their interests. As Moveon.org describes on their website
"The MoveOn family of organizations brings real Americans back into the political process. With over 3.2 million members across America ... we work together to realize the progressive promise of our country. MoveOn is a service – a way for busy but concerned citizens to find their political voice in a system dominated by big money and big media." (Moveon.org)
This encouragement for people to take part in our democracy is extremely beneficial. The amplifying effects of combined action provide political influence to these disenfranchised people, whose views and issues may have been invisible or ignored. Allowing anyone to share their experiences, gather support for pet issues, and cooperate on shared interests and goals, encourages anyone to become involved, and enables anyone to make a difference in their communities and bring change to the problems facing them and their compatriots.
This model of actively seeking audience participation, seen in most aspects of internet communication and culture, creates healthy debate and interaction in any setting. Utilizing these aspects of internet communication and interaction, moveon.org has been extremely successful. As Markos Moulitsas illustrates the success of MoveOn in his book Taking on the System:
In the 2003-2004 election cycle, the group [MoveOn] raised a whopping $180 million from its members for political candidates. In the 2006 Campaign cycle, its volunteers used "virtual phonebanking" software to make 7 million phone calls, organized seventy-five hundred house parties, and six thousand in district events ... Today, soliciting online donations is standard practice ... But that was certainly not the case when MoveOn successfully pioneered the tactic. (Moulitsas 62)
These numbers reflect the major successes and influence that these new internet based organizations are having on our political process. From raising money, to merely reaching out to friends, the effects of all these activities are immensely multiplied a large scale. More importantly, as these new web-based technologies become more and more part of our daily lives, new methods of political activism and political participation are born.
This online methodology of activism has been so successful that other issue and activism groups have replicated this to focus on other issues. We can see the power of this in Colorofchange.org, an online community primarily focused on African American issues and activism, which has successfully used the moveon.org model to bring greater influence and visibility to issues facing African Americans and other minorities. As Color of Change describes on their website
ColorOfChange.org exists to strengthen Black America's political voice. Our goal is to empower our members—Black Americans and our allies—to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone. ... Using the Internet, we will enable our members to speak in unison, with an amplified political voice. (colorofchange.org)
Enabling people to speak out about issues relevant to them is vital for our democracy. As more and more individuals are encouraged to partake in the political process by issue groups like moveon.org and colorofchange.org, progress for society and the nation as a whole will move faster. People organizing to create social and political change have been a core part of nation’s history and government from the very beginning. The internet creates new tools to organize and makes this process easier than ever. As these groups are successful, even more people will be encouraged to work on issues relevant to them.
There is an immense number of ways someone could use the internet to become politically active. From starting a blog, to uploading self-made campaign videos to YouTube, the possibilities are endless. In the last 5 years we have seen massive growth in political activity online, and there are now greater numbers of people online than ever before. Now, thanks to the equalizing power of the Internet, people have the power to influence public debate and easily form groups focused on issues important to them. With the Internet becoming increasingly ubiquitous and the major political tools the internet brings, we can see that the levels of political participation are set to rise. When anyone can publish their views, recruit supporters, and campaign in favor or against any issue or candidate with the ease you can do so on the internet, political involvement will continue to become more dominant, and part of the tools people use to bring meaningful change to their lives and communities.
Utilizing new technologies and methods of political participation has always been a vital part of the political process, from the printing press to television news. The biggest danger to this continued activism and political participation is governmental interference. We must not allow the internet in its current form to be ruined from asinine regulations and governmental interference. As Leslie Harris concludes,
"The Internet is not a "problem to be solved’ as lawmakers often view it. ‘It is our most important and innovative tool for reinvigorating our democracy and returning power to the people" (Harris 3).
Information has never been more easily accessible. With this constant flow of information and the unlimited potential in remaking the very nature of citizen activism, our democracy and nation will continue to be more inclusive and free.
Any democracy, in which the people are actively concerned with the actions of their government, is going to be a healthy one. Apathy and disinterest are the enemies of a stable democracy. When these feelings persist towards the government and the democracy, special interests and corruption will be able to flourish. It is important to remember this lesson, and to utilize all the tools at our disposal. The future looks bright, however, as more and more people are using the power of the internet to organize and bring about change.
Works Cited
"Abraham Lincoln." Biography of Abraham Lincoln. 25 Nov. 2008. The White House. 25 Nov. 2008 <http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html>.
Armstrong, Jerome, Simon Rosenberg, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. Crashing the Gate : Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics. New York: Chelsea Green, 2006.
ColorOfChange.org. "What Is ColorOfChange.org?" ColorOfChange.org. 2008. ColorOfChange.org. 2 Dec. 2008 <http://colorofchange.org/about.html>.
Harris, Leslie. "The Political Revolution That Almost Wasn't Digitized." ABC News: Online news, breaking news, feature stories and more. 26 Nov. 2008. ABC News. 2 Dec. 2008 <http://http://abcnews.go.com/technology/politics/story?id=6334644&page=1>.
Hundt, Reed. "Competition, Rules, and Technology Can Increase Access to the Internet." The Future of the Internet. Ed. Charles P. Cozic. New York: Greenhaven P, Incorporated, 1997.
Lipsman, Andrew. "Social Networking Goes Global." ComScore, Inc. - Measuring the Digital World. 31 July 2007. ComScore, Inc. 30 Nov. 2008 <http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1555>.
MoveOn.org Political Action, and MoveOn.org Civic Action. "About the MoveOn Family of Organizations." MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action. 2008. Moveon.org. 2 Dec. 2008 <http://moveon.org/about.html>.
"Obama Election Ushering In First Internet Presidency; Pioneering use of Web 2.0 and social-networking technologies by the president-elect's campaign has seemingly transformed politics, and could influence government as well.(Barack Obama)." InformationWeek 5 Nov. 2008. Nov.-Dec. 2008. Expanded Academic Index. Gale. Contra Costa College Library, San Pablo. 25 Nov. 2008 <http://http://0-find.galegroup.com.alice.dvc.edu/ips/start.do?prodid=ips>.
The Pew Research Center. "Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008." Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. 11 Jan. 2008. Pew Research Center. 30 Nov. 2008 <http://people-press.org/report/384/internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008>.
Stratmann, Thomas. "Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature." Public Choice 124.1-2 (2005): 135-56.
Vargas, Jose A. "Obama Raised Half a Billion Online." Washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines. 20 Nov. 2008.The Washington Post.1 Dec. 2008 <http://http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/20/obama_raised_half_a_billion_on.html>.
Zuniga, Markos M. Taking on the System : Rules for Radical Change in a Digital Era. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Incorporated, 2008.