From time to time (like, every other day it seems), I get email from a reporter or an academic or a student with questions about the impact of the Internet on the 2008 election, or similar themes. Usually, if I have time, I try to answer those emails (and if I don’t do it right away, they often fall by the way side). This morning was no different. A senior majoring in politics at Occidental College wrote saying, “I’m writing my senior thesis on the impact of new media in youth participation in national politics and I would love to get your thoughts to a few questions.” But it occurred to me as I was responding to her questions that this was a blog post (or, as Doc Searls likes to say, blogging is just sending emails to the world). So, keeping in mind that these are the quick top-line responses I tend to give when asked these questions, here goes:
1) Does widespread accessibility to the Internet (and all that it includes, such as social networking sites, information about candidates and issues, the ease with which someone can e-mail an elected official, etc.) make our society more democratic?
Thanks to the Internet, we now have a more open media system, and ordinary people without access to capital can publish and share information important to them, and form and collaborate in groups, in powerful new ways. In those two respects the Internet is undoubtedly making the political process more open and participatory. We also are seeing signs that self-organizing networks of activists, again largely without capital, can sometimes puncture the capital-intensive wall around the electoral process and propel previously dark horse long-shot candidates into viability, if not into office. In high-attention races, big money donors are a little less of a dominant factor, as a result. Information of high value–such as the text of a bill with hidden earmarks, or the trail of a lobbyist, or a secretive pattern of connected actions (attorney firings?)–is being pried into the public arena, where the open-source adage “with many eyes all bugs are shallow” is being applied to unpack and expose actions by the powerful that are too often commonplace but that may not survive full sunlight. Along the way, a couple million grass-roots activists are learning that collectively they may have a new kind of political voice, they’re experimenting with all kinds of fun ways to make that voice salient (DailyKos, the #tcot and #p2 tags on Twitter), and this is a deep cultural shift from a system that until recently was almost completely dominated by Big Money, Big-Foot Journalists, and very centralized and opaque organizations.
However, open access doesn’t necessarily lead to more equal participation, and the jury is out on whether the Internet is actually involving more of the previously uninvolved, or merely super-empowering the people who were already somewhat involved. Another way of saying this: we may be moving from a mostly undemocratic political system dominated by very wealthy actors to one that now includes salient numbers of more middle class people. If you are poor, lack access to a high-speed internet connection, and/or have little to no free time (due to your need to earn a living) then it’s hard to say the widespread accessibility of the Internet has really altered your place in the political order. I’m in the middle of reading Matthew Hindman’s provocative new book, “The Myth of Digital Democracy,” and I’ll probably have more to say about this topic once I’m done digesting his argument.
2) What do you foresee in the next 10-15 years for the participation of youth in national politics? Will the dramatic rise in interest and involvement that we saw leading up to 11/4/2008 begin to wane or is it more permanent than that? Either way, what role will new media play in how the relationship between youth and politics evolves?
I think we are seeing a generational shift and the trend of rising engagement among young people will continue. In this I agree with the authors of Millennial Makeover, who argue that we are seeing the rise of a new “civic generation” that is taking politics more seriously in the wake of 9-11 and in the face of major environmental and societal challenges. In addition, I think “growing up networked” means that a great number of young people are drenched in cause-related information, through their social networks. Greater exposure to that kind of information, plus the social factor of seeing your friends interested in a cause or involved, will likely continue to foster greater political involvement among young people than we saw in the last decade or so.
3) Is there a specific aspect of new media (i.e. blogs, Facebook, etc) that stands out to you as an especially significant political tool over all others? Why or why not?
To me, it’s the read-write nature of the web, not any specific tool, that is the game-changer. We no longer have to be passive consumers of information of any kind; we can create our own or talk back to the creators of information, or talk amongst ourselves. This changes the political environment at almost the molecular level. Political protagonists, be they politicians, candidates, lobbyists, interest groups, or cause organizations, no longer are the sole centers of action. Leadership and organization still matter enormously, but they can (and do) come from anywhere.
February 26, 2009