For some time now, those of us who work in networked politics have been arguing that it was time for the relationship between government officials and the public to change. The internet’s economics of abundance–of time, information and connectivity–can enable a transformation from top-down communication and talking in sound-bites to something richer, more participatory, interactive and fundamentally more democratic. Politicians, we argued, had to give up some control over their “message,” but in turn could forge more authentic connections with their publics.
Of course, we didn’t think that some of them were more interested in forging a more authentic connection with their pubic selves, but the Anthony Weiner mess offers this additional lesson about our hypernetworked times: the authentic truth that may be revealed by the less controlled messaging of politicians is that some of them have disturbing, even sociopathic, tendencies. And in a two-way world, where we can watch our rulers from below and track the creepy stuff as well as the good stuff, there’s a greater chance of exposing the creeps who have made it to the top of the political pyramid, and toppling them.
Power corrupts, the saying goes, and often it does. But some people are more corruptible than others. If somewhere between one and four percent of the population have sociopathic tendencies, which is what social psychologists tell us, then we shouldn’t be surprised when at least that number show up in the political arena. Is your politician glib and manipulative? Does he have a grandiose sense of self? Are his emotions shallow? Does he evidence a lack of remorse? Is he contemptuous of others? Does he have a need for stimulation, perhaps even engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior? These are all characteristics of sociopaths.
Put a person with those tendencies in an environment where they are given dictatorial control over a staff of underlings, many of whom display their own sycophantic behavior. Then drench him in the seductive environments of high-dollar fundraising and elite media attention. Now, throw in personal fan mail from young women, that comes straight to the politician’s inbox via Twitter or Facebook. And finally, add a pinch of loneliness and probably some late night drinking, which lowers social inhibitions. Should we be surprised if some portion of these men (and it’s almost always men) exceed the boundaries of common sense and decent behavior and start taking advantages with others (and their targets are almost always women)?
The beautiful thing about networked social media is that it is two-way. A woman who starts a relationship with a guy she meets on Craigslist who claims he’s an unmarried lobbyist can look up his email on Facebook and discover that he’s really a Congressman. Or, as happened to Weiner, various women can come forward and share the details of his direct messaging to them; there’s a digital trail.
This isn’t to say that politicians should avoid all use of social media, or that they can’t have a new and better kind of relationship with their constituents in the 21st Century. Four years ago at Personal Democracy Forum, danah boyd gave a talk that offered a compelling vision of “digital handshakes on virtual receiving lines”:
Imagine what would happen if politicians SINCERELY reached out to their “friends” and started commenting? Whenever the rockstars do this, the teens go wild. For some of the most engaged political teens, this would be the biggest energizer. All of a sudden, they’d go from being one of 9000 friends that a person has to someone who leaves a message and is visible by all of that person’s friends, many of whom are probably *not* connected to the candidate. Whenever celebrities begin engaging with their fans, their fans become more engaged, spend more time talking to their friends about the celebrity. Could this work for politicians?
Most campaigns hire polling companies to collect data. Yet, if you look at MySpace, Facebook, and the blogs, you’d find an unbelievable array of young people expressing their desires and needs and frustrations, not in a tabulated formula kind of way, but in a heartfelt experienced way. Imagine what would happen if the campaigns started tracking some of this content and the candidates took the time to respond every once in a while? Pithy response are all that’s needed. Or quoted and linked to everyday citizens to respond? Talk about rockstar attention.
Whenever i suggest this to campaigns, i’m told that politicians don’t have time for this, that it’s easier to broadcast. No doubt it’s easier to broadcast, but it’s not nearly as effective as meaningful encounters. Politicians know that they have to travel state-to-state to talk to people on their own terms in their own world. Well, for much of the under-30 population, a huge part of their public life is online. Why are politicians not taking the time to do this? This is what i mean when i say that it’s time to start digitally shaking hands.
The opportunity for politicians to engage directly, honestly and productively with the public through social media is out there and many of them are doing it well. And a few, who probably never should have gotten as far as they did in public life, are abusing the tools. Hopefully, Anthony Weiner’s meltdown will serve as a warning and a lesson, but it also shouldn’t deter the vast majority of public officials from being who they are: decent people trying to do a difficult job who are trying to open up and engage the public in a new way. Let’s hope that continues.
June 09, 2011