I've done quite a bit of reading about Millennials. In fact, I used a whole slew of studies concerning Millennials while compiling my graduate capstone. Ergo, I am an expert, and here's what I have to say about Millennials:
Stop pinning all your hopes and dreams for change on them. I mean honestly. Just stop. Previous generations messed this up -- maybe they should fix it. Because as far as I can tell, by the time the heart of the Millennial generation is old enough to run for office or hold positions of influence, we're all going to be buried under a mess of someone else's making.
Now I get it. The point of the Internet is that we don't have to hold positions of power to change the system. Well I'm calling bullshit. The website for Hais and Winograd's book "Millennial Makeover" has a link to a New York Times opinion piece by Timothy Egan. In it, Egan outlines all the reasons young people, in particular, should be offended by the current political situation. And I agree with him. But what does he expect us to do? Start a petition? Tweet about it?
Now I'm not saying that my generation lacks ingenuity, that we don't care, or that we're lazy. I don't believe we possess any of those qualities (at least not on the whole). But what I am saying is that we're also a generation that grew up watching the shit-show that was America dealing with terrorists. We grew up among racism in diverse communities, and we lived through school shootings and gang violence. And you're honestly suggest that this is a generation whose eternal optimism is going to change the world? I don't think so.
The authors of Millennial Makeover, and others who spout about the prolific powers of the Internet, are amazed at the volume of young voters who turned out to elect Obama. They see this as a sign of things to come, as a representation of the fact that Millennials are smarter and wiser than generations before them, and that they want change and are willing to work to see it done. But those who see the demographics of Obama's electoral turnout as game-changing are missing the main point. Millennials showed up in record numbers to vote and volunteer because it was something they could do. All of these studies about Millennials say that they are "open for change." But being open for change is different than being willing to create that change. Or, to get uber cynical, than being able to create that change. The Democratic party provided Millennials with a candidate that young people could latch on to. They believed that voting for Obama would make things better, so they canvassed neighborhoods and showed up on November 2nd to vote for him. And now, a year and a half later, the world is standing by and asking "where are the Millennials?" Well, they're where everyone else is -- sitting at home and watching the television and thinking, "God these people are assholes."
The Internet is a great tool, but that's all it is. A tool. And it won't change anything unless the masses are told how to use it. And even then it's looking grim. Anyone who's done a small bit of studying on oppression understands that the best way to oppress people is to divide them. Get them arguing amongst themselves, and you distract them from the larger problems at hands. And honestly, the Internet does more to polarize people than anything else. So while Markos and all his buddies are complaining online about BP this or BP that, or pushing various articles out over their Twitter feeds, The White House continues about its daily business, pouring millions of gallons of hazardous chemicals (laced with carcinogens) into the gulf to lessen the public perception of the magnitude of the spill...without actually doing anything to solve the problem.
So do I believe that Millennials can change things? On a good day. Do I think they will? Not as long as we keep electing assholes who don't want them to. And yes, within that "we" I include the Millennials, who elected Obama but will probably do very little to hold him accountable.
And, full disclosure, I'm probably just in a bad mood because I just finished reading this depressing bit about the total governmental failures following the BP disaster.
6.14.2010
6.11.2010
Thank God for Facebook
I decided to take a little stroll around Dupont during my lunch hour today, to grab a sandwich and enjoy the sunshine. And on my way back to my office, I stood at streetcorner next to two young women who had the most enlightening conversation:
Girl 1: "Yeah so she facebooked me and was like 'um are you dating Jared? Because if you are, you should know that I'm pregnant with his child.'"
Girl 2: "Oh my god are you serious?!"
Girl 1: "Yeah. Totally serious."
Girl 2: "She wrote that on your wall?"
Girl 1"Oh no no no no! She sent me a private message."
Girl 2: "Oh thank god. That would have been awkward."
Girl 1: "Yeah definitely. No I'm just so glad she told me. Otherwise we were going to get married when I graduated law school. Well like...if we were still together a year after I graduated. That's what he said. But now we're not dating. So thank god."
Girl 2: "Right right right."
Thank God for facebook. That's all I have to say.
Girl 1: "Yeah so she facebooked me and was like 'um are you dating Jared? Because if you are, you should know that I'm pregnant with his child.'"
Girl 2: "Oh my god are you serious?!"
Girl 1: "Yeah. Totally serious."
Girl 2: "She wrote that on your wall?"
Girl 1"Oh no no no no! She sent me a private message."
Girl 2: "Oh thank god. That would have been awkward."
Girl 1: "Yeah definitely. No I'm just so glad she told me. Otherwise we were going to get married when I graduated law school. Well like...if we were still together a year after I graduated. That's what he said. But now we're not dating. So thank god."
Girl 2: "Right right right."
Thank God for facebook. That's all I have to say.
6.09.2010
This Post Might Actually Say Something Positive About Our Readings
Too bad Howard Dean didn't have the OFA list.
This week we read Ari Melber's special report "Year One of Organizing for America: The Permanent Field Campaign in a Digital Age." Much of it had me reminded of Matt Bai's book, and of the debate between Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel about how to best achieve the Democrat's goals of reclaiming the White House (or their party identity for that matter). In fact, Emmanuel's bitter opposition to any strategy that includes public inclusion or mobilization on behalf of the party's agenda is referenced in Melber's report. White House staffers say Rahm and the boys don't care about the OFA list. Well...should they?
I think there does exist some potential in OFA, and in Obama's historic and vast list of super-supporters across the country, but I'm not sure it will help promote any administration's specific agenda. And in fact, even if it could, I think its strengths should be exploited elsewhere.
What I would like to see is a strategic use of OFA to increase organizing on a local level. I'd like to see the White House use the list to encourage supporters nationwide to keep a watchful eye on local and state issues, so as to promote, over the long term, what Robert Putnam calls "social capital." He writes:
"Our political parties, once intimately coupled to capillaries of community life, have become evanescent confections of pollsters and media consultants and independent political entrepreneurs -- the very antithesis of social capital...The social capital approach, focusing on indirect effects of civic norms and networks, is a much-needed corrective to an exclusive emphasis on the formal institutions of government as an explanation for our social discontents. If we are to make our political system more responsive, especially to those who lack connection to the top, we must nourish grassroots organization."
1- Some flowery syntax, Putnam. Bravo.
2- I agree. The point is that Dean had the right idea but the wrong tools at the wrong time.
Rahm Emmanuel doesn't want to waste his time on canvassing the country and attempting to rebuild the Democratic party where it has long been squashed. And that's fine. Especially in his current role, his job is to achieve the administration's short-term policy agenda. He doesn't have the time to wander around the country and try to convince hopelessly uneducated people that healthcare reform really will help them. But somebody needs to be doing it. And maybe that somebody should have a huge email list full of Obama super-supporters from across the country.
The truth is that healthcare reform was probably always going to be passed behind closed doors and by people like Emmanuel with knowledge of strategy and political connections. But if we don't find a way to fix the broken parts of the Democratic party, then progressives will be on the defensive for years to come as conservatives continue to dominate with their message machines and down-home, folksy, bullshit demeanors.
I think OFA would do best to organize progressives locally on behalf of issues that serve to promote the party in the long-term. Education reform is an excellent opportunity for this. Progressive activists should be directed and organized to take an interest in the educational systems in their counties and states, and to find ways to reform them so as to produce educated, thoughtful, and inspired students in the generations to come. The Texas school-book debacle could have been a great case-study for this. These are the kinds of things nationwide that progressives should be organizing around, in order to promote a long-term, progressive social capital that will eventually help ease the job the Rahm Emmanuels of the future.
This week we read Ari Melber's special report "Year One of Organizing for America: The Permanent Field Campaign in a Digital Age." Much of it had me reminded of Matt Bai's book, and of the debate between Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel about how to best achieve the Democrat's goals of reclaiming the White House (or their party identity for that matter). In fact, Emmanuel's bitter opposition to any strategy that includes public inclusion or mobilization on behalf of the party's agenda is referenced in Melber's report. White House staffers say Rahm and the boys don't care about the OFA list. Well...should they?
I think there does exist some potential in OFA, and in Obama's historic and vast list of super-supporters across the country, but I'm not sure it will help promote any administration's specific agenda. And in fact, even if it could, I think its strengths should be exploited elsewhere.
What I would like to see is a strategic use of OFA to increase organizing on a local level. I'd like to see the White House use the list to encourage supporters nationwide to keep a watchful eye on local and state issues, so as to promote, over the long term, what Robert Putnam calls "social capital." He writes:
"Our political parties, once intimately coupled to capillaries of community life, have become evanescent confections of pollsters and media consultants and independent political entrepreneurs -- the very antithesis of social capital...The social capital approach, focusing on indirect effects of civic norms and networks, is a much-needed corrective to an exclusive emphasis on the formal institutions of government as an explanation for our social discontents. If we are to make our political system more responsive, especially to those who lack connection to the top, we must nourish grassroots organization."
1- Some flowery syntax, Putnam. Bravo.
2- I agree. The point is that Dean had the right idea but the wrong tools at the wrong time.
Rahm Emmanuel doesn't want to waste his time on canvassing the country and attempting to rebuild the Democratic party where it has long been squashed. And that's fine. Especially in his current role, his job is to achieve the administration's short-term policy agenda. He doesn't have the time to wander around the country and try to convince hopelessly uneducated people that healthcare reform really will help them. But somebody needs to be doing it. And maybe that somebody should have a huge email list full of Obama super-supporters from across the country.
The truth is that healthcare reform was probably always going to be passed behind closed doors and by people like Emmanuel with knowledge of strategy and political connections. But if we don't find a way to fix the broken parts of the Democratic party, then progressives will be on the defensive for years to come as conservatives continue to dominate with their message machines and down-home, folksy, bullshit demeanors.
I think OFA would do best to organize progressives locally on behalf of issues that serve to promote the party in the long-term. Education reform is an excellent opportunity for this. Progressive activists should be directed and organized to take an interest in the educational systems in their counties and states, and to find ways to reform them so as to produce educated, thoughtful, and inspired students in the generations to come. The Texas school-book debacle could have been a great case-study for this. These are the kinds of things nationwide that progressives should be organizing around, in order to promote a long-term, progressive social capital that will eventually help ease the job the Rahm Emmanuels of the future.
6.07.2010
It all boiled down to one inevitable conclusion, I was just totally clueless...
Respect for anyone who appreciated my Clueless reference.
Well it's 1pm on a Monday, and so you know I'm blogging about this week's reading, "The Cluetrain Manifesto" by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger. Published in 2000, the book provided a fascinating look into decade-old predictions about the power of the Internet to remake the marketplace (and corporate business in particular) as we know it, by starting discussion among consumers and constituents and creating a level of transparency that was, before the rise of the Internet, entirely impossible.
While its 95 theses could certainly be dissected one-by-one, and in fact have been since the book's ten-year anniversary, it's also helpful to go ahead and ask the major question -- has the Internet transformed, by any small measure, corporate culture and/or its means of doing business?
So let's start with the inevitable. Here's the part where I use the environmental catastrophe currently taking place in the gulf, which is historic and unusual (somewhat) in its scope, to extrapolate, overly generalize, and ultimately conclude that NO. Corporate culture has not yet been remade by the the ever-illusive power of the Internet. Not even at all. The millions of gallons of oil currently overtaking one of the world's most precious resources is a very tangible reminder that the Internet in itself, though in theory capable of providing us with a level of transparency that might have prevented this disaster, will never succeed in regulating corporate greed or culture as long as those who hold the power are intent on limiting that transparency to the best of their abilities. The BP spill, for example, can most definitely be blamed on a complete lack of transparency, as well as on a series of regulatory failures created by a previous administration (who shall remain nameless) that was, in particular, highly opposed to efforts at transparency via the web.
But BP, of course, does not represent all businesses. In fact, BP is, on the greed spectrum that runs from Mother Theresa on one end to well...BP on the other end....they are at the BP end. But when considering businesses like BP, that produce and sell to consumers a tangible product, and that are generally affected by supply and demand, there remains an entire myriad of factors that control whether or not they are doing "business as usual," and many of those will be unaffected by the Internet, at least in a direct sense.
What the Internet can do is bring together groups of people who are interested in reforms, help them access and share relevant information, and develop a plan for action. But we still live in a world where branding reigns premium in the fight for consumer loyalty. Remember how many thousands of people line up and Apple store each time Apple develops, in secret, a new product? These people buy Apple products not always because they are of the best quality, because they meet a need, or because they in any way collaboratively participated in their making, but because Apple is so well-branded that young hipsters, tweens, and tech-saavy adults alike feel that owning that product in some way tells you something about who they are. And that's branding. Not the Internet.
The bottom line is that transforming how we do business is about a cultural transformation. And though the argument could be made that the Internet might help to speed that transformation, or at least make it possible in ways that it wasn't before the Internet's advent, it will not ever be responsible for that transformation. And maybe the problem is that I'm just generally cynical about human nature (it's that little bit of Holden Caulfield I just couldn't get rid of). But I seriously believe that cultural transformation--the kind that tells us what we should and shouldn't value as consumers or citizens-- is dictated by a variety of social forces and only changes when we can find a way to dig deep into people's psyches, reach them on a human level, and inspire some sort of change that becomes more important that the sacrifices needed to make it happen. In order to transform business, we have to stop believing that profit is the bottom line, or that the market itself should dictate company and consumer relations. But this is America. And that probably won't happen anytime soon. At least not until we find ourselves wading through a thick, oily mess of our own making...oh, wait...
And in conclusion may I please remind you it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. Thank you very much.
Well it's 1pm on a Monday, and so you know I'm blogging about this week's reading, "The Cluetrain Manifesto" by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger. Published in 2000, the book provided a fascinating look into decade-old predictions about the power of the Internet to remake the marketplace (and corporate business in particular) as we know it, by starting discussion among consumers and constituents and creating a level of transparency that was, before the rise of the Internet, entirely impossible.
While its 95 theses could certainly be dissected one-by-one, and in fact have been since the book's ten-year anniversary, it's also helpful to go ahead and ask the major question -- has the Internet transformed, by any small measure, corporate culture and/or its means of doing business?
So let's start with the inevitable. Here's the part where I use the environmental catastrophe currently taking place in the gulf, which is historic and unusual (somewhat) in its scope, to extrapolate, overly generalize, and ultimately conclude that NO. Corporate culture has not yet been remade by the the ever-illusive power of the Internet. Not even at all. The millions of gallons of oil currently overtaking one of the world's most precious resources is a very tangible reminder that the Internet in itself, though in theory capable of providing us with a level of transparency that might have prevented this disaster, will never succeed in regulating corporate greed or culture as long as those who hold the power are intent on limiting that transparency to the best of their abilities. The BP spill, for example, can most definitely be blamed on a complete lack of transparency, as well as on a series of regulatory failures created by a previous administration (who shall remain nameless) that was, in particular, highly opposed to efforts at transparency via the web.
But BP, of course, does not represent all businesses. In fact, BP is, on the greed spectrum that runs from Mother Theresa on one end to well...BP on the other end....they are at the BP end. But when considering businesses like BP, that produce and sell to consumers a tangible product, and that are generally affected by supply and demand, there remains an entire myriad of factors that control whether or not they are doing "business as usual," and many of those will be unaffected by the Internet, at least in a direct sense.
What the Internet can do is bring together groups of people who are interested in reforms, help them access and share relevant information, and develop a plan for action. But we still live in a world where branding reigns premium in the fight for consumer loyalty. Remember how many thousands of people line up and Apple store each time Apple develops, in secret, a new product? These people buy Apple products not always because they are of the best quality, because they meet a need, or because they in any way collaboratively participated in their making, but because Apple is so well-branded that young hipsters, tweens, and tech-saavy adults alike feel that owning that product in some way tells you something about who they are. And that's branding. Not the Internet.
The bottom line is that transforming how we do business is about a cultural transformation. And though the argument could be made that the Internet might help to speed that transformation, or at least make it possible in ways that it wasn't before the Internet's advent, it will not ever be responsible for that transformation. And maybe the problem is that I'm just generally cynical about human nature (it's that little bit of Holden Caulfield I just couldn't get rid of). But I seriously believe that cultural transformation--the kind that tells us what we should and shouldn't value as consumers or citizens-- is dictated by a variety of social forces and only changes when we can find a way to dig deep into people's psyches, reach them on a human level, and inspire some sort of change that becomes more important that the sacrifices needed to make it happen. In order to transform business, we have to stop believing that profit is the bottom line, or that the market itself should dictate company and consumer relations. But this is America. And that probably won't happen anytime soon. At least not until we find ourselves wading through a thick, oily mess of our own making...oh, wait...
And in conclusion may I please remind you it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. Thank you very much.
6.02.2010
People Named Delan(e)y Are Geniuses
It's true.
This week we read Colin Delany's Using the Internet to Win in 2010 and
Learning From Obama: Lessons for Online Communicators in 2009 & Beyond. The two readings served as a good overview of the principles we've been discussing in class these past weeks. Delany stressed the important of online outreach in political campaigning, specifically, and what lessons are to be learned from the 2008 Obama Campaign. He discussed the importance of defining a specific strategy, tools being nothing without the solid or valuable content (a story) behind them, and of using online tools to reach influencers with lists and networks of their own. He also pointed out that I have become a Twitter failure. "Don't start a feed only to let it die of neglect." Oops.
I found these readings to be informative, but I have to say that I disagree to an extent with Delany's claims that "without the Internet, Obama would still be a junior senator from Illinois." Did the Internet do wonders for Obama's fundraising efforts? Yes. Is it likely that, without his ability to coordinate volunteers and donors via the Internet, Hillary would have won the Democratic nomination? Maybe. But can we say that, without the Internet, Obama would not be President? I don't think so. On a good day, I would be willing to engage in a debate about the extent to which the Internet allowed/helped Obama (to) defeat Hillary. But I can't say that the Internet is the reason Obama defeated McCain. What we can say is that the Internet helped to build excitement around Obama, and that certain attributes of him as a candidate were more marketable to online audiences than were his opponents'. But let's not forget that he won the presidency (and the primary) because of a range of issues specific to his 2008 nomination. Obama didn't win BECAUSE of the Internet. He won because he was new face, because he mobilized young voters and black voters, and because, as is traditional of elections following hard times, Americans wanted the incumbent party out. Obama's Internet strategy took these opportunities and used online mediums to magnify and exploit them. After all, Delany himself makes the point that online tools are nothing without content. There are certain elements of Obama's candidacy that allowed him to be branded as a winning candidate. McCain simply didn't have those elements in 2008.
6.01.2010
Virginia Hates Again
Few things make me prouder to be a Virginian than Bob McDonnel's Henchman Numero Uno Ken Cuccinelli. In fact, Kenny makes me so proud to be a Virginian, that I have decided to write him a love letter on this blog.
Dear Ken,
In the past months, since your appointment as Virginia Attorney General, I have come to admire you for many reasons. Remember that time you asked state universities to remove "sexual orientation" from their anti-discrimination policies? That was classy. Or how about that time you threatened freedom of scientific inquiry by creepin where no state Attorney General has creeped before? One of my favorites. And, of course, let's not forget that time you embarrassed Virginia on a national level by challenging the legality of healthcare reform only five minutes after it was signed into law. *True Love*
But yesterday, my feelings for you grew from those mere adoration from afar, a liking akin to a Nick Carter school-girl crush, to those accompanying a full-on obsession. Yesterday, the trusted WaPo informed me that you have led the way in establishing Virginia as one of only TWO states nationwide NOT so deeply offended by the actions of Westboro Baptist Church psycho Fred Phelps and cronies as to side with the victims of his hate-speech in the coming Supreme Court case. Yes, good for you. Let's reminisce by revising the official statement from your office:
"We do not think that regulation of speech through vague common-law torts, like intentional infliction of emotional distress, strikes the proper balance between free speech and avoiding the unconscionable disruption of funerals."
Bravo, sir. Bravo. Because after all, a regulation of speech via "vague" identifiers such as the intentional infliction of emotional distress would make, in my eyes, literally everything you say illegal. Because I've gotta be honest...I find myself emotionally distressed every single time I see your mousey self on my computer screen and read your hateful statements.
Listen. I'm not a lawyer, but I do understand the threat to free speech that such a decision could possibly inflict. But I don't think I can forgive you for this one, Kenny, until you do something to counter the constant hate spewing from the mouths of these Kansas freaks. Because as far as I can tell, you and Freddy Phelps seem to have a little more in common than your thoughts on the extents to which free speech applies.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go photoshop your picture with a Teen Beat logo and post it on my bedroom wall. From now on, you will always be one of my top hubby picks for MASH on the field-trip school bus. Right next to Leo DiCaprio and my seventh-grade boyfriend.
Love,
Del
5.27.2010
Got Starbucks This Morning
But the guy didn't compliment my hair like last time. Fail.
In more important news- Obama > McDonnell. At least for today.
In more important news- Obama > McDonnell. At least for today.
5.26.2010
MobileActive
Michael Stein outlines strategy for conducting mobile campaigns in his Strategy Guide #2: Using Mobile Phones for Advocacy Campaigns. To start with, I appreciated the international focus of the guide. It's nice to see an author addressing how campaign methods should and do vary according to varying cultural needs or circumstances. We know that in some parts of the world, the majority of citizens log onto the net via cell phone, not through a desktop computer, and for this reason I can understand the importance of studying and harnessing the ability to conduct mobile campaigns.
I worry somewhat about the technology needed to conduct these campaigns, and that it will be ultimately out of the price range that many smaller advocacy groups can afford (at least for some time). When you add up all the various costs-- consultants, vendors, tech experts, programmers-- it seems impossible that many smaller organizations will be able to conduct advanced mobile campaigns, and I worry that these groups will be put at a disadvantage. What we don't want to see are major political parties with corporate backers using this technology to influence elections, leaving smaller nonprofits or advocacy groups unable to counter their campaigns due to lack of funds.
But I am looking forward to class tonight. We'll see what everyone else has to say about this.
Ps- Sex and the City 2 comes out this weekend!!! Remember how long it took Carrie to get a cell phone? Something tells me she wouldn't sign onto a GreenPeace petition via text...
I worry somewhat about the technology needed to conduct these campaigns, and that it will be ultimately out of the price range that many smaller advocacy groups can afford (at least for some time). When you add up all the various costs-- consultants, vendors, tech experts, programmers-- it seems impossible that many smaller organizations will be able to conduct advanced mobile campaigns, and I worry that these groups will be put at a disadvantage. What we don't want to see are major political parties with corporate backers using this technology to influence elections, leaving smaller nonprofits or advocacy groups unable to counter their campaigns due to lack of funds.
But I am looking forward to class tonight. We'll see what everyone else has to say about this.
Ps- Sex and the City 2 comes out this weekend!!! Remember how long it took Carrie to get a cell phone? Something tells me she wouldn't sign onto a GreenPeace petition via text...
5.25.2010
5.24.2010
Matt Bai's Book Cost Me 99 Cents on Amazon.com
But after reading it, I've decided that I would have paid a lot more. Beyond my enjoyment of his detailed caricatures of well-known political figures, I found it to be a compelling analysis of a small bit of political history. It not only demanded a need for a solid progressive argument, but also suggested that the the people themselves should be contributors in shaping this argument (as has been the case in past movements.) The Internet has allowed us to speed the process up, and has allowed numerous people to partake in the discussion that, otherwise, might not have been able to.
A running theme throughout the book referred to the overall chaos brought about by any and all attempts to redefine (or, perhaps, define) the new progressivism. There was chaos among the Washington insiders, there was chaos among the billionnaire funders, and there was chaos among the bloggers. The Democracy Alliance seemed the least able to identify a coherent argument of progressive America. While they were floundering about, however, the bloggers took it upon themselves to engage one another in serious discourse, so as to define an agenda that needed to be accomplished.
What the blogosphere didn't solve, of course, was the culture of Washington insider-ness. Bai acknowledged the echo chamber that the top bloggers (Kos, etc.) lived (live) in. Yet still, their existence is a step in the right direction. Rahm Emmanuel, brilliantly characterized in this book with his no-nonsense, "you don't know shit about politics" rants seemed particularly frustrated by methods (by Dean and the bloggers) to re-establish the Democratic party as a national party. I think this tension between Emmanuel and Dean (and the bloggers to an extent) came fairly close to summarizing the heart of book's central theme -- that though the blogosphere has done quite a bit in terms of injecting alternate or varying viewpoints into Beltway discourse about politics, etc., it is not necessarily the best or most realistic means by which to reinvigorate a party on a nationwide level. The establishment of a solid progressive argument could do this, but the chaos created by the blogosphere, which in a sense relies heavily on dissenting opinion (even between members of the same party), makes this establishment difficult.
A running theme throughout the book referred to the overall chaos brought about by any and all attempts to redefine (or, perhaps, define) the new progressivism. There was chaos among the Washington insiders, there was chaos among the billionnaire funders, and there was chaos among the bloggers. The Democracy Alliance seemed the least able to identify a coherent argument of progressive America. While they were floundering about, however, the bloggers took it upon themselves to engage one another in serious discourse, so as to define an agenda that needed to be accomplished.
What the blogosphere didn't solve, of course, was the culture of Washington insider-ness. Bai acknowledged the echo chamber that the top bloggers (Kos, etc.) lived (live) in. Yet still, their existence is a step in the right direction. Rahm Emmanuel, brilliantly characterized in this book with his no-nonsense, "you don't know shit about politics" rants seemed particularly frustrated by methods (by Dean and the bloggers) to re-establish the Democratic party as a national party. I think this tension between Emmanuel and Dean (and the bloggers to an extent) came fairly close to summarizing the heart of book's central theme -- that though the blogosphere has done quite a bit in terms of injecting alternate or varying viewpoints into Beltway discourse about politics, etc., it is not necessarily the best or most realistic means by which to reinvigorate a party on a nationwide level. The establishment of a solid progressive argument could do this, but the chaos created by the blogosphere, which in a sense relies heavily on dissenting opinion (even between members of the same party), makes this establishment difficult.
5.19.2010
DigiWhat?!
I really appreciated this 1-D, 2-D, 3-D stuff.
Here's my deal. I get 1-D and I get 2-D, and now I'm supposed to embrace 3-D. I was reading Dr. Digipol's articles on campaign dimensions, and I think think I've finally figured out my problem -- I generally don't care about what most people have to say. Keyword here being "generally."
This tendency of mine is something I've been aware of for um...ever, but I'm only now seeing that it might help to explain my otherwise seemingly unfounded distaste for social media advocacy. Perhaps my own nonsensical obstinacy has once again clouded my ability to think rationally.
I'm coming to see that this a significant barrier to my being in any way successful at online advocacy communication. 3-D platforms are meant to encourage and utilize discussion among participants. The problem is that I like to talk, but I really don't like to listen. This has proven problematic to me at many moments in my life, tweeting being the least significant.
But really it's not that I entirely don't care what people have to say -- it's just that there are few people's whose opinions I consider legitimate. I'm aware that this is a really unattractive personality trait, but I just can't seem to get rid of it.
But then again, maybe Twitter will help? I'm going to tweet something. My first ever. I hope no one tweets back. Could be awkward for me...
Here's my deal. I get 1-D and I get 2-D, and now I'm supposed to embrace 3-D. I was reading Dr. Digipol's articles on campaign dimensions, and I think think I've finally figured out my problem -- I generally don't care about what most people have to say. Keyword here being "generally."
This tendency of mine is something I've been aware of for um...ever, but I'm only now seeing that it might help to explain my otherwise seemingly unfounded distaste for social media advocacy. Perhaps my own nonsensical obstinacy has once again clouded my ability to think rationally.
I'm coming to see that this a significant barrier to my being in any way successful at online advocacy communication. 3-D platforms are meant to encourage and utilize discussion among participants. The problem is that I like to talk, but I really don't like to listen. This has proven problematic to me at many moments in my life, tweeting being the least significant.
But really it's not that I entirely don't care what people have to say -- it's just that there are few people's whose opinions I consider legitimate. I'm aware that this is a really unattractive personality trait, but I just can't seem to get rid of it.
But then again, maybe Twitter will help? I'm going to tweet something. My first ever. I hope no one tweets back. Could be awkward for me...
5.18.2010
Internet *Love*
In an attempt to counter the extreme Internet hate that has been emanating from this blog in recent days, I have decided to spread some Internet LOVE.
Things I love about the Internet:
Yet, in other sad Internet news. I have yet to tweet. Can't make my finger hit the button. Help?
Things I love about the Internet:
- MODG. Because it's my life dream to meet my future husband while drunk and at a tailgate, downing orange and maroon jello shots like it's my job.
- YouTube videos that let me listen to songs on repeat that I don't own.
- Good Morning Emails that read "Ugh, I'm wearing these green H&M pants that my skinny hot bitch roommate gave to me b/c she's too skinny for them and they were hers during her "fat years" in college. Fuck it. They're a size 8 and I'm just counting down the seconds until they literally burst at the seams. It ain't pretty. Whatever."
- True Love.
- J/k Real True Love.
- Cheesy forwards from Shefali's mom/my grandma.
- Advanced Patriarchy Blaming for some mid-day hating.
Yet, in other sad Internet news. I have yet to tweet. Can't make my finger hit the button. Help?
5.17.2010
This Isn't The West Wing. It's Real Life.
When I was a little girl I wrote stories that I kept neatly organized in a pink 3-ring binder. I hid them in my closet beneath piles of shoes and clothes so that no one knew where they were or could access my secret stash of Pulitzer-worthy unicorn tales. This trait of mine has, unfortunately, carried on into adulthood. It is perhaps a quality that I developed as a result of my upbringing in a rather large family, a quality spurred from a total lack of privacy or feelings of ownership -- a selfishness born from a desire to have a secret or two that belong to only me. But as I have matured, this tendency to guard my writing has also become less a need for privacy and more a realization of the value of the written word -- that it is a powerful medium for expression and that there is surely something to be said for carefully considering what we make, produce, or distribute for the world to consume. In all honestly, I'm incredibly uncomfortable writing on this blog. I'm doing it because I was told to for class, but every bit of me is resisting. I'm sure that everything I post I'll want to immediately withdraw. I care deeply about the thoughts and ideas I distribute to the world. I have no desire to hazardously post a thought that I may very well wish to rescind in the days, weeks, or months to come.
This, however, is my own perspective regarding the blogosphere. And as a result, I am forced to remind myself that it should not govern my overall opinion about the benefits to be gained by society as a whole from new mediums of communication, or, to the other end, the possible negative effects of such mediums. If I gained any insight from Clay Shirky's book, Here Comes Everybody, it's that there are positives to be weighed against the negatives, but that the most important realization regarding Internet communications is the following: Love them or hate them -- they're here to stay.
I found the book to be well-argued and convincing of certain possibilities of Internet advocacy, and I certainly appreciated his effort to address the qualms of Internet-skeptics such as myself. There were a few arguments I took issue with, however, and I suppose here is the place to address them.
The first portion of the book discussed how the Internet is re-shaping journalism as a profession and as an industry. Shirky addresses the possible downsides of this (polarization of readers, lack of a gatekeeper to provide quality assurance), but ultimately argues that increased access to news and other positive results of this transition tend to outweigh the negatives. When the public is able to influence its own agenda and highlight its own new stories, we are not subject to control by any news agent backed by those with certain interests (be they monetary or political or both). I can agree with this to a certain extent. Shirky discusses the idea of filtering news/commentary before it is published (traditional journalism) vs. filtering of news after it is published (by readers in the Internet-age). Certainly both have their pros and cons when considering their ability to contribute to any democratic state. But honestly I just don't feel like getting into all that, and this is MY blog so I'm going to get to what really got me in a mood.
My greatest amount of skepticism stems from ideas about the potential to organize without organizations via online social media and other mediums made possible because of the Internet. Shirky writes "now that it is possible to achieve large-scaled coordination at low cost, a third category has emerged: serious, complex work, taken on without institutional direction." My beef here comes with the various definitions of "cost" that might be applied to this theory of organization. Certainly there are multiple "costs" to participating in online campaigns, though not necessarily organizational or monetary. Any individual wishing to access the abundance of commentary made available on the web and then utilize that gained knowledge to participate in advocacy for a given issue needs three things: time to access information on the web, an ability to understand web content, and time to participate in Internet advocacy. While these factors are accessible to a good number of Americans, the honest truth is that there are plenty of us who don't have those things.
I think this is what I was getting at in class the other day. Though I certainly understand the potential for the Internet to open up means by which the average citizen can access information and opportunities to advocate on their own behalf, I am more convinced of this possibility on a local or state level than on a national level. D.C. is historically exclusive, and I don't see social media as being the means by which to transform this problem. Especially given Shirky's own assertion that the Internet favors reactive behavior rather than proactive behavior. It's easier to convince the masses to get angry about any given injustice after it happens, it's less simple to convince the masses to care about a problem before it's shoved in their face. Therefore, what you're left with is the ability to possibly mobilize people when and if a catastrophe arises, leaving the D.C. policy elite to mess around for the rest of year doing "business as usual," as Obama is so fond of saying.
The power for the Internet to transform federal policy won't come as a result of influence over officials because of pressure via Facebook or Twitter, but as a result of access to information about previously-hidden government workings. In order to promote access to Washington, we need to de-celebritize this city. Government insider-ness shouldn't be sexy. It just shouldn't be. Shirky makes this point:
"The surprise held out by social tools like weblogs is that scale alone, even in a medium that allows for two-way connections, is enough to create and sustain the imbalance of fame. The mere technological possible of reply isn't enough to overcome the human limits on attention...Egalitarianism is possible only in small social systems." (Shirky, 94)
In light of this, I recommend that real believers in Internet advocacy get out there and promote the following:
This, however, is my own perspective regarding the blogosphere. And as a result, I am forced to remind myself that it should not govern my overall opinion about the benefits to be gained by society as a whole from new mediums of communication, or, to the other end, the possible negative effects of such mediums. If I gained any insight from Clay Shirky's book, Here Comes Everybody, it's that there are positives to be weighed against the negatives, but that the most important realization regarding Internet communications is the following: Love them or hate them -- they're here to stay.
I found the book to be well-argued and convincing of certain possibilities of Internet advocacy, and I certainly appreciated his effort to address the qualms of Internet-skeptics such as myself. There were a few arguments I took issue with, however, and I suppose here is the place to address them.
The first portion of the book discussed how the Internet is re-shaping journalism as a profession and as an industry. Shirky addresses the possible downsides of this (polarization of readers, lack of a gatekeeper to provide quality assurance), but ultimately argues that increased access to news and other positive results of this transition tend to outweigh the negatives. When the public is able to influence its own agenda and highlight its own new stories, we are not subject to control by any news agent backed by those with certain interests (be they monetary or political or both). I can agree with this to a certain extent. Shirky discusses the idea of filtering news/commentary before it is published (traditional journalism) vs. filtering of news after it is published (by readers in the Internet-age). Certainly both have their pros and cons when considering their ability to contribute to any democratic state. But honestly I just don't feel like getting into all that, and this is MY blog so I'm going to get to what really got me in a mood.
My greatest amount of skepticism stems from ideas about the potential to organize without organizations via online social media and other mediums made possible because of the Internet. Shirky writes "now that it is possible to achieve large-scaled coordination at low cost, a third category has emerged: serious, complex work, taken on without institutional direction." My beef here comes with the various definitions of "cost" that might be applied to this theory of organization. Certainly there are multiple "costs" to participating in online campaigns, though not necessarily organizational or monetary. Any individual wishing to access the abundance of commentary made available on the web and then utilize that gained knowledge to participate in advocacy for a given issue needs three things: time to access information on the web, an ability to understand web content, and time to participate in Internet advocacy. While these factors are accessible to a good number of Americans, the honest truth is that there are plenty of us who don't have those things.
I think this is what I was getting at in class the other day. Though I certainly understand the potential for the Internet to open up means by which the average citizen can access information and opportunities to advocate on their own behalf, I am more convinced of this possibility on a local or state level than on a national level. D.C. is historically exclusive, and I don't see social media as being the means by which to transform this problem. Especially given Shirky's own assertion that the Internet favors reactive behavior rather than proactive behavior. It's easier to convince the masses to get angry about any given injustice after it happens, it's less simple to convince the masses to care about a problem before it's shoved in their face. Therefore, what you're left with is the ability to possibly mobilize people when and if a catastrophe arises, leaving the D.C. policy elite to mess around for the rest of year doing "business as usual," as Obama is so fond of saying.
The power for the Internet to transform federal policy won't come as a result of influence over officials because of pressure via Facebook or Twitter, but as a result of access to information about previously-hidden government workings. In order to promote access to Washington, we need to de-celebritize this city. Government insider-ness shouldn't be sexy. It just shouldn't be. Shirky makes this point:
In light of this, I recommend that real believers in Internet advocacy get out there and promote the following:
- Education and literacy among the public (b/c do you know how many people in this country have no idea what the f*@! Mattt Yglesias is talking about?)
- The promotion of government officials and legislators as public servants, not celebrities. Working in government needs to be less about remaking the world in your own image, a narcissistic endeavor pawned off as social servitude, and more about promoting the public good as a regulator of systems that effect the everyday lives of citizens.
- A movement away from this crap. You're a Harvard grad- stop fetching David Alexrod's coffee. And if you must, that's fine. But can the Times please stop glorifying it? This isn't The West Wing. It's real life. Thx.
5.12.2010
Warning- Boring School Post
To my one follower- STOP READING NOW. This post will be boring, and you shouldn't waste you're time. Go read up on Suri Cruise or something.
To the rest of the Internet who is not following this blog, let's talk about last night's readings. Ben Rigby outlines a simple formula for Internet advocacy that reads a little bit like an introduction to the Internet, in general. I found myself skipping over paragraphs thinking, "what fool doesn't know this?" My boredom, however, might speak to the book's overall purpose- to frame Internet advocacy as a tool that all people, even technologically incompetent oafs like myself, can use to illicit change. (I just learned you could hide people on your facebook mini-feed. Changed my life.)
Colin Delany's "Online Politics 101" repeats many of the same mantras proposed by Rigby, and by reading them together we can see how Internet advocacy should be understood as only one component of an overall strategic campaign, albeit an effective one if used correctly. Delany(great name), however, stresses an additional point that Rigby was less likely to harp on, which is that advocacy via online mediums works best when subjects are pursued relentlessly. Rigby implies (most likely via his connections to Rock the Vote) that youth cohorts, in particular, will jump at the chance to be involved in campaigns or issue advocacy, while Delany stresses that response rates to online communications are often depressingly small and that persistence is the key to success.
These opposite viewpoints represent what communications strategists have known all along- that there is no full-proof strategic element to any campaign that guarantees success. It all depends on what you're trying to do and who you're trying to talk to. It seems to me that academics and professionals who study the Internet and its effects on culture, politics and daily life range from extreme optimists to extreme pessimists, and I have to say that I lie somewhere near the middle of that spectrum. And I don't mean that to sound like some sort of uneducated cop-out, like I was some undecided voter in the week leading up to the 2008 presidential race. I really just mean that I can understand the short-term advantages to be gained from utilizing online campaigns, especially in certain circumstances where you're dealing with people that are largely already motivated to take action or care about a particular issue. But online campaigns are only a part of that. Before people can log in and get involved they have to be 1- able to afford a computer, 2- know something about politics, and 3- give a shit. And 1 to 3 seem like the hardest parts.
To the rest of the Internet who is not following this blog, let's talk about last night's readings. Ben Rigby outlines a simple formula for Internet advocacy that reads a little bit like an introduction to the Internet, in general. I found myself skipping over paragraphs thinking, "what fool doesn't know this?" My boredom, however, might speak to the book's overall purpose- to frame Internet advocacy as a tool that all people, even technologically incompetent oafs like myself, can use to illicit change. (I just learned you could hide people on your facebook mini-feed. Changed my life.)
Colin Delany's "Online Politics 101" repeats many of the same mantras proposed by Rigby, and by reading them together we can see how Internet advocacy should be understood as only one component of an overall strategic campaign, albeit an effective one if used correctly. Delany(great name), however, stresses an additional point that Rigby was less likely to harp on, which is that advocacy via online mediums works best when subjects are pursued relentlessly. Rigby implies (most likely via his connections to Rock the Vote) that youth cohorts, in particular, will jump at the chance to be involved in campaigns or issue advocacy, while Delany stresses that response rates to online communications are often depressingly small and that persistence is the key to success.
These opposite viewpoints represent what communications strategists have known all along- that there is no full-proof strategic element to any campaign that guarantees success. It all depends on what you're trying to do and who you're trying to talk to. It seems to me that academics and professionals who study the Internet and its effects on culture, politics and daily life range from extreme optimists to extreme pessimists, and I have to say that I lie somewhere near the middle of that spectrum. And I don't mean that to sound like some sort of uneducated cop-out, like I was some undecided voter in the week leading up to the 2008 presidential race. I really just mean that I can understand the short-term advantages to be gained from utilizing online campaigns, especially in certain circumstances where you're dealing with people that are largely already motivated to take action or care about a particular issue. But online campaigns are only a part of that. Before people can log in and get involved they have to be 1- able to afford a computer, 2- know something about politics, and 3- give a shit. And 1 to 3 seem like the hardest parts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
