This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: August 14, 2008 - The 2008 presidential election campaign marks a watershed in the development of the Internet as a force in American politics. Previously, the Net was touted as having the potential to shape politics and government in the same way that it altered commerce. However, its promise to change politics was never quite fulfilled -- at least, not until the current presidential election.
Some might assert that this development represents a democratizing trend. However, there are troubling aspects that warrant attention by both the public and policymakers.
First, a little history. Before 2004, the Internet played a minor role in politics despite its growing importance in business and entertainment. That year, Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, attracted widespread attention by using the Internet to fuel his outsider bid for the presidency. Dean proved that he could raise huge sums of money by appealing directly to the grassroots through the Net.
For a brief time, the fundraising prowess of the Net allowed him to claim frontrunner status in the Democratic primary. Dean's candidacy, however, soon crashed and burned, but not before his campaign changed forever people's perceptions of the Internet and politics.
Dean's success on the Internet spawned many imitators. MoveOn.org, although technically not an imitator because it was created in 1998 long before the Dean campaign, may be the best-known of these Internet activist organizations. Basically, Internet activism or Netactivism, as it is sometimes called, transforms communication technologies such as email, blogs and podcasts, into tools for empowering and organizing political movements. The 2008 presidential campaign represents a high point in the Netactivists' influence on the political process.
Evidence of the Net's influence on the 2008 presidential race is hard to miss.
- The presidential bids of John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were declared online, superseding TV and radio for the first time.
- The Internet has been turned into a gigantic money-making machine for politicians. Obama, for example, raised more money in one month online than Dean raised in his entire 2004 presidential campaign.
- YouTube, the massively popular video-sharing website, launched an interactive project, which allows candidates to put questions to the users and invites their video replies.
- Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican representative from Texas, conducted his bid for the GOP's presidential nomination largely on the Internet.
- Social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace generate support for candidates more effectively than mass mailings.
- Perhaps nothing shows the "bottom-up" nature of the Net more powerfully than the fact that the most-watched and discussed political video of the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign so far, "Obama Girl," was the creation of a group of people online, and not by either the Democratic or the Republican party, or any particular interest group.
Without a doubt, all of this points to the growing power of the new media to shape political events. But does this indicate a higher level of politician-citizen engagement? Are we entering into a new age of greater public influence in politics? The jury, alas, is still out on these and similar questions.
According to a recent Pew report, nearly half (46 percent) of all adults in America are using the Internet to participate, either through getting news, sharing their views with others, and taking other more active roles in politics. Perhaps of more importance is the fact that the Internet is a leading source of political news for people between the age of 18 and 29, according to the same report. In fact, the Internet is the only growing source of information about political campaigns.
Traditional sources of campaign news such as TV and daily newspapers have either remained static or declined since the 2004 presidential election.
The Internet differs from more traditional news sources such as TV in that it also provides users with an opportunity to communicate with each other about politics. The Pew report indicates that a sizeable number of people exchange emails about candidates and many report receiving emails from political organizations mobilizing supporters. Social networking sites and online videos have also played an influential role in generating new political activity.
Beside indicating that the Internet is a powerful force and growing in the world of politics, numbers tell us nothing of significance regarding whether the Internet is helping or harming the political process. For that we must turn to analysts like Cass Sunstein, who puts forth a persuasive argument that email, blogs and websites provide nothing more than "echo chambers" for groups of like-minded individuals. In other words, people will read and watch other people who share the same viewpoints as them, which, as political scientists will tell you, will lead to a fragmentation of the polity.
In addition, people's political views tend to harden and become more extreme under these conditions. The huge volume of information available on the Internet actually contributes to this situation. Sunstein says, "When options are plentiful, people will take the opportunity to listen to those points of view that they find most agreeable."
If this is the case, then the Internet, rather than encouraging enlightened political debate, may in fact be hindering it. This leaves us with a disheartening prospect for the future of democratic politics.
Robert Cropf chairs the Department of Public Policy Studies at St. Louis University.