But this probably predictable development is not the most interesting aspect of the interactivity Obama’s campaign encouraged. I’ve previously commented that Obama has a potentially powerful political weapon to wield with the ability to mobilise supporters he’s identified online from the primaries onwards. But there’s a flip side to this sort of openness, and Henry Farrell has a cracker of a post at Crooked Timber on it. Farrell riffs off the huge volume of comments left on Change.Gov:

This goes to the heart of the contradictions that the Obama people successfully managed to straddle during the campaign, but are (I think) going to have increasing difficulty in dealing with going forward. The Obama people combined very tight top-down message control and campaign coordination with a fair degree of openness at the bottom to independent initiatives by volunteers. As long as everyone agreed on the same underlying goal (beating the Republicans), this worked. But as that overwhelming imperative recedes, people are going to start pursuing their own objectives – and the ‘open’ architecture that the Obama people have constructed provides them with plenty of opportunities to do this.

There are two other points here I think are salient. First, the absence (at least until the mid terms get closer) of a clear partisan event was always going to lead to a more diffuse focus for political activity – particularly given the candidate rather than issue centred nature of the Democratic Party and the lack of formal party structures and discipline. There’s also the “reach across the aisle” phenomenon that’s always going to be in play for a party that’s occupying the left side of the spectrum in a country like America. As John F. Kennedy said after his election, there are things Democrats have to do that Republicans never have to.

In this context, the best favour the Republicans could do Obama and the netroots is to act like partisan naysayers. Then there’d be the space for a renewal of the partisan unity on the Democratic side some in the liberal ranks seem to be wistful about.

Secondly, it’s worth taking into account the fact that both open government initiatives such as Change.Gov and the Obama net-works encompass a much wider population than simply died in the wool partisans. There are varying levels of commitment, partisanship and a range of different issues which people are invested in. Obama and his team will know this, and knowing this means that ignoring or annoying the “netroots” is a risk worth taking under certain circumstances. The power of the Presidential office and all its symbolism was very cunningly utilised by the Obama campaign, and that power increases exponentially now that he will actually be occupying it.

Image of spontaneous street celebrations in Harlem courtesy of matt semel at flickr – reproduced under a Creative Commons licence.

No doubt one of the big stories about the US election will be the influence of the blogosphere and the netroots. In many ways, the rise of the intertubes in politics was an unintended consequence of the Rove approach to politics, as Publius perceives:

The bigger story is that this same anger – this same frustration – has led liberals to organize in more numerous and consequential ways. In the last few years, we’ve seen new think tanks. We’ve seen blogs flower. We’ve seen the rise of media sites like TPM and Huffington with real journalistic chops. We’ve seen unprecedented efforts to register and canvass voters.

In short, we’ve seen a new energy driving liberals back to politics.

In an opinion piece at ABC Online, Barry Saunders sums up the changes that net based activism and citizen journalism have wrought:

The impact of social media on this election has been enormous. Whoever takes office will have to deal with widely available factchecking data, embarrassing videos, rabid wingnuts, opinionated bloggers and TV hosts, and a massive number of new voters and donors who feel they have invested in the American political process – as well as two wars and a collapsing economy. Here’s hoping they know what they’re doing.

John Quiggin writes of the “end of the first age of the blogosphere”:

Once the initial euphoria dissipates, and the inevitable mistakes, failures and compromises/sellouts begin to emerge, it’s necessary to strike a balance between criticising what’s being done wrong and reminding yourself how much worse the other side was and would be again. The attitude of constructive critical support is a hard one to maintain, especially given the habits built up over years in opposition.

We’ve already had a look at Michael Bérubé’s thoughts here at LP:

But perhaps the left blogosphere could be of some use in this regard, no? It needn’t be consolidated fully into Obama Enterprises Inc.; it could serve instead as a forum for writers dedicated to things like “hope” and “change” and “arguing that Obama was wrong to cave on FISA and better not do that kind of thing as President.” Of course, it could also serve as a forum for charting and mocking all manner of Ace-of-Confederate-Red-State-Yankeespade wingnuts as they venture into new realms of sheer barking lunacy that even the world’s sheerest barkingest lunatics have hitherto been unable to imagine. That might be fun. And it could do “shorters” and cat blogging and Theory Tuesdays and Friday Random Tens too. It’s a blogosphere. It’s a big place, with many many tubes.

And Possum makes some sharp points comparing the media/punditsphere and online social media:

Data beat punditry, statistics beat navel gazing, demographic analysis beat wishful thinking.

The intertubes were 3 hours ahead of the network coverage, Dick Morris should never show his face in public again if he had an ounce of integrity, and, most importantly, this has been a demonstration that sometimes things dont happen in the same tired old ways they always have before.

There’s one point I’d like to add to all this analysis.

Going back as early as 1976, commentary about US elections focused on the decline in voter involvement and its eclipse by top-down media strategies. We’ve seen a massive revival in citizen participation and activism, something that was recognised by Barack Obama in his victory speech. The future of this re-engagement will be dependent on how Obama governs, but as he correctly says, it will also be dependent on the preparedness of citizens to continue to act publicly and collectively.

All technology is shaped socially. Blogging, YouTube, and other social media have been enablers and not just causes of this invigoration of democracy. I’d like to see some research and analysis focused on the wellsprings of activism we’ve seen bubbling up. I think that would be, in many ways, a more productive frame through which to look at what’s interesting, distinctive and exciting about this campaign than yet another round of “journos v. bloggers” style articles.

Elsewhere: An interesting post from Terry Flew on the role of satire in the campaign, and some suggestions for future analyses of the results.

The most prominent has been Proposition 8 in California, which would remove the rights to marriage same sex couples currently enjoy. There’s been a vigorous No on 8 campaign in the blogosphere, and here’s a vlog from Riese and Haviland, who some may know and love from Riese’s L Word recap blogging (or maybe that’s just me!):

If Proposition 8 is defeated, there really would be some sign of a shifting cultural climate in the States. A complete list of ballot initiatives and propositions is at CNN, where voting figures will be posted as they become available.

Michael Bérubé recalls the wonders (ahem) of the Clinton administration, and has some advice for the collective(ist) tubes:

But perhaps the left blogosphere could be of some use in this regard, no? It needn’t be consolidated fully into Obama Enterprises Inc.; it could serve instead as a forum for writers dedicated to things like “hope” and “change” and “arguing that Obama was wrong to cave on FISA and better not do that kind of thing as President.” Of course, it could also serve as a forum for charting and mocking all manner of Ace-of-Confederate-Red-State-Yankeespade wingnuts as they venture into new realms of sheer barking lunacy that even the world’s sheerest barkingest lunatics have hitherto been unable to imagine. That might be fun. And it could do “shorters” and cat blogging and Theory Tuesdays and Friday Random Tens too. It’s a blogosphere. It’s a big place, with many many tubes.

At least the turf this issue – the purported opposition to earmarks and pork that Palin is supposed to share with McCain – is being fought over is a public policy issue rather than all the personalised stuff which just puts the Democrats and the media where the GOP want them. But Obama’s reluctance to use the words “lies” and “liars” shows he knows the score. He’s being criticised for that by liberal bloggers, who are cheering on the media “fact checking” exercise.

But all this truthiness is also at great risk of playing into the GOP’s hands – because it reinforces the equation of the media and blogosphere with the Democrats Rosen identified as the tactical positioning the Republicans want – and which George W. Bush reinforced with his claims about “the angry left” in his RNC video link. The culture wars schtick works – because the America of Wal-Marts and small town “values” has more electoral power in the swing states that count than the wonky redoubts of the blue staters. And a lot of those voters – who don’t source their news from the internet but from cable tv – and get their analysis from others of like mind in their own circles rather than bloggers, commentators and wonks – are seeing what McCain wants them to see – a feisty outsider being beaten up by the Beltway elite. Hence McCain’s polling gains, among other demographics, with white women.

Intelligent commentators realise all this. But what no one has seemed to be able to sketch out – in an electoral landscape where the swing states are rustbelt white Reagan Democrat central – is a compelling political and media strategy to rebut and counter it. Crying “truth” and calling time on lies just isn’t enough in a postmodern political world. Anyone remember SwiftBoating? What’s certain is that McCain’s mob have worked out how to game not just the media but also the liberal blogosphere.

Elsewhere: An interesting perspective on all this from sociologist and blogger Andrew Perrin at Scatterplot.

Why is the front page of the NY Times full of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy and New Orleans near miss, when the second major political convention is about to start and there are extremely important issues facing the United States about health care, clean energy, poverty and others?

She points to the importance of citizens – and by implication bloggers – trying to refocus debate on the issues, and on the necessity of a critical education in cultivating habits of mind which place the emphasis where it should be.

Secondly, the uniformly fantabulous Rebecca Traister at Salon writes:

How we got from the dispiriting political and ideological record of Sarah Palin — that she is adamantly pro-life and anti-gay marriage, that she is a lifetime member of the NRA, that she has no foreign policy experience and supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools — to the uterine activity of her family, makes perfect, human sense: Who wants to talk about boring policy when we can talk about teens and sex and pregnancy?

Traister is distressed that:

this election cycle could turn from one that was electrifying and energizing for women into one that situates their political prospects firmly back in the feminized territory of sex scandals, babies and mothering.

I’d strongly advocate following both links and reading them in their entirety.

I’d add to all this a third point I’ve been making again and again – the obsessive focus on the personalities of the candidates (and it sure as hell ain’t just about a celebrity cult of Obama – McCain’s whole schtick is all about himself and his personal qualities) is one of the most telling signs that the American political system is badly broken. And so is its civic democracy to the degree that people who are active participants in the “process” think that the politics of gotcha and charge and counter-charge is the way to go. It might be the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but it sure ain’t the way to bring about “change we can believe in”.

I’m still struck by Naomi Wolf’s remarks, which I cited in a previous post:

Of course the real fault is not Obama’s, but ours. We have forgotten the kind of risk and work it takes to build transformative mass movements, and so settle for iconography instead.

And it’s not just the KosBots who are at fault here. I’m increasingly tempted, despite perhaps being one of the few Australian bloggers who actually has a vote in November’s election, to just ignore all the noise emanating from the “netroots”. The hyper-partisanship and general horse-race point scoring all too characteristic of the American political system just finds its mirror in most of the so-called “left wing” blogosphere. There are some honourable exceptions, particularly among some bloggers of colour and/or feminist bloggers, but on the whole – for anyone actually concerned with social justice for the great majority of Americans who are daily damaged by its sovereign autocracy – it’s almost too dispiriting to read about.

Sean Tevis’ innovative method of raising internet funds in his venture to oust and replace his current State Representative (basically equivalent to one of our State MPs?) in Kansas is an online comic strip.

When Sean Tevis decided to run for a seat in the Kansas Legislature, he faced a serious problem: money. Local political advisors warned the campaign novice that he would need a war chest of at least $26,000 to compete against his entrenched Republican rival.

Having calculated that if he could get 3000 people to donate $8.34 each, he would reach that target, he created the comic strip to garner attention from potential online donors. He’s sort of a one-man Get Up! campaign.

Apparently, no other candidate for State Representative in Kansas has ever had more than 644 donors, so there was a built-in news narrative if he could make it work. So did it? Well, there’s a bunch of news coverage online, as well as many bloggings.

How many similar efforts are we going to see in election contests in the immediate future, do you think?

H/T to one of my Best Mates on a mailing list (and crossposted on Hoyden About Town)