[Jess Touschek]
With the US Presidential Election 2008 at hand, power is suddenly just a mouse-click away. Rather than being told what to think by candidates, the average individual with internet access can choose not only to inform themselves about their future leaders, but also the means by which they can contribute to their chosen candidate. Whether through blogging, donations, spam or video-editing, absolutely anyone can participate. With the primaries already underway, the online community is buzzing with anticipation.
This excitement is all very well, but does the deluge of digital rhetoric have any concrete effect on the real world campaign? Even the internet-allergic have to answer grudgingly in the affirmative.
Firstly, the web’s fundraising potential is phenomenal. The donation pages on the website of each and every presidential candidate are veritable goldmines. Hillary Clinton raised $4.2 million via the internet in the second financial quarter alone, while in the Republican corner, Mormon candidate Mitt Romney managed an impressive $10 million over a six month period.
These figures, however, are unable to compete with those of Barack Obama, the widely acknowledged “hip” candidate of 2008. A breathtaking $17.2 million, ($10.3 million in the second quarter) found its way into his virtual coffers during the first six months of 2007.
It would also be foolish to underestimate the value of the web in terms of exposure. Presidential candidates love to cite the mantra “Get the message across”. The internet allows them to do just that with unprecedented efficiency.
In the past, the most effective way to attain widespread recognition was either to cause a scandal or to spend millions on producing and distributing slick television advertisements. Now exactly the same effect can be achieved with a fraction of the effort and expenditure, via the video-sharing phenomenon, YouTube. It is not even necessary to spend large amounts on professionals. There are hordes of amateur lobbyists, armed with camcorders and a basic knowledge of Windows Moviemaker, ready to do the job for them.
Useful as this cheap source of public relations is, however, there are considerable drawbacks. There is nowhere to hide on the web, as certain participants in the current race have already found to their cost. Trying to attach the adjective ‘Presidential’ to Rudy Giuliani after watching him chat up Donald Trump in drag is not easy. Funny or not, this is not the man I would want leading the international coalition to persuade Iran or North Korea to abandon their nuclear ambitions.
This iconoclastic tendency goes to the core of the argument for caution regarding the use of the web during elections. Had the internet been around during the campaigns of Franklin D. Roosevelt or J.F. Kennedy, it is unlikely that either of these most idealised figures of American presidential history would ever have found themselves in the Oval Office. Wheelchairs and womanising do not make a successful campaign – certainly not if captured on YouTube and set to music.
History shows that often the most charismatic and effective world leaders have held something of themselves back, maintaining a modicum of distance from their electorate. The complete disclosure demanded by the arrival of the web has made this well nigh impossible. The danger is that this demystification will not only discredit the candidates in question, but also devalue the office to which they aspire.
In any case, for all the financial and image-making power of these campaign innovations, it is still questionable whether any of them will have an influence on the Electoral College’s final ballot. Those who share this scepticism point to the case of Howard Dean, the Vermont Governor who first exploited such opportunities in the 2004 race.
Touted as the dark horse after an astounding influx of web-based donations, Dean’s race soon came to a (literally) screaming halt. He finished a distant third to Kerry and Edwards in the Iowa Caucus. It was a shock to the pundits at the time, but an analysis of polling figures illustrates the greatest flaw in internet campaigning: the skewed demographic.
The vast majority of internet users are under the age of fifty. Of the 125 million who voted in 2004, only 20.9 million were under the age of thirty. It might well be cool to have Barack Obama as a friend on MySpace. But the novelty wears off somewhat at the prospect of queuing round the block in sub-zero temperatures simply to punch a hole through a piece of paper.
If the internet has a palpable influence on the eventual outcome of the 2008 race for the White House, the possibilities for 2012 and beyond are limitless. The potential change in poll numbers is unimaginable if the only physical exertion necessary to determine the future of the world’s greatest superpower is the application of pressure with a single finger.
In a recent interview with the Times, Aaron Sorkin, architect of the greatest Democratic administration that we are ever likely to observe at work, that of The West Wing, said, “I am all for everyone having a voice, I just don’t think everyone has earned the microphone. And that’s what the internet has done”.
Regardless of whether Sorkin’s opinion is justified, it cannot be disputed that an unprecedented level of autonomy appears to have presented itself to the American public. The question is at what cost? One thing, however, is certain: the World Wide Web’s influence is here to stay.
