« Personal Democracy Forum Falls Flat | Main | Amanda Marcotte, 'Hero' Or 'Bigot'? »
May 21, 2007BELTWAY BLOGROLL
GOP Is Not So Grand At Online Politics
The Washington Post has a front-page piece (also syndicated at MSNBC) about Republicans who aren't so thrilled with their party's seeming willingness to finish second in the online political realm.
The writer, Jose Antonio Vargas, asked for my perspective. Here's the part of my analysis that made it into print:
K. Daniel Glover, who edits National Journal's Technology Daily, cited several other bright spots for Republicans in recent weeks -- Fred D. Thompson, the former senator and "Law & Order" star who's considering a White House run, immediately started connecting with the conservative "right roots," the equivalent of the progressive "Net roots," and Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the House minority leader, has joined Twitter, a social networking site."But look at the short history of online politics," Glover said. "For Republicans, the Internet is where bad things happen. Take [former U.S. senator] George Allen and his 'macaca' moment. . . . You can kind of understand why Republicans have this almost instinctive fear of the Internet, where the mob rules."
That last quote about "mob rule" begs further explanation. I made the point when telling Jose that Republicans historically haven't been as interested as Democrats in embracing "the people" -- in part because Republicans often see the people as an unruly mob that needs to be led rather an informed electorate whose will should be followed.
The current divide over the Iraq war illustrates the point. Most polls show a majority of Americans now firmly opposed to the war, and Democrats repeatedly cite the numbers as one reason to bring U.S. troops home. Republicans argue that government shouldn't decide weighty matters like war based on shifting public opinions and say instead that voters need to trust the commander-in-chief and military leaders on the ground in Iraq.
So how do those philosophies translate into online politics?
The Internet is the most democratic medium in history, and its fans place great trust in the ability of citizens to change politics for the better. Democrats share that confidence -- despite being burned online themselves occasionally -- because they are philosophically inclined in that direction. Republicans are not, and the bad things that happen to them online just reinforce their mistrust of the mob.
That's why Democrats have the edge in Internet politics.
Now on to a related topic: Former Republican Party e-campaign director Michael Turk also was quoted in the story, and like me, he elaborated on his thoughts in a post titled "Context."
The fact that both he and I felt compelled to say a bit more about our views on the subject are timely in light of another article in the Post this morning about the best way of conducting journalistic interviews in the Internet era.
My thoughts: I conduct interviews by e-mail, phone and in person, whether I'm the interviewer or the interviewee, and each option has its strengths and weaknesses. Knowing when to choose which method, and when to insist on one over the other (e-mail is not the best format for impromptu follow-up questions on controversial topics, for instance), is part of what makes a good journalist.
Whether journalists conduct their interviews by e-mail, phone or in person, however, they should never object to having them recorded and fully aired/published. And with the Internet, doing so is much easier. Yes, the Web is great for journalistic democracy, too -- and I for one embrace it.
Posted by Danny | 11:29 AM
