TWO CHEERS FOR NETPOLITICS
The Internet has emerged as a serious force in politics in 2003. But whose politics is it?
By John Seeley
This was a year when the Internet began living up to its billing as a political force, both quantitatively and qualitatively. What in the 2000 election cycle was merely a secondary fundraising source - supplementing corporate check-bundling, direct mail appeals, and four-figure meet-and-greets in hotel ballrooms or Buddhist temples - has become the lifeblood of the leading Democratic candidate in 2003. The Net is reaping the Dean campaign rewards that keep him competitive with (though hardly matching) the time-tested methods of corporate shakedowns, etc. always available to incumbents, and brought to record levels by Bush-Cheney '04.
The number of dollars is, of course, critical to the outcome of the race, but where the money comes from is news, too. According to a study by eContributor, the average age of direct-mail political donors was 70; the average online giver is thirtysomething. Bringing a host of new and younger players to the table will naturally transform the game - new (though who knows what) issues will compete with protecting Medicare and other senior fare.
Dean's Net-savvy corps was first with a blog and first to utilize Meetup.com on its site for outreach. The Doc got a huge boost from winning - even with just a plurality - MoveOn.org's online "primary." Without the Web, this obscure outsider from a tiny state could never have mobilized his legions in time to challenge Dick Gephardt with his institutional base in labor or the familiar face of John Kerry.
Of course, the Web - like the Pope, the U.N., the decadent denizens of "Old Europe," our saner generals, etc. - was unable to stop Bush's war. But in the face of the incessant drumbeat from Fox, CNBC, and other armchair air marshals, the Web's alternative viewpoints (foreign and domestic) informed and reinforced doubters - and helped crystallize the opposition. Then, through such mobilizations as MoveOn's February "Virtual March on Washington," it slowed down war's onset by convincing dozens of Congressmen to pull their backbones out of post-9/11 storage, in turn pushing Bush to the simulation of openness to inspections.
A third landmark was the FCC furor. The unprecedented emergence of a regulatory decision as a nationwide battleground - and on issues that affected no one's pocketbook or core religious beliefs - may have surprised activists as much as it shocked FCC chair Michael Powell. That the megacorporations took some losses (even though largely reversed by maneuvers of the Republican leadership in conference committee) is impressive testimony to the Web's capacity to educate and mobilize around issues of some subtlety and sophistication.
On a more modest scale, the right wing demonstrated that it, too, could rev up virtual victories. Construction of an Austin, Texas abortion clinic was paralyzed by a right-to-life e-mail campaign threatening boycotts of contractors working on the project. In other reactionary news, the gun-toting editor of the Tombstone Tumbleweed (circulation 1,200) recruited and fundraised fruitfully on the Web for his "Citizens Homeland Defense Corps"; a Ramboesque scheme to detain and "evict" illegal border-crossers, many of whom they assume to be drug dealers.
And bloggers, apparently, were equal-opportunity executioners. When Trent Lott stepped down as Senate Republican leader after waxing indiscreetly nostalgic for the good ol' (segregated) days in Dixie, some suggested that the heat pushing him out the door erupted from smoldering Web logs. Among bloggers credited with keeping the Lott issue burning was Tennessee law prof Glenn Reynolds, whose commentary appears at InstaPundit.com. Perhaps more of a stretch was the claim by gay neocon Andrew Sullivan (ex-editor of The New Republic) that he and fellow bloggers created a "chorus of criticism" that brought down one of Sullivan's liberal bêtes noires, The New York Times editor Howell Raines.
But the Net gets only two cheers, not three, for its safe politics. These aren't the radical '90s anymore. When you get down to it, whatever "successes" progressives/liberals attain are in fact conservative. They aim to maintain historic norms, preserve the status quo. To not violate centuries of international consensus against pre-emptive war, a position blessed by the West's oldest and most tradition-bound institution, the Catholic church - is this edgy? To refrain from opening up new opportunities for media oligopoly seems like a good thing; to keep it at its current unprecedented level is no step toward diversity.
Of course we'd be glad to swap the Yalie now in the White House for the other one - the centrist governor and budget balancer who will conserve the Bill of Rights and refrain from new preemptive wars. Is this more than a step back to, say, the Jimmy Carter era? Innovation? A glorious new dawn?
No. And one reason the Web, for all its varied activist sites, hasn't spawned radical reforms might be that in fact it's, well, not elitist, but a solidly upper-middle class network in which class and connectedness smoothly correlate - highest income bracket 85% wired, lowest 19% (as of 2001). Yes, vis-à-vis Clear Channel or the Murdoch megalith, the Web is the great equalizer. But as usual, some are more equalized than others.
Published: 12/31/2003
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
