No, This is Not Really a 21st Century Campaign

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 17:50

Tom is a brilliant constitutional visionary, who communicates in very simple and humble terms about a new theory of democracy.  This theory can best be described as 'people should have stuff to do in between elections'.  In analyzing this campaign cycle, he said something that stuck with me, and that is that all of the money that is being raised and all of the volunteer energy that is being deployed is being used to communicate with citizens by television ads, direct mail, radio and phone calls.

Essentially, the internet this cycle is driving the traditional campaign machinery, only faster and perhaps a bit more micro-targeted.  As an example, the phone banking tools that Obama is using so effectively were also deployed by the Clinton campaign, as are the same basic fundraising tools.  And while 6% of the country has given money this cycle, fully 44% of the voting population of this country has contacted their member of Congress in the last five years.  That's a huge participation gap between campaign activism and civic activism, at all levels.

I'm going to guess that a good amount of 21st century campaigning will look like the 19th century, with a politicized business community, much stronger local political machines, and engagement levels at 80% or 90%.  Local debating societies, nonprofits that do service work and voter turnout, and a blurred line between government and politics are probably in the cards.  As social media and public spaces increase in importance in our culture, they will dominate our politics.  Right now, internet campaigns take people who like public spaces, harvest their time and money, and use it to target those who want consumer politics.  What happens when politics takes place entirely in social public spaces?