Can FISA Guide Us to the Future of Web 2.0 politics?

Buzz Aldrin on the Moon by Robert Goodwin from Wired.com

 

Tonight the last class of Digital Campaigns will cover upcoming technologies and trends. For sure, technology will take politics on avenues that we cannot imagine. I am quite sure that guys we have followed in this semester (e.g. Cyros Krohn from RNC (interesting article in WashPost the other day), Netroots Nation, pdf08) have a vision of the next step. But something unforeseen—like YouTube did—can change it.  Right now, Obamania seems to write the Web 2.0 story of the 2008 election. Ruffini questions this in a well-written blogpost on Techpresident today.  It is all about fundraising and that does not fit all purposes at all times.

  

Control of social networking -?

For now I will leave the tech presentation to Garrett for tonight and allow myself to elaborate on loosing control of the political process because of social networking. The Dean Campaign 04 took social networking to a political “extreme”, and it is useful in insurgent campaigns, but in most cases we need a model capturing the strength of the Internet but retaining control of the political process. I stumbled into this question when I read the wrong chapters in Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope.

 

Please Get FISA Right

In this light, it has been really interesting to follow the group formatting and growth of President Obama – Please Get FISA Right on Obama’s SNS MyBarackObama. Talking about exponential growth, it had more than 14,000 members after a week. At the time, it was the biggest group but now it’s the fifth largest group. This group of Obama supporters used his campaign platform to organize against Obama’s support of the Congressional compromise on FISA.

 

It is not that surprising that it is happening. I mean this kind of conversation is the purpose of opening up a process allowing peer-to-peer production or collaboration. And in the old-world of politics, constituents have always tried to influence politicians to change policy. But it is NEW that a political campaign opens up, invite its peers to join and open platform, and then a group challenge the candidate from within.

 

Here is the potential for “a collective, public discussion” but we do obviously not have the norms for it yet. (Read Micha L. Sifry’s critical analysis of MyBarackObama as an organizing tool). For a few days, the blogosphere and others wondered how the Obama campaign would respond. Would Obama really listen?

 

According to Carlo Scannella, one of the organizers behind the group; “His response to the Get FISA Right group was a moment of validation; this became something real.”Obama’s response did not stop the group, and it is ridiculously easy to organize the grass root campaign online.

 

So what does it mean? Jeff Jarvis had an interesting point:

 

Now if a campaign is going to argue that it’s truly grassroots, what is it to do with a revolt or protest from within? I’ve argued since Howard Dean’s run in 2004 that campaigns aren’t or can’t really be bottom-up when it comes to policy. They are necessarily propagandistic: This is what the candidate says. Indeed, Dean’s supporters acted like white blood cells in his blog discussions quite effectively surrounding and strangling dissent and opponents in the bloodstream. That’s the way campaigns have to work if you’re going to decide what this guy stands for and whether to vote for him, right? It’s about the message, no?

 

And what does it mean for the future? It is great to see this kind of disagreement within a campaign. It is democracy – isn’t? And what we are seeing is that a group is organizing around an issue instead of around a party. As Garrett asked in class a while ago; How will Obama’s supporters influence a Obama White House?

 

We can only guess. Personally, I am excited and convinced that the possibilities and consequences are just as enormous as it was to send a man to the moon. (Sorry to end the semester with such a cliche).

 

#COP15 from Copenhagen

For my final project in Digital Campaigns, I have chosen to develop a social media strategy for COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in November/December 2009. For another assignment, I stumbled upon Cop15.dk/eng, the temporary Website for COP15. It is built on the Web 1.0 design that the Danish Foreign Service has used for 5-6 years. And to their defense, the new Website, they are developing, will hopefully include more Web 2.0 platforms than just the current RSS-feed.

 

The following is an excerpt but somewhat re-written version of my paper:

 

World leaders will assemble in Copenhagen and attempt to write the succeeding agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. It is a unique opportunity for Denmark to brand its progressive climate agenda and regain its reputation after the Cartoon Crisis in 2006.

 

However, it is a challenge to build an efficient organization and communications platform handling delegates from the 192 partnering countries, thousands of media outlets, NGOs, and other interested actors. It will be chaotic.  But a social media strategy will provide the tools and the directions to succeed in this chaos.

 

Exploring Social Media in Political Processes

Employing Web 2.0 platforms will represent a courageous and experimental strategy. Governments around the world have not yet embraced social media as businesses and NGOs have. It is also the case in Denmark, but a social media strategy should fit well in with the management skills of the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and with Denmark’s tradition of being a progressive and pioneering country. Furthermore, UN in general has wide experience in using social media in the political process, which Denmark could build on (Garrett Graff, lecture, Summer 2008).

 

However, the question is how do ordinary citizens (or green influentials) get access to relevant information about COP15 and engage in the negotiations?

 

The Internet can be a “platform for informed, interactive politics, stimulating political participation and opening up possible avenues for enlarging decision making beyond the closed doors of political institutions” (Sey & Castells, 2008, p.225). On the other hand, the Internet, especially open source projects, is user-generated, and the actual influence or participation is by no means obvious.

 

Taken to an extreme, this would be direct democracy – eroding the current representative democracy in the Western world as many politicians probably fear. Dean’s campaign in 2003 and 2004 tapped into the Perfect Storm[1] and is the perfect example of an “extreme” social media strategy. Politicians have also been cautious about opening up the political process because it is time consuming, and it requires giving up some control. 

 

The challenge for COP15 and for political processes in general is “to find a model of Internet politics that captures the strength of the medium, while retaining control and organizational precision in the hand of politicians (Sey & Castells, 2008, p. 228). Furthermore, social media should be used to mobilize the allies of climate change to put pressure on world leaders in the participating countries.

 

It does pose a risk for Denmark to experiment with a new framework for political decision-making, but hosting COP15 is in itself a risk. And anyway the green influentials in the Web 2.0 landscape will be listening, talking, and connecting about climate change and COP15 anyway.

 

All in all, the goal is to build a Web 2.0 platform providing a framework for climate diplomacy and providing the target audience (green influentials) information about and access to the COP15 negotiations, thereby sustaining accountable and transparent negotiations.

 

The social media strategy could include:

 

1. Social Media Site: Cop15.dk integrating all the Web 2.0 platforms like 1Sky or BarackObama.com

 2. COP15 Conversation Platform facilitates conversation and participation like GOPPlatform2008.com does

 

3. Cop15Blog with sevaral voices like Tree Hugger, GristMill, and Daily Kos.

 

 4. The LinkedIn Group COP15 to sustain a professional network

 

 5. Flickr: I was there

 

 6. The COP15 Channel on YouTube featuring round ups and raw material.

 

 7. #COP15 – twittering during the conference like from Netroots Nation

 

Microtargeting in Applebee’s America

Howard Dean introduced the digital peer-to-peer campaign in 04, and George W. Bush introduced microtargeting to politics. Four years later, technology and information have taken exponential leaps gain taking the 08 campaigns to new levels. It raises a lot of questions from how useful the tool is to privacy and security concerns.

However, the groundbreaking work on microtargeting was done, primarily by Republicans, in 2004 by combing demographic, marketing, and consumer data in order to target voters likely to vote for your party.

From the Bush Team’s LifeTargeting Program came ‘funny’ stories like Republicans drink Dr. Pepper, Democrats Sprite or Pepsi. Democrats tend also to favour clear liquors, white wine, and Evian water. On the other hand, Republicans favour brown liquors, red wine, and Fiji water.

Does it work?
One of the few critical voices in our material for this week’s class, James Carville, says it is way too expensive to use microtargeting as a tool, and there are better and cheaper ways to predict voter behaviour. Of course a voter’s choice of soft drink does not predict what vote he or she will cast on Election Day. As said in the opening you have to combine all kinds of data from various sources.
   

 

 

Wired Magazine, July 2008 

Take a look at the results of microtargeting from the Bush campaign in 04; “The LifeTargeting Program was able to predict with 80 to 90 percent certainty whether a person would vote Republican” (Applebee’s America, 2006, p. 37). It is important information for parties fighting for their votes in races that are too close to call like in Ohio. Yes, it is expensive, and that is why campaigns should only use the tool where it makes sense; Bush only used this tool in the 16 most competitive states. 

The Long Tail
Reading Applebee’s America, this chart struck me, like it did in the Republican Party years ago. The importance of independent voters is declining:

 Applebee´s America, 2006, p. 32

According to this chart, it was useless to divide voters into Swing I or II like President Clinton did during his campaign in 1996. Furthermore, only 15 percent of Republican-leaning voters lived in Republican precincts, the rest was rarely influenced by a Republican campaign. And Republican voters did not watch TV like the campaigns used to think. Hence, the strategy had to change.

 

I visited Catalist’s office in Washington DC earlier this year, and when they were explaining their mission to me, I realized that politics is also part of The Long Tail. It is now possible for campaigns to target voters with the messages and issues that they are concerned about no matter where they live. It is niche politics and it makes a difference.

 

21^st century Civic Engagement

One thing is to identify voters likely to vote for your candidate. The next thing is to persuade the individual voters to cast the vote. “We focused on people we thought were inclined to vote for the president if we touched them in the right way” said Terry Nelson, Bush Campaign’s national political director in Applebee’s America (p. 42). One way is to identify the Influentials in a community. Influentials “make a convincing case that one of every ten Americans tells the other nine what to buy, how to vote, and where to eat” (Applebee’s America, 2006, p. 54). The Bush campaign identified and asked them to reach out to friends and family thereby influencing their vote. It was more or less the same that drove Joe Trippi’s thinking in the Dean campaign by reaching out to MeetUp and its self-organizing groups.

 

MeetUp and the Bush Campaign are both thrilling examples of Americans being more engaged in their communities again. But I cannot help thinking that there are still groups of Americans who are not participating in the concentric circles of civic engagement. Can we as a democracy still accept that millions of people are not participating one way or the other?

 

Privacy and Security

I have also been wondering while reading Applebee’s America etc. for this class; how is microtargeting regulated in USA? I am wondering because I have always understood privacy and personal liberty to be core values in the American culture. It is my Danish background influencing me at this point. In Denmark, the laws are very strict in relation to exchanging private or personal information, and I do not think, microtargeting will be possible to the extend that we see here.

 

Furthermore, I cannot help comparing these voter databases with Google who also know a lot of things about its users’ (online) behaviour. But there is one main difference. I can stop using Google if I do not trust the company or want to spread my information among other sources. But it is really hard to avoid the voter databases and the linking of data unless I don’t use my credit card. I guess so far, all of us are willing to trade our privacy and security for the convenience of Google and microtargeting.

 

 

 

 

 

McCain is Aware of the Internet

Last week at the Personal Democracy Forum 2008 (PdF 2008), Mark Soohoo, Deputy eCampaign Director for John McCain 2008, said in an exchange with Tracy Russo, former blogger for John Edwards: “McCain is Aware of the Internet”. The debate has also been fuelled in the blogosphere and tech milieu because McCain has tagged himself as computer illiterate. However, the debate raises the question; how much knowledge of technology and experience with social media does the incoming president need?

TechPresident posted on Monday June 30, 2008 a poll asking its users Does a Connected World Need a Connected POTUS? As of today 118 have voted in this way: 

·  Yes, a POTUS needs to have first-hand experience with the Internet in order to lead. 61%

·  No, not as long as a POTUS has a firm understanding of the Internet’s impact. 33%

·  No, a POTUS more important things to worry about than going online. 4%

 

I am debating with my self whether to vote YES or NO not as long as POTUS has a firm understanding of the Internet’s impact. For me, it has been necessary to have first-hand experience with the Internet in order to get a better understanding of its impact. On the other hand, I guess I could be twittering, networking on Facebook, and blogging and still not understand the impact of technology on society. It is helpful and intellectual stimulating to participate in discussions with professors, fellow students, and friends or reading books like Wikinomics, The Long Tail, the First Campaign, and the Revolution Will Not Be Televised in order to get a better understanding of the Internet’s impact. Therefore, it is positive to see that 94 percent of the votes have voted yes or no POTUS with firm understanding and not NO, a POTUS have more important things to worry about. (It would be interesting if the poll was representative for the whole population and not just readers of TechPresident).

 

In general, I have no problem that McCain is not using a PC or a MAC, cannot use a BlackBerry or Twitter. According to Garrett Graff´s lecture last semster and Joe Trippi in the Revolution Cannot be Televised, Howard Dean did not get the Internet. But I do care, if he does not understand that the world is much more connected today than it was just 30 years ago. The Long Tail illustrated how business is changing, personal relations is changing thanks to Facebook and MySpace. Even national security is changing because of the impact of the Internet.    

Policies on Technology
Obama has proposed to create a Chief technology officer at cabinet level to work on issues like infrastructure, transparency, and crisis communication. On his website, Obama demonstrates that he has an insight and a willingness to work on tech issues like:  

* Better filtering systems for parents
* Safeguard rights for privacy
* Open up government for citizens
* Online town meetings
* Employ blogs, wikis, and social networking to modernize agencies to modernize governmental decision making

 

McCain has not developed a separate tech policy as part of his presidential campaign. Maybe he has intregrated tech into each issue, I have to admit, I have not read all his issues descriptions in details – so it might be hidden somewhere down there! But I did find this, and, for instance, McCain has supported the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act. To overcome the digital divide, McCain suggests:

“there’s lots of ways that you can encourage corporations who, in their own self-interest, would want to provide — would receive tax benefits, would receive credit, and many other ways for being involved in the schools and upgrading the quality of the equipment that they have, the quality of the students, and thereby providing a much-needed, well-trained work force.”

 McCain is aware of the Internet, but asking corporate America in invest in tech infrastructure isn’t that the same as asking them to invest in highways?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conversations in Concentric Circles

Last night, Michael Silberman, Deans’s National Meetup Director visited our class and lectured us about his experiences at the Dean Campaign in 2003 and 2004. Blogging It In sums up the wisdom of crowds behind the Dean Campaign or you can read Silberman’s detailed account in the anthology; Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope (chapter nine). Here’re a few of my thoughts after class.

 

I might be repeating my blogging from the spring semester but it is getting more and more obvious to me that Dean’s use of the internet was not just a purely strategic choice. Well, there were no other choices because of the lack of money, resources, and staffers according to Garrett Graff. But it was also a strategic choice aimed at cultivating a more transparent and collaborative process. I am fascinated by Joe Trippi’s understanding or idea of trusting the base and let the campaign come out from their efforts. Instead of perceiving a campaign as a traditional command-demand hierarchy he approached the campaign as concentric circles. Collaboration and conversations spread through these concentric circles. The base owned the campaign was the message as well as the fact.

 

However, Garrett Graff pointed out that Dean could only do this because he was behind. Frontrunners will never give up control like this  -  because they cannot afford it. As much as I admire Trippi´s approach, I agree (not just because Graff is my professor). Sey and Castells explain in the reflections part of Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope (chapter eightteen) that politicians are afraid of opening up the process because it will be time consuming and “erode representative democracy” (p.227). Furthermore, Sey and Castells note that controlling the message is an obsession just like money for any campaign. Zephyr Teachout and Thomas Streeter (part of the Dean Campaign) are also uncertain that politics will become more open (see p. 240). They make the distinction between distributed work and decentralized power. For instance, if I send a suggestion to Starbucks it is not “transforming my lack of power in the organization into a fact of power” (p.241). Though, there is a tension between using the internet as a strategic tool to win the next election by any means and using the internet to cultivate a democratic society (p. 234).

 

Where do Obama’s and McCain’s campaigns fit into the appraoch of concentric conversations?

Thoughts from my time offline on branding and politics

During my vacation I had some great discussions about social media with my Scandinavian guests. One question was: How do we see branding in 10 years? I do not know much about branding but change is already taking place. Companies cannot control their brand or the perception of their brand without understanding the premises of social networking and collaboration. As Garrett Graff writes in the syllabus to our class: “The arrival of the digital age is causing incredible turmoil and change across all peoples and all industries in a very short length of time.” In other words this is not just a matter of waiting for the Net Gen to grow up and gain power. Just look at the presidential election. I know it is too early to conclude that Obama’s way of campaigning will bring him all the way to the White House. But his method has proven that politicians can engage voters – also as donors – that have been neglected in the “old campaign model”. And that is not only happening in politics!

Politics are conversations too

Markets are conversations and the same holds true for politics. Politics are conversations too. The authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto argued that we have to go back and recreate the conversation that happened on the marketplaces in the good old days. I will argue that politicians need to do the same.

 

Hillary Clinton entered the presidential election in January 2007 with the video “I’m In” where she said: “I am not just starting a campaign though, I am beginning a conversation with you”. But what she is learning with the rest of us is that it is not enough just to use the Web 2.0 platforms for social networking and collaboration. You have to leave the top-down approach to running a campaign like the Dean campaign did in 2003 and 2004. Even Barack Obama is accused of being top down too. Or maybe that is the learned lesson of 2008. Is the key to a successful campaign to mix the top down approach with collaboration?

 

We are witnessing a shift from one-way campaigns to two-way campaigns. Especially the Democratic candidates are experimenting with Web 2.0 platforms like blogs, twitter, and video “where the views and opinions of the American people have an impact on the leadership, so leaders are with the people instead of seeking to lead folks that aren’t interested in being led by them” (Howard Dean quoted in First Campaign, p.283).

 

Bloggers like Ruffini and TechRepublicans from “the Rightosphere” are calling for better strategies for debating, fundraising, and mobilizing on the Republican side. Jon Henke argues:

 

“The Leftroots can deliver messaging, money and mobilization, so Democratic candidates become path-dependent on them. They have sufficient power to move politicians to their ideas. The Right does not. Meanwhile, what is the Right passionate about right now? Not much. To build an online infrastructure as effective as the Leftosphere, the Right must find its own story to tell – an organic story, relevant to current grievances, with politically viable solutions – about which people can be passionate, around which a coalition can rally.”

 

 

Can everybody turn their culture around? To me, the Republicans are not really that grass root oriented. But the lesson learned this semester, I will argue political parties as well as corporations have to turn around and choose ”the new way” if they want to succeed in the future.  

 

The political conversation after the presidential campaign

Politics are conversations also in between presidential campaigns. As Garrett Graff, my professor points out in his book First Campaign there are important issues in the United States that call for action – and debate like education, health care, and infrastructure. Maybe politicians and governments on all levels can learn something from Dell’s Ideastorm and Starbucks’ MyStarbucksIdea.

 

 

PS. Read more about Garret Graff’s book here, here, and here.

I´m twittering

Just like Justin I agreed with Rosie when she said in class who cares? I signed up last week but I did not twitter until an hour ago when I read Justin’s entry. And I guess I signed up for two reasons. Just as Rosie explained in her blog, I do not want to be totally off twitter when it takes off. (OK I was). And one of  my friends recommended me to start twittering. And when she says it I know I have to.

 

Justin makes a interesting point in saying that “If people were to like a political candidate more for her sharing the random tidbits of information that make up her day and ultimately shine a light on who she is as a living, breathing, human being, then perhaps our own relationships can likewise be enhanced by taking a few seconds to drop (literally) a line about a funny argument we witnessed, an amazing cupcake we tasted or a beautiful flower that caught our eye.”       

 

I guess, we (voters) are looking for someone we like to drink a beer with (as they said about Bush) or maybe have breakfast with. I will sign up for Obama’s and Hillary’s twit and see what it will get me. But I do expect a bit more than just favorite dishes, colors, and cupcakes.

 

I also expect to get news on this microblogging site. Twitter has shortened the news cycle again. I can get the news from witnesses or other sources, if I want. Witnesses can share updates on major events. And Twittering can be used to organize protests or other events like teamtibet twittered to organize protests.

Web 2.0 in Denmark

Our claim to fame in the Wild World of the Web is Skype, usability, and Lego Mindstorms. One of the inventors of Skype (using VoIP technology), Janus Friis is Danish. The usability guru Jacob Nielsen is also Danish, and Lego is based in Denmark. It is part of the Danish nationalism not to be nationalist but we are very proud when a Dane make to the world scene. It might be because we are such a small country. For those of you who have never heard about Denmark before it is a small country in the Northern part of Europe with a population of 5.4 million which is 1.1 percent of the EU population.

 

 

98% of the population can access broadband, and according to OECD Denmark is the leading country in the world in relation to broadband penetration.

 

 

Popular Websites

Just like in United States Google (one in English and one in Danish), YouTube, and Windows Live are popular Websites, but Facebook (number 5) is more popular than MySpace (number 14). Of the top 10 Websites only three sites are Danish. The social networking site for teenagers Arto (7), the public TV and radio broadcast station Danmark’s Radio (8), and the tabloid newspaper Ekstra Bladet (10).

 

 

Blogging

For years, I have been wondering why blogging was not such a big thing in Denmark. New trends cross over, but it seemed to me that blogging, especially corporate and political blogging, took forever to take off. Apparently, the Danish political culture is less “conductive to the openness required in a successful blog” (Naked Conversations, 2006, p.115). Following the current US presidential election on TV, blogs, in papers, and from time to time in town hall meetings, I have experienced a vivid and emotional American political culture where individuals are not afraid of expressing thoughts about political issues. I think it is especially the emotional debate that I am not used to.

 

Living abroad for almost two years now, I have only followed the news and trends in the communications industry in headlines. I asked my female network Nina B a few months ago what blogs they are reading – and no one responded. I guess they were all busy – because seeing the boom in the Danish blogosphere means that they have to read blogs like here, here or here (Sorry they are in Danish. They are about politics and blogging). A few weeks ago blog number 100,000 was registered.

 

The big blogging thing last year was a boom in political blogging. The Prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and most of the party leaders blogged during the three-week-campaign. Interestingly, some of the politicians do not think they have to blog between elections. The leader of the Social Democrats, Helle Thorning-Schmidt did not blog for two months but she started blogging again after a communications expert criticized her in Politiken (one of the leading newspapers in Denmark).

 

During the campaing the prime minister invited voters to join him running around the lakes in Copenhagen. 500 people joined him. Another political leader – Naser Khader used twitter, but it did not make a big difference because his campaign was a flop.  

 

 

The e2012-goal

The Danish government has a goal of becoming a digital administration by 2012 making it a lot easier for the citizens to access the relevant authorities. Furthermore, it is the ambition that all written communication between citizens or private companies and the public sector will be digital. The Ministry of Finance and The National IT- and Telecom Agency are working to provide better, more cohesive and efficient digital services on www.borger.dk. They are working on version 2 right now including a “My Page” where the user can access personal data and digital letters. Furthermore, more services and information will be available at the same site: income taxes, job search services, social security benefits, car registration, application for building permission, declaration to police, public libraries, enrolment for higher education, announcement of moving, and health-related services. Finally, the government got it! The idea is good – but I guess it is hard to implement it across various government levels. However, to become a Web 2.0 administration they have to work harder of the tools facilitating political conversations. The online debate is more or less non-existent.

 

 

Netbanking

Netbanking has nothing to do with Web 2.0. But I just want to mention it briefly because I was in chock when I moved to the US and I had to use checks. I had never written a check in order to pay a bill. I had just used my Net Bank. Danish banks were frontrunners in developing a secure net banking system. Already before net banking Denmark had a similar system called giro where each company had an identification number and each bill had an identification number which made the system secure