Those Who Do Not Repeat History Are Doomed To Learn From It
Naturally, technology and innovation are always, by definition, novel and therefore intimidating for some and enthralling for others. The key to utilizing technology in politics involves embracing, and then utilizing it in an effective fashion. Perhaps the most notable example of our last half-century involved the debates between Nixon and Kennedy. Televised for the first time to a national audience via a new-fangled medium, it could be suggested that technology helped determine the election. The fact that Kennedy looked better on TV led to a revolution in the calculus of campaigning. No longer was it sufficient to merely sound good, all candidates going forward needed to look good as well. During the subsequent decades we can isolate different advances made possible by direct mail initiatives and targeted television ads. Then, seemingly overnight, old tactics became antiquated—or at least quaint—once another revolution arrived, courtesy of the Internet.
The single most crucial concept, reduced to one word which will be repeated throughout this study, is data. We saw in 2008 how technology indelibly changed the nature of campaigns: it is now a common, uncritically received talking point that Obama’s team embraced, and exploited, social media to help secure victory. The reality is at once simpler and far more complex than this. True enough, the Obama operation shrewdly incorporated many nascent possibilities of social media to its pronounced advantage. On the other hand, this maneuver was initially less a reaction than a necessity, and what is now celebrated as prescient strategy was, at least partially, summoned out of desperation.
As difficult as it may be to recall, there was an extended period of time where Obama’s eventual nomination was anything but secure. Indeed, for months (if not years) the presumption, certainly amongst the chattering classes, was that the nomination was Hillary Clinton’s to lose. In retrospect, being a front-runner proved to be problematic for Clinton, both in terms of fundraising and primary votes. Obama’s team, to their credit, had learned a great deal from Howard Dean’s remarkable run in 2004, which was greatly enhanced by a combination of grassroots enthusiasm and technological savvy. Of course, his campaign-killing “scream” was also instructive, and Obama understood that as a left-of-center candidate he needed to project a calm, unflappable demeanor if he had any chance to win. It would be much too simple to suggest Dean’s experience typified the bountiful blessings and curses inherent in this century’s new paradigm, but by following what worked and avoiding what didn’t (not to mention hiring some of the brightest minds from Dean’s former staff), Obama went from outside shot to commander-in-chief.
There is a great deal to analyze and absorb from the most recent election cycles, but similar themes emerge and they predict the future as much as clarify the past. Obama’s canny utilization of social media may have seemed audacious four years ago, but it will be obligatory going forward. What happened in 2006 and 2008 that is already considered passé, and what advancements have been made just since the 2010 elections? What is happening right now that might impact the upcoming primaries? What should we expect to see during the 2012 campaign, and beyond?
Social Media: On the Hill and In Our Homes
History will note that Joe Biden’s selection to be Obama’s running mate was the first such announcement ever conducted via text. At the time this might have seemed trendy or even trivial. Certainly McCain’s reluctance to incorporate technology (even a token gesture of “geek cred”) did him few favors with the electorate. Beyond the strategic advantages Obama/Biden enjoyed, McCain’s tone-deaf technological recalcitrance undoubtedly brought the two campaigns into stark relief. McCain’s admission that he’d “never felt the particular need to email” led to him being spoofed and even dubbed “technologically illiterate” by The Telegraph (7/13/2008). This did not help the older candidate, and quite likely helped Obama capture the younger demographic, making his novel use of texting to announce his choice of running mate a shrewd tactical move.
CEA recently undertook a study to gain a better understanding of consumer attitudes toward issues involving technology and politics. Well over half (65 percent) of U.S. adults follow politics on television, and just under half (47 percent) are more aware of what’s going on in politics because of the Internet. Not surprisingly, the younger adults are more cognizant of social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Revealingly, less than half (46 percent) of young adults (ages 18-24) follow politics on television. Regarding awareness of politics because of social media, 42 percent of younger adults claim to be better informed compared with only 22 percent of total U.S. adults. This tends to confirm a perception that the demographic adoption of social media has trended younger, but also illustrates significant potential for all age groups. It is difficult to imagine that these percentages, across the board, will not increase leading up to the 2012 election.
For further evidence of these trends, the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), “an organization founded to aid in management-related issues in congress” commenced a project in 2003 entitled “Communicating with Congress”. In an effort to “improve citizen engagement and to help Congress use continuously-changing technologies to facilitate and enhance interactions with citizens” CMF has written several reports based on surveys of congressional staffers. The second report, #Social Congress: Perceptions and Use of Social Media on Capitol Hill focuses specifically on attitudes and applications concerning social media. Not surprisingly, social media is widely viewed as an imperative component of effective operation.
Some interesting findings from the study follow: “nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of the senior managers and social media managers think Facebook is a somewhat or very important tool for understanding constituents’ views and opinions.” Perhaps more significant, nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of these same individuals believe “Facebook is somewhat or very important for communicating their Members’ views (and) YouTube is viewed by 72 percent as somewhat or very important for communicating their Members’ views.”
The rest of the report decisively finds that social media has arrived and is regarded as an indispensable tool. Naturally, the younger staffers, most of whom have been utilizing social media in their personal and professional lives for several years, feel messaging can—and should—be controlled using platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Perhaps the single key takeaway involves attitudes and perceptions: staffers recognize that embracing social media is not only necessary, but provides better opportunities to interact with the public. Inevitably, jobs that did not exist a few years ago, such as social media managers, are now an essential component of any functioning office. A remarkable statistic surfaces toward the end of the study: “more than one-third (40 percent) of staffers surveyed feel their offices spend too little time on online communications.” (Emphasis added.)
