So it's time for more politics.
I have to admit that our current political system both infuriates and, yet, fascinates me. I always find it interesting on just how divded people become with respect to politics. Of course, I know that these deeply-held beliefs are a common flash-point, subject to a pretty fierce response from an individual when those beliefs are questioned and certainly when those beliefs are attacked. Sometimes the reactions are mild, in which the person chooses to repond and a debate begins. Of course, rections can go in the exact opposite direction and those reponses become heated exchanges, perhaps even violent altercations.
At least, so it was in the past.
It seems that today's era has seen a transition to a "kinder, gentler" means and that websites have now become the accepted medium for waging intense political debates. Coming to the surface has to be the site www.HillarryIs44.com. Initially I had been baffled by this site (partially because I'd been ignorant of the fact that the next president would, in fact, be the 44th) as it didn't seem clear to me what direction the site was going in. They certainly seemed to favor Senator Clinton's bid for the presidency, but the why didn't seem so clear. You couldn't tell if it were policy-related, or the fact that it was a woman who was running. Of course, I believe that the initial intent was somewhere in the middle. They were happy a woman was running, but it was more important to them that she had good policy ideas. So it seemed all well and good, but subtle cracks began to appear. Over time, it became clear that their feeling towards Senator Obama were less motivated by a division in ideologies and more motivated by the fact that he was, well, a he. Soon headlines on the site began to skew less towards "we disagree with Senator Obama because of..." and more towards "We hate Obama because he's a liar/cheat/evil evil man." To be honest, I found it rather surprising since I felt -at the time- that Senator Clinton had a pretty good campaign going. It seemed to be fairly well thought out and focused on issues instead of personal politics. Of course, this veered pretty quickly off-course with things devolving into an attempt to look as good as possible by any means necessary (I believe we're all familiar with the story of Hillary doding sniper fire on a tarmac somewhere).
However, that begs a question in today's ePolitics climate. Does the candidate influence the behavior of their followers? Or is it quite the other way around? Previously, it was rather simple. The politicos of the past influenced the behavior of their followers since media outlets' dissemination of information was on a slightly-delayed schedule. Even with the advent of telecommunications, it was difficult to stay "on top" of information. However, the advent of email and digital publishing options (websites, newsletters, social media, Twitter, SMS, the list goes on) made information available as it was happening and very unfiltered. Although TV debates of the past attempted the same result, it was still difficult because there was still some aspect of control in television (FCC rules and such). The Internet is the exact opposite. There is no filter and, thus, information comes out at a record pace and tends to outstrip "traditional" media outlets. Plus it gives more people a voice in what's happening. So, again, who decides the behaviors of politicians?
It is my belief that the process is very much even. Of course, politicans have long had a reputation of doing almost anythign for votes. So, of course, politicians do allow their constituents to influence how they act. So if the constituency acts a bit crazy, the politicians adjust their behavior accordingly. Of course, the flip is also fairly true in that the constituents want to be somewhat "closer" to their politician and will adjust their behaviors too. However, this risks a "feedback loop" in which each side tends to escalate a little more with each pass. Eventually, the two sides trade off and become the exact opposite of their origins. Sane candidates become lunatics and otherwise normal constituencies can become raging mobs. Of course, with higher stakes involved -such as a lame-duck presidency- comes much higher risks of otherwise warped behavior. Which rather nicely leads me back to the folks of HillaryIs44.com.
Upon the realization that Senator Obama had locked-up the Democratic Party nomination, the organizers of that site turned even more bitter and callous. Suddenly Obama was a "loser" and "stinky" (constantly taking an out-of-context quote by Michelle Obama regarding her motivating her husband to quit smoking) with occasional references to Senator Obama as "B.O." So, clearly, they had decided to voice their disagreement with the choice of the rest of the party. Although it's not totally bad since they've since started a new initiative, namely to write in Hillary's name. So that begins to raise another question; namely, is this good or bad?
Of course, it's easy to immediately dismiss it as bad. After all, these are people who are so beholden to a candidate, that they forget that they are part of a party. So they are loyal to the person, which takes traditional politics and turns it on its ear. It's no longer about parties, it's now about people. So it upsets a traditional balance. And therein is the part where it could be good. Politics has long been considered something lofty, something that existed across a gulf that separated politicians from "regular folks." So something like what the HillaryIs44.com folks have done actually takes that gap and effectively attempts to eliminate it. Of course, write-in candidacies are largely uneffective with respect to actual elections, but they have a much higher impact with respect to the mindset of both constituents and their politicians. So while it's easy to attempt to dismiss this group as a group of free-range whackos, the reality is radically different in that they may actually be making politicans return to their original roles as true voices of their people.
No comments:
Post a Comment