[atlarge-discuss] FYI: The Internet's Power to Forge Political Action out ofCivic Interest

[espresso@e-scape.net]

This paragraph, I think, is the crucial one for anyone
who wants to use the Internet to effect change in the
real world:

>Campaigns that remain locked into their own narrow ends
>(the votes and the financial contributions they need) and
>not the means (how they get there) are not likely to get
>far with potential new civic citizens, who experience
>these solicitations with suspicion. Such campaigns will
>be victims of their own fixation with short-term gains.
>But if they can foster meaningful online communities and
>activities through their own Web work and by reaching out
>through other online venues - some of them non-traditional
>or even "risky" - the votes and checks are much more likely
>to follow.  In other words, candidates, parties, interest
>groups and media organizations interested in harnessing the
>Internet will do well by doing good - that is, by helping to
>create vibrant and active civic communities organized around
>deeply felt political concerns.

but the other reality we technophile activist types may
sometimes forget is also important:

>Here's the point: Interest is nothing without the opportunity
>to act in some meaningful way, and the Internet cannot create
>interest, anyway. Even the most ardent believers in the powers
>of the Web would agree that there is no tool - online or otherwise
>- that can turn apathy into action. Greater forces energize the
>disinterested or powerless, and historically those forces have
>been social upheaval or unrest.

This world of ours isn't short of upheaval and unrest; however,
for better or worse, what energizes the powerless is not a
narrow issue like "Internet governance" or "e-Government" but
what might mean "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
or "peace, order, and good government" or even "food, shelter
and a chance at survival". For the most part, Internet-based
activism isn't done *by* the powerless but *for* them by
those of us who know how lucky we are ourselves. An essential
part of the work is to provide them with what we have --
technology and the freedom to use it to speak for themselves,
a way to work together towards common goals, and the sense
that our strength in numbers can make up for our apparent
powerlessness as individual citizens.

It's not enough to preach to, and for, the technologically-
equipped choir. It's not enough to extol the virtues of
communications technology as a means of extending reach and
decreasing costs, or to defend our own acquired rights from
those who would prefer to silence us. In fact, I suspect
nothing we can do right now is really "enough" but that
shouldn't make us stop trying or persuade us that we are
doing a good job if we take today's practical constraints as
a reason to limit our goals.

Regards,

Judyth

---Fwd---


The article is from:
NetPulse - The e-journal of politicking on the Internet
Volume 7, Number 4
April 16, 2003
A project of PoliticsOnline -
Fundraising and Internet tools for politics
For your free subscription, click here
(http://netpulse.politicsonline.com)
=======================================================


SOUNDOFF
**********

The Internet's Power to Forge Political Action out of Civic Interest

By Steve Davis
Contributing Editor

Two fellow authors and I, all professors at Syracuse University
professors,
named our new book "Click on Democracy: The Internet's Power to Change
Political Apathy into Civic Action."

Perhaps there was just a slightly better title for our message. Given
the
opportunity, we might well make a minor refinement today - "The
Internet's
Power to Forge Political Action out of Civic Interest."

Here's the point: Interest is nothing without the opportunity to act in
some
meaningful way, and the Internet cannot create interest, anyway. Even
the
most ardent believers in the powers of the Web would agree that there
is no
tool - online or otherwise - that can turn apathy into action. Greater
forces energize the disinterested or powerless, and historically those
forces have been social upheaval or unrest. That could be a war, or an
economic washout, for example. These, of course, are the very forces
that
are converging around us today.

Nonvoters and fringe voters could be energized by this convergence, and
the
interest and emotion could carry over into Campaign 2004. Anti-war
fervor
could be especially potent, and it already is surging online. Polls
show the
economy is as much a fear as war, if not more.

The question for George Bush's challengers, in particular: How can they
parlay this new interest and energy into votes? Could the Internet play
a
key role in their strategy? How can this new interest be catalyzed into
action? Campaigns can't simply seek votes and money online. Indeed,
there is
no bigger turnoff to the new civic citizen.

Politics and politicians will have to involve the newly interested in
meaningful ways. They will have to tolerate a little dissonance. They
would
do well to study what's happening now, and what's happened before, in
2000.
While many pundits missed it, Americans in 2000 did turn civic interest
into
political action by forming online communities that talked to each
other and
then acted, often offline, in what our book identifies as Communities of
Action, Discourse, Identity and Belief. As a National Journal review of
"Click on Democracy" recently suggested, our case studies may be fine
tutorials for 2004 campaign managers and civic activists this time
around.

Campaigns that remain locked into their own narrow ends (the votes and
the
financial contributions they need) and not the means (how they get
there)
are not likely to get far with potential new civic citizens, who
experience
these solicitations with suspicion. Such campaigns will be victims of
their
own fixation with short-term gains. But if they can foster meaningful
online
communities and activities through their own Web work and by reaching
out
through other online venues - some of them non-traditional or even
"risky" -
the votes and checks are much more likely to follow.  In other words,
candidates, parties, interest groups and media organizations interested
in
harnessing the Internet will do well by doing good - that is, by
helping to
create vibrant and active civic communities organized around deeply felt
political concerns.

The 1996 and 2000 presidential campaigns on the Net were pegged as
failures
at worst, disappointments at best. But as our book suggests, Internet
watchers and analysts were looking in the wrong places and at the wrong
things. The political parties and campaigns plodded along, slowly
adapting
Internet technology and practices, with occasional success but little
imagination. That should not have been surprising, though it was to
many.
The less-nimble institutions always plod. The Internet remained a less
than
one percent of the budget after-thought, and the Net manager was more
likely
to reside at the bottom of the food chain than to be seated with
decision-makers "at the table," where online strategies could be
integrated
into campaigns.

John McCain was the perfect Internet candidate in 2000 - unorthodox, and
underdog - and there is no one quite like Mr. McCain in next year's
race,
yet. But the convergence of war and a down economy may put the Internet
in
play as a greater tool than before for anyone from any party who can
take
advantage of this emerging, nationwide civic interest. Or, it could be a
costly opportunity missed for those who cannot.

Click on Democracy, by Syracuse University professors Steve Davis, Larry
Elin and Grant Reeher, was published last fall by Westview Press. It
can be
purchased online at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0813340055/qid%3D1047586338/s
r%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-4155679-8307069

Steve Davis is the chair of the Newspaper Department at the S.I.
Newhouse
School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y.
Before he joined SU in 1999, Davis worked in the newspaper industry for
more
than 20 years. He was editor of the Washington/World desk at USA TODAY
for a
number of years, and he directed USA TODAY's coverage of the Persian
Gulf
War in 1991.
============================================================

STAFF BOX
**************
(c) 2003, NetPulse, a project of PoliticsOnline, Fundraising and
Internet
tools for politics.
Phone: (843) 853-3002
Fax: (843) 722-4283
E-mail: editor@politicsonline.com

Publisher:................Phil Noble...........phil@politicsonline.com
Editor:...................David Abel.......david@politicsonline.com
Chief Info Officer........Arun Bose............arun@politicsonline.com
Webmaster.................Russell
Jolly........jollyr@politicsonline.com

U.S. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
*****************************

[snip]

INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTING EDITORS
===================================

[snip]

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

EDITOR'S NOTE: We're always looking for contributing editors. If you
find
information about how the Internet is being used in politics, drop us a
line
(editor@politicsonline.com). You never know; you might get published.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

The future of online politics happens first at PoliticsOnline, the
world's
first and premier company providing fund-raising and Internet tools for
politics. Among the company's many products and services are an
award-winning Web site, the Internet Campaign Manager CD-ROM, Instant
Online
Fundraiser, a daily news and information service, NetPulse and Phil
Noble's
Guide to the Internet, which was produced with Campaigns and Elections
magazine.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

[snip]

All information contained herein is Copyright (c) 2002. Reproduction, in
whole or part, is permitted with explicit reference to PoliticsOnline
as the
source of information. If reproduced electronically, republishers must
link
to PoliticsOnline and NetPulse.

---

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de