Citizen Janes

“The modern girl’s guide to picking the leaders of the free world.”

As our semester draws to a close, I would like to give a shout-out to my primary source for amalgamated political news stories: citizenjanepolitics.com.

CJP is a non-partisan, independent news blog. It is not snarky or opinionated. It does what most blogs do not do — presents just the facts (plus a few extras, but those are not opinion pieces, just fun stuff). If I would like to know how experts or citizen bloggers feel about the new changes of power, or who said what in the campaigns, I could go to any host of other blog sources (like the ones we monitored earlier in the semester).  These, however, taint the news with opinions, even those that pretend they don’t.  It is now typical for the reader to gather the facts and turn to the news for analysis and opinoin.  There is certainly a place for opinions  about current events, but I have found it a relief to find such a high-quality and reliable site.   Citizen Jane Politics is a news outlet featurign all political and major news, but focusing on female issues.  The point of this blog was to increase female political awareness, because more women than men vote, but more men than women work in public office.  CJP is never snarky, always honest, and honestly fair.   Bravo, CJP.  I recommend you to all my friends, Janes and Joes alike.

Taxation without Representation

DC’s Right to Vote

The 2006 Census estimates that 581,530 people live in the District of Columbia. These nearly six hundred thousand residents pay “state” and federal taxes (the second highest income tax per capita in the nation).  They are governed under the Constitution, just like the rest of the nearly 300 million American citizens.  Literally hundreds of cases presided over by the U.S. Supreme Court include verdicts which specify that their rulings apply in the District as one of the states.  And yet, while the amount of this population is on par with or bigger than many states, these 581,530 people have no vote in Congress.

            This never bothered me too much, that is, until I had to change my residency from Illinois to the District of Columbia a few years ago.  It bugged me that I love this city, but I probably won’t live here when I “grow up” and have a family of my own because I cannot live and act as a citizen of the United States of America without that most essential citizenship right — suffrage.  Our representative in Congress, Elenor Holmes Norton, has a voice to argue bills but cannot vote.  When Mayor Fenty declined an invitation to sit next to the First Lady at the State of the Union address because the Bush Administration does not support DC voting rights, I began looking into the matter myself.

            This scholarly article by Senator Hatch (see above) outlines a clear, consice, and convincing arguement for DC to be treated as a Congressional district, thus having a vote in the House of Representatives.  I don’t think that DC should have two senators like the other 50 states, but I also disagree that perhaps DC should just be ceded back to Virginia and Maryland.  Hatch’s point that hit me hardest is that in 1800, Virginia and Maryland ceded this district land at the request of the fledgling government so that it could establish a federal city.  The people living in the district did not break away from the country or secede from the Union.  By witholding any representation, the US government treats these 581,530 people (and those 200 years into the past) as if they had violated a law and forfeited their rights.  Even Americans living abroad may now vote in US elections.  It’s the beginning of a new administration.  President-elect Obama has indicated that he supports Fenty and Holmes Norton in their quest to end “taxation without representation.”  I’m not going to be a lifelong resident here, but this is a cause worth supporting.

The Tortoise and the Hare this is not.

A frontrunner candidate could use the Internet just as successfully as an insurgent candidate.  The vehicle is not the issue – the issues are the issue.  If the populace does not support a candidate’s stance on “the issues,” then it does not matter how his or her message is delivered to the electorate – Internet or not.

The voters have wised up, and will no longer accept mere broadcast advertising, which means that any and every candidate must learn to employ more direct messaging, including emails, message boards, and mobile phones.  Because these methods require nuance, the message can’t be vague either.  The more campaigns communicate with the voters interactively, the more transparent the whole process becomes, and the number of people who become involved with it increases.  Again, this is not the tool only of insurgents, although it certainly enables them to gather a community around them and “surge” ahead in the polls.

If a frontrunner has the popular message, if he’s the guy the people are going to vote for, then what does it matter where he is in polling?  Obama may have set the example because he used the Internet as an insurgent candidate to achieve his presidential win; however, I really think that if he had been the frontrunner all along, he still would have employed the technology as he did if only to keep himself as the frontrunner.  If a candidate “gets it” as Trippi says, then the technology can help him regardless of poll position.

One point I will concede is motivation to continue fully using the Internet, setting up a tortoise and hare situation.  The frontrunner could get lazy and arrogant, knowing that the online community supports him, allowing the insurgent to pass him with his own online community.  This could happen in any host of manners, not just with the Internet.  So again, it’s the message and the candidate, not just the Internet.  The Internet enables what is already bright a shining chance.

Correlation does not prove causation, but…

The most significant achievement of the 2008 campaign is just how pervasive and interwoven it became in our global society. The Deanie babies planted the seeds in 2004. This year, the United States presidential campaign turned into veritable kudzu. It consumed many an attention span and schedule for months and even years. As exhausted as anyone who followed much less covered the whole process may be now, it must be acknowledged what an amazing time it was. That candidate (now president-elect) Obama could turn his political message into a worldwide social outreach is awesome (truly, and not in the surfer sense). As everyone has said in every way possible, Obama registered such success because he seized the opportunities of the Internet and social media. This was the ground-breaking moment for the beginning of what our country needs – change.
I think what surprised me most was a dual discovery. The first element of this is that polls of voter disposition are gathered mainly through calling landline phones. Coupled with the fact that 30% of the youth-voter demographic only owns mobile phones, and that youth swings liberal and Democrat, I was stunned to realize that there existed such a swath of un-polled and un-targeted opinions. The second element of my surprise was the apparent discrepancy with how the two political parties treated this 30% of youth. I hesitate to say that Obama won because his campaign collected the cell phone numbers of his supporters to further target them. Correlation does not prove causation, so I will say this: Obama’s campaign collected and used cell phone numbers. Obama’s campaign won. McCain’s campaign did not collect nearly as many cell phone numbers. McCain’s campaign did not win. Again, perhaps the Republican ticket did not lose because it did not take advantage of current technology, but: the Republican campaign did not take advantage of current technology. The Republican campaign did not win the election. I am surprised that the Republican Party did not learn this earlier in the campaign, and so was not able to adjust or fix this issue.
Truly, though, what surprised me most is that my (ultra conservative) uncle Charlie did not move out of the country when Obama won the election, as he swore up and down he would. Uncle Charlie also thinks that the District of Columbia should revert to a ten-block federal city encompassing the White House and Capitol buildings, and that all the rest of the land and residents should turn back into Maryland. Best of luck there, Charles.

Turn and face the strangers: ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.

The thing that I think the Obama campaign achieved best web-wise was a fine balance between inviting people to political involvement and really pushing them into it.  What resulted was a population of previously untapped actors and patrons who felt comfortably enabled but not used.  They were a part of something bigger than themselves, something necessary and important that wouldn’t get done without them.  As totally uncomfortable as I am with the thought of being datamined myself, I must admit that the first step toward the Obama success was that he could ask and receive the cell phone numbers and email addresses of his supporters.  This allowed his team to deliver his message directly to his supporters, where they could be found: in the wireless realm.  Team Obama understands that the future of America (and indeed, of the world) is, at its core, mobile.  Speaking as one of the targeted group of 20-somethings voters, I will say that this sense of being wireless and mobile is not just with our technology.  I appreciate being given options but not being forced to immediately choose and tie myself down to something: that has proven successful with social media and social engagement for Obama.  I never felt forced to donate or forced to act.  I was given the tools and made to feel smart and capable enough that I wanted to contribute.  This, I believe, will be the cornerstone of continued civic engagement.

Amongst all of our materials on this subject, I think the “Moving Toward a 21st Century Right to Know Agenda” most clearly articulates the main points for continued successful citizen engagement.  In teasing out just one of their recommendations, I believe it’s useful to analyze this one: “Government should commit to openness as a principle, complying not merely with the letter of openness laws but with the spirit of transparency.”  I think that with the use of new social media, the Obama administration can really begin to change how the government interacts with citizens, as it promised to do.  The weekly address to the nation broadcast on a YouTube video is a very good start.  Anyone can tune into that at their own convenience, again using their own motivation.  People aren’t forced to tune in to a television or radio broadcast at a singular time, being tied down to the president’s schedule.  He will accommodate them, demonstrating this with technology.  It’s a give and take for both sides.  The Obama campaign acted on this principle.  The Obama transition team is starting to continue the promise of change.

What a difference 36 years makes.

The biggest difference between 1972 and 2008 is the movement from pack and broadcast journalism to personalization and micro-targeting. Pack journalism and broadcasting certainly still exist, and are likely still the most prominent forms of mass communication. Personalization is the present and the future of the media, and its vehicle is the Internet. Back then, the most efficient form of getting out a candidate’s message was to have the pack of journalists (the boys on the bus) write updates of the campaign and publish them in newspapers or in quick television sound byte broadcasts. Technology has evolved to allow personalized messaging through emails and specific websites. Today’s tools are generally quick and easy compared to the old way. Then, a journalist had to be part of a newspaper or television channel to share information in any meaningful way. Now, anyone can start a blog to not only comment on, but also produce, news. The power has devolved from the centers of power back to ordinary citizens who wish to take part in the process of campaigning. Successful candidates realize this and target their messages to individuals through emails and on their web sites. When journalists in the pack miss something, it doesn’t get swept under the rug like it used to; now, independent members of the news media may find a platform for publishing any and all information through blogs. Then, television ads distilled a candidate’s message or an attack on a rival into 30-second spots to be sent out to the masses and absorbed as they will. There was no conversation, just the controlled and manipulated broadcast from the powers of the campaign. Now, those ads still exist, but the Internet provides the platform for citizens to react. When these ads are on YouTube, people may comment on them. People are generating their own ads, their own content and messages about the same candidates. The Internet provides a tool for the voices of the people to be entered into this conversation. It’s no longer a shady lecture – today’s campaign communication is turning into a bright and participatory seminar.

Datamining is creepy.

I’m trying to be a good student here.  I’m trying to learn about our ever-evolving political system and campaign technology.  I’m reading about fundraising numbers and Catalist and Voter Vault.  And then I come across this statement, from Catalist’s chief technology officer, Vijay Ravindran:
“We aspire to be much more than just a database provider—we’re looking to build an ecosystem.”
Okay, that statement totally creeps me out!  Let me explain; as I said, I’m trying here.  I’m trying to understand how new political technology uses my consumer information to define me and cater to me.  But even after reading all our materials about micro-targeting and data-mining, I don’t understand how people are okay with this.  As Garrett said in class, if the FBI or CIA had all of the data that Catalist has, people would be going to jail.  This is a huge violation of privacy – I think.  I realize that many corporations (Amazon, CVS, Borders, Safeway) track my purchases.  I know that social media accounts broadcast information that I choose to publish about myself (where I live, my job, my school and major).  I am aware that I do all of this voluntarily.  I just never realized that it is acceptable to have one main company gather up everything.  I never realized that I have opened myself up to becoming a data point on an infinite map, a cog in a machine.  Basically, I feel like I’ve been used.  I doubt that I’m the only one who feels this way.  I do NOT think that the trade-off for tailored political messages is worth this loss in personal privacy.  It gets back to my thoughts on liberal and conservative news blogs – in the end, it’s just not a good idea to only get your messages from one side or the other.  So, I don’t think that a data-mining company should use my information for this very similar purpose.  I’m not a manipulated plaything in an artificial ecosystem.  I’m an autonomous, free-thinking person, and I expect to be treated as such.  I guess I’ve expected too much.

iPhoning it in

I’ve had a PDA (the iPhone) for less than two weeks now, and it’s already changed how I communicate with the world.  Having mobile access to the internet is 1) addictive and 2) world-flattening, mind-broadening awesome.  I’ve been twittering for a few months now.  I was initially floored that I could file tweets from my phone as texts.  Last night, as my friends and I gathered in a Bourbon booth to watch the returns on five CNN screens, my head was constantly down.  I was the only one at the table with my twitter’s votereport homepage open on my iphone.  When not enjoying a delicious Allagash, I constantly refreshed the page (you have to do that on iPhones) to monitor — to witness — other users’ real-time thoughts on voting.  This, to me, was exceedingly more compelling than CNN’s holograms of reporters (were they serious?).  We, the regular folk, have been empowered through this campaign, and through this technology.  I believe CNN even mentioned twitter.  I tweeted a few times from the bar as well.

My iPhone, combined with my twitter account, changed this election day for me.  I was more connected to the greater offline community through our shared online experiences.  It wasn’t just about broadcast coverage; it was about individual contributions in 140 characters or less.  I do have to hand it to the old media on one count: they know they had the locked audience for the McCain and Obama speeches.  No iPhone or computer could have matched the feeling from viewing the speeches with a packed house of jubliant young Dems.  TV is important for moments like this, and while it is still the most dominant method of media, the world of personalization is nipping at its heels.  PDAs and UGC-sites made this election for me, and for countless others.  They’re not going away.  The Democrats won because they know this.

Election 2.0

An “interactive election” may seem redundant, as an election is in itself the participation of citizens in choosing someone to represent them.  This year, though, is the advent of a full-fledged and continuous conversation between voters and candidates, and between voters and other voters.  Today, I’ve been tracking the voter-to-voter conversation on Twitter.  I woke this morning to see that Twitter’s election tweet had advised tweeple (this language is getting absurd, by the by) to tag any voting entries with the mark #votereport.  Twitter’s VoteReport center amalgamates any tagged entries into its own stream.  It’s just awesome to witness.  Reports of “Just voted McCain,” “Voted McCain,” “Gobama,” “Voted Obama” hit in rapid succession.  With no need to refresh the page, they just kept on coming.  Some included tips about particular precincts — lines out the door, 45 min wait, in the S-Z line and it’s too long, electric machine broken.  This is the most active I’ve seen Twitter.  Finally, everyone has something to say.  We have here, on this election day, something that we rarely have these days: a truly communal experience.  We are all doing the same thing.  In the age of news you can choose and endless TV channels, it seems to me that people are drifting more and more into their own bubbles.  Today, the bubbles popped, and we found ourselves waiting together in the morning drizzle, wondering why there are six times as many people with the last names A-K than L-Z (it just doesn’t make sense!).  We grumbled, but the volunteers fed us muffins and coffee cake, and we read The Washington Post over each others’ shoulders (or at least I did).  It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, but it was the first time I really felt I bore witness to democracy in action.

When all was said and done, I tweeted: I was just number 497 to vote in Washington DC precinct 24 at 945 am waited 20 min #votereport.

And now, the best part… my friends have a booth at Bourbon, with its all day happy hour specials, the perfect place to hunker down and watch our change hit the fan.  I’m heading out into the rain.

I agree with Wyclef on this one.

Internet confession: I teared up this morning as I watched the pro-Obama “Yes We Can” YouTube video.  

Weird, right?  Maybe it’s because I had just woken up and wasn’t really tuned into the real world yet.  Maybe it’s because I got a foot cramp walking over to the computer.  Or maybe… I’m actually this invested in a political message.  That would be a first.

I’m possibly the only Georgetown student ever to have graduated without taking a single politics class.  It’s really never interested me.  It’s too complicated.  Too petty.  Too monotonous. My parents never discussed their politics with us, because it was their “own personal choice.”  I grew up assuming, correctly, that my whole family leaned Republican.  I voted in 2004, but my heart wasn’t in it. 

Then, a senator from my home state (Illinois) threw his hat in the race for president, so I paid attention.  I’m one of those nebulous and (presumably) sought-after “youth” votes.  The web connects me to my friends, family, and interests.  I’m also disconnected — from landlines, from my home state, from politics. 

Well, congratulations, Barack Obama.  You’ve plugged me back in to civic discourse.  I think, well, I am interested in politics.

I’ve seen this “Yes We Can” video before.  My cousin’s wife (in-laws are okay to be Democrats) emailed it to me when it came out last winter.  My best friend had just deployed to Iraq, my unloved then-job did not pay me enough, and I was feeling uncharacteristically downtrodden about our world’s state of affairs. 

We can change, yes, we can, says Obama.  A host of celebrities echoes his words in a simple black and white video.  It simple piece of music and spoken word.  Its graphics are minimal.  “Yes, we can,” reverberates throughout Obama’s ideas about the whole spectrum of political and social issues.  He infused his arguements with an element absent in the other political campaigns: hope.

Now, I know why this worked.  I know Obama utilized his “promise-tool-bargain” to its fullest potential.  I know that “hope” and “change” have become almost cliche toward the end of this election cycle, but that they are still universally appealing.  I know that this video was the confirming moment in my search for the candidate who would improve our country’s current situation.  I know that I agree with Joe Trippi when he writes that politics for politics sake is useless; politics should help to elevate us, everyone, to a better place.

My friend is now in a relatively safe situation in Iraq now, and he’ll return in January.  I have a new, fabulous job.  I still am very concerned about the state of our world, but I believe I’ve found the guy to support.  I think he’s the one who can piece things back together.

Halfway through my first class on politics, I friggin choked up watching a user-generated content video for a presidential candidate.

Or maybe it was my overwhelming love of Wyclef that put me over the top.