Can MySpace Change the Face of Politics?

I ran across an article today on CNN Politics

http://snipurl.com/tnij

and after reading it, got to thinking. Is it really possible for a poorly-designed social networking destination to change the face of American politics, and break the eternal trend of youth uninvolvement? The naively optimistic might argue that finally we have found something that will get young people actively involved in politics.

But those same people said the same things about MTV's Rock The Vote, a campaign that failed miserably to turn the 18-25 demographic out to the polls. They also said that the War in Iraq would do it, but it didn't. In fact, neither did the War in Vietnam--the first time 18 year olds got to vote, they elected Nixon. That, by the way, was the year of the highest youth turnout in American elections.

It has been declining ever since.

The lack of youth involvement in American politics, and the decline of voter turnout among that age group will not be cured by gimics like MTV or MySpace, though I do believe that the Internet and the Social Networking Phenomenon, when properly harnessed (MySpace is not going to be the venue, but neither is some political hack social networking niche site), will produce massive upheaval both socially and politically. The Internet will one day break politics as we know it, but we are not there yet.

That is because we are not to the breaking point in politics. We are at the apathetic point, and that apathy is rapidly spreading into the adult communities. There is the growing belief (as if it could be any greater than it is) that only money influences politics, and the ballot box is incapable of effecting any change in policy. It has little or nothing to do with the party in power, though.

Is life really any different under George W. Bush than under Bill Clinton? Does it really matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans control Congress? To an extent, it does. Tax policy is perhaps the only reason it matters. Spending policy certainly doesn't change based on the party in power. We have more entitlement programs under this Republican administration, not fewer. Social policy isn't markedly different, except perhaps on the issue of gun control, but even the Clinton administration couldn't enact permanent gun control policies--the political will simply wasn't there, even after Columbine.

Sure, the Supreme Court nominees would be different under a Democrat administration, but some days we can't tell the difference between David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

So, the question remains, how can Social Networking and the Internet change the face of policy and politics in America?

It is a frightening prospect for anybody who is currently a part of the political system and who simultaneously understands the real impact of a radical change in politics based on the new medium of the Internet. (I would argue, given the comments of Dinosaurs like Ted Stevens about the "Interweb" that there are few political figures who do actually understand the far reaching implications of the coming Revolution). This is because we will soon see an end to the two party system. I wouldn't go playing taps just yet, but it is out there in our future, I'm quite sure.

It's a rather tricky process, however, and will take a number of sophisticated organizers to pull it off, but it will be remarkable and revolutionary when it happens.

First, I ought to note that no revolution is truly revolutionary. Revolutions are merely evolutions with breakthroughs. The decline of party affiliation in the United States is an example of one of these evolutions. Since there are no viable independent candidates, it is inevitable that a new party--or parties will emerge, and it will likely be the latter. In fact, the more the better, because as more parties emerge, it will become increasingly difficult for a major party candidate to receive a majority of the votes.

If you think this is unlikely, then imagine for a minute a Congressional candidate from a third party who is able to muster say 10,000 supporters on a social networking website that is in common usage by the masses, and especially young people. He (or she) blogs daily, and that means the candidate, not some carefully crafted press release from a PR professional. He posts his clever video ads on his profile page. He chats and IMs with supporters and constituents. That 10,000, if amassed before his primary, will turn to 100,000 by election day. Don't believe it? Take a short browse on the website YouTube, where people can post their own videos. A spoof of the new Mac commercials has already had over 250,000 viewers. That's just the one video--YouTube's daily downloads number over 100 Million. A savvy candidate can harvest that power in his district to garner a tremendous amount of support.

But he will have to be real. The Television Politician was the Movie Star. Everything he said was scripted and crafted, and every hair on his head was neatly combed. The Internet Politician will likely wear Diesel jeans and have misspellings in his blogs. People have turned to the flawlessness of Hollywood to the ameteurishness of a lot of internet entertainment, and we should expect the same in politics, one of these days at least. Ameteurishness isn't such a bad thing, either. It means a politician much less beholden to special interests, party identification, etc.

The New Media--it means more than catching Dan Rather in memogate, it means breaking politics all together. I'm looking forward to the day of that flash point.

The Democratization of the Media Redux

Public Service Announcement: I have recently rediscovered SnipURL.com, a wonderful zero price utility on the web for creating persistent, shortened URLs for referencing in such places like this blog. You will see that I will primarily link (especially to news articles that disappear days later) to SnipURL links--do not be decieved, this is merely an efficient archiving tool, and one I highly recommend.

Now on to today's ruminations.

Blogging entered the average American's vernacular during the 2004 Presidential Election, when astute observers of the political scene stood up to the so-called "Old Media" and took down Dan Rather in the now infamous Memogate Scandal. This was a significant event in American political history, but it seems to have also been a mere flash in the pan. So it shall remain for the time being. The other day, I embarked on writing a blog post about MySpace's interaction with politics. I might get to finishing that today or tomorrow, if I am lucky, but it warrants such significant considerations that it may just remain a "draft" in my blogger post history. With the Internet, it isn't true that "what is here today is gone tomorrow," but it certainly is true that "what is here today will be irrelevant tomorrow."

The impact of blogging on American politics in 2004 was significant in a certain sense, but negligible in the sense that it likely didn't affect the outcome. But Web phenomena are having radical affects on the habits and propensities of Americans when it comes to their entertainment. YouTube and MySpace are the precursors to something truly mammoth that is yet to come. They are the pioneers in the Internet entertainment marketplace in that they have taken something that people have tried to do successfully in the past and have actually made it successful. But they haven't yet made it profitable. That will be the true success story of Internet Entertainment---or, I suppose henceforth, I will call it Intertainment, because I am lazy. The Wright Brothers took the age-old dream of the Flying Machine and made it a reality--American Airlines made money doing it.

This same cycle will repeat itself on the Internet, and in Intertainment. We are starting to see the Democratization of Entertainment--the fruits of which are Intertainment. This New York Times article encapsulates this phenomenon quite well:


http://snipurl.com/tmq9

It is always thought that Big Business will be the best equipped to profit from new phenomenon. I would so fervently challenge that thesis as to perhaps make a fool of myself, were it not for the facts being squarely in my corner on this one.

The profiteer of the Massification of Retail was not Woolworth, but Walton. The profiteer of Internet Search was not AltaVista, but Google. TimeWarner has no more profited from owning AOL than Rupert Murdoch has profited from owning MySpace. The ideas are good in theory, but they don't work themselves out so well in reality. Perhaps that is because of a lack of innovative culture at those acquiring corporations. Or maybe it is because "me too" is simply no way of doing business--it has to be "me better."

The movie studios have monopolized mass entertainment for the better part of 7 decades, but that is slipping. But it is not slipping because somebody else is taking over mass entertainment; it is slipping because there is decreasingly such a thing as mass entertainment. There is micro-entertainment on a massive scale. It is the person, or company, who first figures out how to monetize this phenomenon who will be the next Wal-Mart or the next Google, but more likely a hybrid of the two. Wal-Mart figured out how to sell more of more to most people, and Google has figured out how to sell a little something to everybody. That combination will be impenetrable--for a week or so at least.

To harness the collective talents of the world's billions is an undertaking that only recently could have been possible. But in a world where every man can be an actor, every woman a director, and every Net user a viewer and critic, the profit potential is unfathomable.

I look forward with great anticipation to the social upheavel that is on the horizon because of Intertainment. The next casualty of the Net will be Education--and then Politics. Somebody will profit from all of them, but it will require bold creativity, a challenge to every assumption that currently pervades these arenas, and a commitment to weather the storms that always accompany creative destruction.

A Life of Riddles & Rhymes

by Skinner G. Layne

When I look outside of my window
I see no grass or trees,
I see blades of honey
And flowers made out of bees.

I look at the roads of pepper
And doors with candy seals
While people go driving around
Their horses that stand on wheels.

Buildings are made with popcorn
And buttered with Chardonnay,
And weren't it for the Stilton Moon
I couldn't tell night from day.

Streetlamps are filled with fireflies
LIt by the lightning strings,
And nursery rhymes are covered in chocolate,
When they story of frogs with wings.

My pen writes with maple syrup,
And the seas are filled with wine,
THe stars are platinum coins,
And a wish can make them mine.

In a world with so much heartache,
In a time so mired in pains,
Why can't I look at cornfields,
And see cotton candy chains?

You may wonder why I hide myself
In metaphor and rhyme
Yes I could think concretely
But I haven't got the time.

For all of life is riddle,
And to pretend it's not is vain,
So why not stop and enjoy the taste,
Of the falling lemonade rain?

The Chest and the Locksmith

by Skinner G. Layne

Not many months ago
In an unsuspected way,
I happened upon a dusty chest
And took it home that day.

I dusted off the chest and lid
Then open it I tried
And found it bound by bolt and lock
So with bar and hammer pried.

It was sealed and shut more tightly
Than banks with bars of gold
So I knew there was great treasure
Stored inside its hinged fold.

For months I sat and stared at it
Wondering what could be inside
Wishing I could open it
And see what there was to hide.

When I called my local Locksmith
To see if he could help me out
He looked at the tightened bolts
And said the right tools he was without.

He said a chest so sealed shut
Was a special chest indeed
And would open itself someday
Traveling at its own desired speed.

But that when it finally opened
And I feel its internal bliss
It would be for me the thrill and softness
Of a lover's genuine kiss.

I despaired the Locksmith's words
For I do not like to wait
And wondered if I even could
To peer inside that crate.

But the Locksmith told me, "Patience,
I've seen such chests before,
And those who finally look inside
Find that which they adore."

"The wait will not be easy,
And may never seem to end,
And the choice is wholly yours
Whether with Time you will contend."

"For Time that vile robber
Who's incessantly on attack
Will thieve you of your treasure
By making you turn your back."

"He will make war upon your Spirit
And fill your mind with doubt
But you must cling to what your heart knows
And learn to wait it out."

"For one day his seige will falter
And though tired you will transcend
Rejoicing that you were victorious
And thankful you did defend."

"Then your chest will open,
And share its richness with your heart
You will forget the trials
And how long past was the start."

The Locksmith left my house that day,
And there I was alone,
But determined to heed his words
And stare down the great unknown.

Since so few things in life are worthy
Of patience and travail,
And when you finally find one
You must resolve that you'll prevail.

Another might never come along
For years or lives of man
Those other distant hopes or dreams
Mustn't figure in your plan.

The clouds may make fantastic shapes
But soon will float away,
The sands produce mirages
In the fervent heat of day.

But there is much that seems appealing
Yet never does fulfill
And though the ones that do, take time,
I've resolved to have the will.

There's no key to open that treasure chest,
And one cannot be made,
But one day it will open itself,
And I'll be elated that I stayed.