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.