The selection of Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee represents a victory for grassroots activists empowered by the Internet, and for the base of small contributors who, thanks to the Internet, now dominate donations to the party. It also represents the initial fulfillment of a vision I and others have had for American politics for nearly a decade.
Until the 2003-2004 fundraising cycle, the Democratic Party, which prides itself on being a "party of the people" faced a disconnect -- it was largely financed by fatcats and corporate contributors compared to the Republican Party, which had developed a large donor base of contributors under $250. Thanks to the innovations of Dean and the Internet, the Democratic contributor base has broadened considerably, as The Washington Post noted on February 20.
Political guru Michael Barone may be correct in his analysis (below) that the Internet has helped Republicans more than Democrats -- in the short term. But taking a more long-term view, I think it has helped both parties reconnect with their core constituencies.
In 1995, in anticipation of the 1996 political campaigns, I wrote an essay, "Vision for a New Democracy" that began:
"Americans desperately need a new political organizing strategy -- a new way to reconnect with the ideal of participatory democracy, to reclaim power from the political and media elites who control too much of the process, and to renew their belief in self-governance.
"Actually, they don't need to look far to find that power...to the computers on their own desks, and to the Internet."
I reported that the Internet was generating new political energy. "Average citizens--no longer politically isolated, no longer sitting passively in front of their TV sets--are networking around the world, and intensely debating the news of the day. Citizens of every political stripe are creating networks and online communities, lobbying legislators online, and participating in social movements."
While I was premature in trying to measure the Internet's political and social impact in 1995-6, when it first emerged as a potentially mass medium, I was certainly correct that the Internet would foster greater citizen participation in politics.
"These emerging internet-based political networks are impressive," I wrote, "because they CANNOT be controlled by top-down Washington-based elites, who put out a message of the day, hoard important information, and polish their own image with constituents they rarely listen to. Many Internet-based organizations get their energy from people at the grassroots, they are 'bottom-up', they share and disperse information widely. They thrive on creative chaos and individual action....
Internet users aren't simply direct-mail targets to be hit with a field-tested message that will manipulate them to feel or vote a certain way. This depersonalization of politics over the last 30 years has left people feeling used, manipulated and abandoned once the campaign is over. Mass Marketing has contributed greatly to cynicism and alienation from the political process.
"In the new Internet economy, citizens can be PARTNERS in citizenship...This new campaign style gives citizens themselves a chance to be more involved in politics--and not just as envelope stuffers. The 'five-minute activist' can keep up with the campaign and spread the word to friends and colleagues. Students can learn about politics while maintaining political Web pages in their spare time. They can support and train older citizens who may have a computer but who don't know how to use their hardware and software."
Political campaigns of the future, I wrote, would no longer "concentrate almost totally on a television 'air war,'" ignoring political activists. They would "return to the old-fashioned notion that citizen-volunteers are a valued asset. Democracy does, after all, belong to the people."
That largely happened in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. Both Democratic and Republican campaigns used the Internet to mobilize tens of thousands of volunteers. Voter turnout increased significantly from 1996 to 2004. Citizens were far less apathetic, disengaged and alienated from politics in 2004 than they were in 1996.
"The Internet alone certainly can't solve the problem of alienation from politics and civic participation," I wrote. "But it can instantly connect citizens with candidates and campaigns, with thinkers and doers at the precinct level, and generate a host of new volunteers. That synergy just might lift American democracy out of its funk."
Looking back, it's rather remarkable how quickly American politics has emerged from the funk caused in large part, I believe, by one-way broadcast media. Interactive new media has indeed revitalized both political parties over the last 10 years, allowing more people to participate than ever before.
The question now is, what happens next?
