Abstract
While there is little evidence on any election being the definitive ‘Internet election’, journalists and academics have certainly expended time and energy looking for the contest when digital communication technologies (DCT) in some way come of age. The problem with this line of investigation is that for the birth of the Internet age to match that of the television age, DCT are required to replace antecedent media; this is highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. Rather than replacing, what we are seeing is DCT given a series of core functions within political campaigns. It is the evolution of DCT from being a sideshow of limited functionality and importance to being at the core of political campaigning that Jennifer Stromer-Galley captures neatly in Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. Hence this work is important in charting campaign innovation and more recently the normalization of DCT within the electioneering toolkit.
As a whole, the book has the tone of the cyber-realist, recognizing that technologies do not necessarily change politics but are adapted to the logic of politics. However, there are also hints of cyber-optimism. Whereas campaigns designed for mass media were meant to entertain, not enlighten (p. 10), interactive campaigning using DCT is suggested to have transformatory potential. But the transformation is largely to a new campaigning paradigm of ‘controlled interactivity via digital media’ (p. 14). Studying the five contests 1996–2012, we are able to see how the role of the Internet evolved, who the pioneers were and how we arrived at this position of normalization.
Recent studies have focused on the Dean/Obama campaigns as benchmarks for DCT usage. However, this longitudinal study shows that it was a McCain staffer from 2000 who first demonstrated the power of peer-to-peer mobilization and community-built campaigning. But it is a story of cautious innovation outside of insurgent campaigns. Bringing supporters inside the campaign involves ‘harnessing’ and ‘shepherding’ as allowing free rein becomes a ‘challenge for image construction’ (p. 128). This is a clear lesson from the campaigns of Dean himself and others such as Ron Paul and Wesley Clark. The Obama campaign is emphasized as important in setting out the best formula for campaigning in an era of what Stromer-Galley describes as ‘networked politics in a hybrid media system’ (p. 172). The light touch controlling and harnessing of supporters, the parasocial communication that gave an impression of accessibility as well as providing a communal identity for activists was one of Obama’s springboards to victory.
At points, it seems the extent of Obama’s innovative use of DCT is played down by Stromer-Galley. While certainly his online community was concerned with getting supporters to work for the campaign, the extent to which they also contributed their thoughts and feelings to the news blog area, with some posts receiving literally thousands of responses (Lilleker and Jackson, 2011), is remarkable. Here was a true blurring of site owner and user. The fact that Obama retained an openness as incumbent in 2012 indicates this is also not just a style for insurgents but that possibly the Democrats have developed a more inclusive campaign style which may well be expected of future candidates (Lilleker and Jackson, 2014). While McCain and Romney challenged in their attempts at harnessing supporters, they did not run the risks of opening their site to allowing comments. In contrast, Obama operated with a self-governing online community, who defended him from attacks (Harfoush, 2009), as opposed to controlling communication.
More broadly, we may well ask what this study can tell us about the use of DCT within election campaigns beyond American borders. American presidential contests are discussed in isolation, they learn from one another only it would appear. There is no mention of non-US campaigns which some credit as having been influential, such as the campaign of French presidential candidate Segolene Royal. Similarly, there is no indication of learning from the many innovative Gubernatorial campaigns that tested out the value of DCT in between these contests. Thus, we see only campaigns which are highly resourced and where innovation can largely be a matter of choice.
What Stromer-Galley offers is a general direction in which electioneering may head in an era of social adoption of DCT. All campaigns will have some form of social media usage, although perhaps not with the sophistication that involves data mining, targeting or fundraising that we see in the United States. There are also questions whether non-Americans will be as willing to publicly display affiliations online, working for the campaign as advocates augmenting or replacing the media two-step flow function. The culture of the partisan bumper sticker is less widespread in other parts of the world. But the notion of interactivity, at the heart of Web 2.0, is beginning to permeate campaigns. Many within European contests have proven willing to share satirical pictures and videos, to comment on election campaigns and to become part of a broad orbit of individuals who contribute to an online public debate. The question is whether parties and candidates outside of the United States have the resources, the bravery and the will to release a little control in order to harness those enthusiastic enough about politics to become partisan advocates. Stromer-Galley’s study shows how there is much potential for harnessed interactivity to contribute to political pluralism and the overall health of democracy. While speculative, the insights she provides demonstrate how DCT allows people to become more important players in campaigns.