I never thought I’d ever say a thing like this, but I agree with Newt Gingrich. He told Fox News yesterday that it’s nuts that politicos have already announced their candidacy for the 2008 Presidential elections.
They will, he says, soon bore the electorate to complacency.
“…these candidates running for an entire year to get into a campaign to run for an entire year. This is going to be like watching bad re-runs of “Survivor.” People are going to be saying ‘Get him off the island, I don’t want to see this anymore.”
Given the immediacy of the online world we live in, that horrible old man really does have a point. How many Clinton chats, Obama blog posts, and Giuliani denials can we abide before we say “enough already!” and stop paying attention?
And that’s the real danger here. My grandmother, who survived the Pogroms of the Russian Revolution, taught me that complacency is the enemy. It is the enemy of change. It is the enemy of reason. Complacency is the enemy of freedom.
I wrote in July 2003, “Activists’ mighty tools can be turned on a dime against a corporation whose actions or products are seen as reprehensible. Yet there is not a single politician or corporation ready to mobilize with equal force.” That’s still true.
What this election needs is a political team that understands the power of the Internet to quickly spread a message and generate action.
I’m hoping there’s a dark horse Democratic team who’ll announce on July 4th. And damn, I hope it’s Bloomberg and President Al Gore.
BL, I so agree. I grew up with the parliamentary system where elections could be called anytime, often with very short notice. This long lead time of campaign propaganda can become obnoxious after a few months, let alone an entire year.
I believe in a strong democratic system, but imagine if some of this time spent campaigning could be spent on running the nation and dealing with pressing issues. By the time we get to November, we’ll breathe a collective sigh.
I so disagree. Sorry but if you actually tune into the websites and read the emails you realize the importance of continuing reminders of how this country’s government is out of control or should I say tooooo in control. I appreciate reminders to write letters to the editors of major and local newspapers with a direct link. I want to know what is being done by each candidate about the issues. The difference I see is with the internet candidates are stiring local pro-activity towards change. Instead of regurgitating the issues I see candidates urging debate and participation.
Maybe I’m naive but I think we’ve already slipped into a coma and the candidates are doing everything they can to wake us up. I say quit tuning it all out. Listen to them and kick your neighbor in the ass and yell
“Wake UP!!!!”
P.S.
Agreeing with Newt should be your first clue that something is very wrong! He wants you to agree with him.
BL:
See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Next you’ll be blogging about the Fourth Ammendment and pretty soon we’ll get you into the NRA. One step at a time.
(Editor’s disclaimer: I’m half joking, as I’m sure you can tell… something tells me we may be on different sides of the political spectrum… )
Stephen – Thank you for the chuckle.
Cam — the first draft originally said, “… so welcome to ‘the right’… I’m sure Cam will send his congratulations shortly…”
Ah, politics. So out of place in a marketing blog, and yet like a bad accident at the side of the road, you just can’t look away, can you?
As you know, I haven’t quite figured out how to keep politics out of my blog, either. As long as electioneering resembles marketing, and as long as politics affects economics, which affects the efficiency of the system in which the companies we work for can operate, I don’t think it’s necessarily out of place on a marketing blog when done in the right way.
However, it can be quite difficult to divorce oneself from partisan leanings to look at and report on something that has political ramifications objectively – if one values power over principle, or if power is a large part of that principle.
What I love about the blogosphere is that, because we put our thoughts out for all to see, we let the readers decide what they want to read.
Covering politics is still tricky, because engendering respect among the audience still requires we show that we’ve thought critically about the situation and have come to our conclusions rationally, and that we are not simply being dismissive to serve the factions we most identify with, or playing to the perceived biases of our audience. This is especially true of blogs that are not primarily political in nature, because it’s so easy to alienate a large part of the audience by saying the wrong thing about a person or party because of we might believe that a conclusion is adequately settled and not deserving of the respect and consideration others think it might deserve.
Stephen: Politics is so NOT out of place in a marketing blog because politics is all about the marketing of ideas, people, beliefs, agendas.
And the Internet is so perfectly suited to the spread of all of the above.
Tammy: MoveOn and other activist organizations on both sides are doing a great job of communicating the issues.
I agree with Elaine that this time — and money — could better be spent, particularly by Senators Clinton and Obama, on dealing with the critical issues at hand.
What will matter to me, and, I hope to other voters, is what the candidates did, not what they said.
However, I have to admit that I am totally fascinated by the ways in which the candidates are using the Internet and will continue to follow their online odysseys.
I subscribe to both major party’s internet newsletters as well as MoveOn and others. My point is the way the candidates are using the internet is a great way to measure what the candidates are doing and what they are saying. John Edwards One Corps has had many local events in Tucson. I’m guessing that that is true elsewhere. Obama’s site has the personal blog feature and you can be sure someone is in charge of keeping a tally of issues and concerns individuals post there. Hillary has Bill’s name on her emails trying to piggy back his popularity. McCain has a place for you to put up your own webspace…etc. I think it is important to be involved and to read opposing points of view and see how the candidates react, reposition and act.
Sorry if I’m being a nit.
I’m really tired of the complacency.
I guess my take on this is a bit different. Let’s oversimplify and say that marketing is the science of predicting behavior. We’re all professionals in the field of compliance: we want people to do something. Politics is the selling of authority. So we can agree that there are many common touch points.
The problem I see in mixing politics and marketing is the polarization that takes place based on external data. There have been times in history where this hasn’t been a big thing — but the pendulum has swung hard towards extreme vitriol like we haven’t seen since the Civil War, when reporters used to get shot (makes one nostalgic, doesn’t it?). So there’s a problem.
However, I strongly agree with what might be the real point of this thread — I fully agree with Tammy — I don’t like to see the degree of complaicency and stupor present in the voting population. I hope more people ask tough questions and not fall in love with pretty candidates who sound nice. We do that too often in American politics and are neck deep in it already.
Social media has changed many aspects of information sharing for the 1%-ers who are reading blogs. Hopefully, we can bring more people into the big tent. We might get better elected officials.
Tammy: You are missing my point which is that it is too early for the candidates to be running for office.
They certainly should each use the Internet to communicate what they are doing, what their stands are on the issues, and engaging with the electorate for our opinions.
What I object to is that they are already running a presidential race in Feb. 2007 for an election in Nov. 2008.
It is the electioneering, not the use of the Internet that will lull people into complacency about the election.
Stephen and B.L. – I picked up this discussion in what some will consider excruciating detail over at my blog. You should probably drop by just to make sure I’m treating your thoughts accurately.
I actually agree that we should revise the Geneva Convention articles on a national level.
I think the US is a bit too squeamish when it comes to barbarism and those terrorists who fight against you with a moral foundation based on their belief that you’re the devil isn’t a fight you can win politically, financially or spiritually. …. You can’t send missionaries to this area to convert them into thinking the US people are anything other than dogs. I said convert because yes, based on our founding principals, Christianity converts, it doesn’t keep its mouth shut and that is a huge reason why we have lots of historical facts dealing with religious based mass deaths in humanity.
If we are going to run this world, [don't say we aren't trying too, our money is used for both good and bad now.] we better start running the business like a business and stop being so squeamish about collateral damage.
Remember 200 years or more now ago, we actually shot people across open ground and also hid and ambushed them; this at that time was thought to be “ungentlemanly”. Now we fight people who’d use their own 6 month old child as a bomb. Some of what Mr. G. has to say has a lot of weight. All we seem to want is his moral items are going to be public- Is that really all he has that he has to live for? These are none of my business as long as the job gets done. I am a father of 2 daughters that the mother took on “meth” and as a result of that lifestyle, I am now divorced. …. I like to think of it as she got divorced; I got to be single in the eyes of the Lord. It’s hard for me to meet people as a result, many think I am broken as a result of the items surrounding the title divorce …. I’m just me and I have an obligation as a parent to hope, pray and guide my children in this dog-eat-dog world we have started to build.
Moses wasn’t able to enter the Promised Land even after he did his deeds for the Lord. Who are we to judge anyone other than ourselves, if this man can make this world safer and not squash out civil liberties, I say give him a chance. I have yet to vote for anyone; I have served in war. Give me someone who will put boot to rear, stay in this country some and fix the home front while keeping my family safe. …. He has my vote– (Notice I said He, Sorry, it’s going to come up, I think it has– Even the women seem to feel a man should lead it.) …. I’m just the messenger so, if you wish to dive on my education level, go right ahead, and remember we are all here to be judged in the end. …. I always say, make your judgments count for something if you’re going to be judged by your peers too. – Just my two cents.
LOL… B. L. I agree, 2007 is too early and they are just making this look like Elvises Funeral… It’s messing up good TV… You know like, AI….;)