Here to Stay?

It's already showing the signs of a classic break-up. While you should be enjoying the warm glow of the honeymoon period, you're already starting to have naggy little doubts. Is he still committed to this relationship?

He hardly calls any more and when he does, he wants to talk about completely different things than the thoughts you used to share. You're already getting the feeling that maybe it was the conquest that was interesting him, the thrill of the chase. Now he's got you, he's losing interest. You're not the first to be seduced and abandoned like this, but it's the thought that it could have been different this time that makes the hurt so peculiarly painful.

Over the last eighteen months, Barack Obama and his team have mastered the internet, raising unprecedented amounts of cash and raising awareness, enthusiasm and registrations amongst the digitised populace with a savvy mix of rich and social media. And in that media, he seemed to be listening. The comments button always had a tick in it and people cheerfully gave their support with varying degrees of coherence, but high levels of enthusiasm.

Of all politicians, Obama got it. Here was a channel where he could communicate directly, and not worry about being edited or misquoted. Those speeches on YouTube, those calls to action on barackobama.com -- all delivered just the way the Party wanted it, with no worries about how a piece of media commentary might slant it. And the recruitment -- one by one, neighborhood by neighborhood -- was exemplary and transformational. Here was a man who understood how to change the way politicians and the electorate communicated.

But mastery of internet campaigning is not the same as delivering government via the web. It's a different dynamic altogether.

Making promises in campaigns is easy -- someone makes a demand, you just grin and make a vague statement..

"Absolutely..."

Make that same statement in government and it's "go on then, get on with it."

A promise made in government means delivery, and once you open a digital dialogue with electors, you need to have a mechanism to deliver. Otherwise, those promises become hollower and hollower and you end with disillusion. And does any government have the system to transfer digital dialogue into delivery?

And should it?

Now, I ought to place this skepticism into context. During a relatively short, if occasionally noisy stint as head of digital communications for the Prime Minister, there wasn't a lack of will to try new ways of directly communicating with the citizens of the UK. But it didn't necessarily lead to a higher quality of debate or better outcomes.

In some ways, this wasn't surprising, the digital door was eased open gingerly and never quite fully. There were petitions, and the first YouTube channel (for a world leader), iTunes, and, subsequently, Flickr and Twitter. Through these channels you can find out what your politicians are up to and you can watch and read what the policies are. And through some of those channels you can tell the Prime Minister what you think -- sometimes in great detail on very specific matters. We tried, we communicated to millions and, sometimes, people even liked the message. But then what? After the message, what do you want? Action?

Because if you want action, there's processes -- legislative bodies to go through, hundreds of years of democratic tradition to deal with. Just because there's a loud, well-organised campaign on the internet that has given you a headache, that doesn't mean you're obliged to do something about it. Millions have signed a Facebook page? Millions more haven't, so who's right?

And for some the people who embody the processes and benefits of the traditional structure, the internet and its noisy adherents can be an irritant, to be sidestepped as much as possible.

They look at the internet and they just see noise -- and often it's not as if the arguments are nuanced. It's more likely to be "stop it" or "start it," with no discussion of what to do after you've stopped it, or how you pay for starting it. Anything that tries to map out strategy or depth -- well that requires commitment and too many of us aren't very good at that.

The danger is, therefore that you're left with a channel without a place in the governance of the nation, and that's just going to atrophy into noise, a grouching culture. Fine for judging the mood of a certain sector of the populace, but not a way of legislating by plebiscite -- or of judging the will of the entire nation fractured by the digital divide.

And what does a president with 4 years ahead of him need of your opinions anyway? The technological feedback he wants is a cross in a box on a ballot paper. He's got that, so why should he want to hear from you again til he has to?

There may be grand talk of how, as a nation, you are in this together and how he needs your voices and your commitment, but when you start to disagree with him, do you think he'll still be listening? Like all politicians, Obama wants your approval, and when your approval starts to waver, so will his commitment to a system that allows you to express your growing doubts. And when you start to disagree outright, those Obama-backed discursive platforms might just start to slide off the front pages of his websites.

Now there's a counter-argument to this skepticism. It's true that for all the page impressions, videos watched, petitions signed and files downloaded, in my time in Downing Street the only times that the inner circles really sat up and noticed the effect the web was having - was when it made the TV news. But the internet is an increasing factor in the decision-making process, and while a long way from being the main driver, initiatives such as those championed by the Sunlight Foundation in the US and the playful experimentation of competitions like Show Us a Better Way in the UK, are glimmers of long term structural reform.

We have a long way to go though. At the end of a recent presentation to a senior group of UK civil servants about the power of the internet to connect government to the people and the use of social media for powerful two-messaging, I asked for questions.

A young man leaned forward and asked earnestly:

"The internet," he said, "is it here to stay?"

Well, Barack, is it?

Jimmy Leach is editorial director for digital for The Independent, in the UK. He came to that via his role as director for digital at Freud Communications. Prior to that he was Head of Digital Communications in the Prime Minister's Office, having worked at the Guardian for a number of years. He is married with two and lives in a very chilly house in south London.

Comments

[bioluminescence]

During the past two years, President-elect Obama has mobilized a coalition of hope aided by the internet. Once in office, the coalition of hope becomes a mob of expectations. The role of the internet then will be to organize that mob into an increasing number of special interest voices if not special interest groups. Years ago I was a media advisor to a cabinet minister in Canada. Contentious issues media briefings before a sitting of the House amounted to going through a handful of newspapers. Today, I imagine such briefings are unbelievably complex thanks in large part to the internet.

[Social Construct]

An important area of group dynamics is to make it appear that everyone in the group has a sense of equality. I think that the internet has made inroads in that regard. If a group member has the ability to provide input using this media, the very act of manipulating a keyboard with the imaginings that an important person within the group will read it is enough to satisfy most people. The internet gives voice, whether real or perceived, and that is the where the real power may lie.

[Jimmy Leach - Huffpost Blogger]

The internet is certainly a good way of making yourself heard, but those who are doing the listening have no concrete way of knowing how representative it is. Interpretation of all the voices on the web is no small task.

[BritPatJax]

Jimmy....get yourself over here to Florida. I did seven years ago.....after years of teaching people to drive in Peterborough. (I write for Times-Union and American Chronicle)­......just a few weeks of winter and then its tee shirt weather the rest of the year. I am sure that had you had Obama to do for you would have seen things a little differently. I have been in pain for seven years with this Leadership. Google 'patrick lockyer' to see my rants and videos. All Obama has to do to get things on the right track is stop wasting money on brash defense, put a hold on NASA for a while and put an aircraft carrier on Ebay. He will have it fixed in a flash. He is perfect for the instant you tube media. Brown? Now that's another story. Charisma makes all the difference. Don't you think?

[Jimmy Leach - Huffpost Blogger]

Love to. London's freezing at the moment...

I'm not sure that charisma is the issue, nor do I know enough about the equivalent of the civil service code in the US, but communication as head of government and communication as head of a party do work differently. I hope he continues the excellence of the campaigning work on the web, but there's a whole heap of different rules to learn.

[georgebeckton]

Can we infer from this post that there exists the potential from this embryonic form of communication, for (manipulative) evolution. (sorry there's enough in that sentence for a GOP conference)

But seriously, manipulation is too strong a word; perhaps development then, analogous to cultural and musical tastes.

[georgebeckton]

Another issue is the very freedom of expression exposes an organisation, any organisation, open to cyberwarfare, I suspect we can expect more of this particularly immediately prior to elections..this MUST be researched­....Possib­ly consider SIG's (Special interest groups) as a way of negating this attack....check out the British Institute Of Occupational Hygiene (www.bohs.org) as a respectable example.

The simple and effective destruction of threads using emotive "stoppers" such as "my xxx died of cancer and i blame yyy" could stop dead in its tracks a reasoned powerful argument against an opponent, whilst letting off vulnerable opponents...a deliberate tactic of tories (conservatives)
.

[georgebeckton]

The point is let the war begin.

The People can and always will, withstand it...

[KarenDianne]

Firstly, The Obama team is still asking me for money so they won't have to use special interest groups.

Secondly, they are still sending me e-mails about what they are working on (with e-mailed videos of Obama's speeches).

Thirdly, I receieved a long questionaire about my experiences of working for the Obama campaign-- what those experiences were like, if I intended to do more in the future, and what my present priorities are regarding American governence.

I believe we will continue to be more informed than ever before, that we will be a greater part of this government than we have been in the past, and that it will involve more work on our part than we may have expected. This is what we voted for -- perhaps we can think of it as the Newer Deal.

[Jimmy Leach - Huffpost Blogger]

As I said below - the party is a well-oiled machine on these things. Government plays to different rules and that's likely to be less responsive and open.

[bubbuh]

A little bit of rabble rousing toward the end; but, a good exposition of of the advantages and limitations of our age of interavtive mass communication. And, once or twice you do allude to the central conundrum of democracy in any age: more is not necessarily better. This is exspecially true of ephemeral commodities like opinion.

[ChrisInTennessee]

Before you get all crazy about Obama - check out change.gov . He hasn't abandoned the American people and is asking for input from us.

[Jimmy Leach - Huffpost Blogger]

My point wasn't that the party organisation was equipped and ready - but that the government may not be.

[corbett3000]

Terrific post, Jimmy. I'm sad you didn't see the DC.gov's Apps for Democracy example, which could be included as another one of your "glimmers of long term structural reform".

http://www.appsfordemocracy.org

I'd be really interested to hear what you think of it...

Peter

[Jimmy Leach - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks Peter. On a quick glance at the (excellent) apps for democracy, the first thing that strikes me is the nature of the proposals. These seem more about everyday freedoms and information flows - and less about democracy and the legislative process. That's not a criticism - it might be just that we are more concerned with our own lives than the health of the nation.