Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: We…Are…ANIMAL! Previous entry: No, really, the word “no” isn’t that confusing

More to social media than your # of Facebook friends

Stephanie Mencimer at Mother Jones has an article up about the Republicans and their strong showing in the realm of social media.  And it’s true—-Republican politicians tweet more, have more followers, and are more adept at using Facebook.  But what bothers me about this article, and many like it that involve social media, is that there’s a real gulf of understanding the nuances of social media.  That Republican politicians use social media more than Democratic ones isn’t necessarily evidence that Democrats are lazy or falling behind the times.  Assuming, as I do, that the people who are most likely to engage politically online are people who care the most about the issues or about politics, I think these differences speak more to what the base cares about, and about genuine structural differences between how the right and the left organize.  Here’s some of the reasons I think that you can’t take the fact that more Republican politicians have success with social media as evidence that liberals and Democrats aren’t using online organizing and messaging as effectively or even more effectively.

Conservatives are more likely to be sycophants than liberals.  For all that conservatives gripe about the cult of Obama, the real truth is that liberals are way more likely to be critical of our politicians and/or likely to view whatever they say as if it’s meaningless political feel-good nonsense.  Liberals are more likely to see politicians as people working for us, and conservatives see their politicians as leaders.  It makes sense—-the fundamental struggle between conservatives and liberals is over a hierarchical vs. egalitarian worldview.  Sitting around listening to leaders is less interesting to liberals than to conservatives.  We see social media more as a way for them to listen to us.

Republican politicians are closer to the base than Democratic politicians.  Of course, part of the reason that conservatives feel closer to their politicians is that they see their values reflected in their politicians.  A conservative can tune into a politician’s Twitter feed and get a full blast of hardcore right wing thought.  Liberals don’t see their values reflected by Democrats to near the same degree.  If anything, liberals are just going to get frustrated reading centrist Democrats mealy-mouth about the war or health care or any other issue that they fall to the right of the base on.

Also, I suspect Republican politicians feel more free to write their own stuff off the cuff.  Democrats have to get their staff to do it, and every tweet is probably a 3 part approval process. And that’s because the media holds Democrats to a much stricter standard.  Twitter by committee is boring.  Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but I believe the entertaining crazy pouring out on her Facebook page is pure her.  Needless to say, being the minority party and having more time only contributes to this.

Liberals are more interested in thought leaders and less in political leaders.  Just because liberals don’t follow politicians doesn’t mean they don’t use social media for idea generating and organizing.  It’s just that they’re more likely to turn to each other and less to official political leaders.  Bloggers, activists, writers—-these folks on the left are out there using social media like crazy.  I don’t know about you, but my Facebook and Twitter feed are a constant stream of news, opinion, and action items.  Liberals are more horizontal in their social media organizing, and therefore it’s more diffuse and harder to measure.  A lot is going on out there that doesn’t directly affect electoral politics most of the time—-feminism, environmentalism, labor organizing, civil rights activism, public health activism—-but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t huge and it isn’t powerful.  And what happens is that on occasion, all those folks do in fact snap together as one to get a single goal accomplished, and when they do, you actually see how huge it is. 

Which is what happened in Obama campaign.  The notion that liberals aren’t using social media as much makes no sense when you think of it in those terms.  Most of us aren’t using social media to interact with or support politicians on a daily basis, but if we all decide to do so at once—-which we did to back Obama in 2008—-suddenly you realize that liberals are still more adept at social media on average than conservatives.  The thing is, they handle the complexity of it better, which probably has a lot to do with the fact that they’re younger on average.

Democrats rely on a pre-existing organizing structure, and Republicans are forced to create one.  This is a big one.  Republicans are creating a social media infrastructure from the top down because they can’t rely on their base to build one for them.  Part of the reason is the base doesn’t really do horizontal organizing well, which is what the internet is great for.  There are a lot of conservative blogs, but they don’t create nearly the same sense of community that liberals created.

Liberals have a worldview that’s well-suited for internet organizing—-horizontal, egalitarian, complex.  And that’s why, when politicians of both parties decided to look into this internet thingie, Democrats were lucky sons of bitches that discovered that they didn’t have to do much, since their people had already done it for them.  We didn’t just have blogs, but we had community blogging, activist circles, fund-raising infrastructure, and even organizing to take it offline.  Republicans have to create their own structures, because they can’t just go post their shit on Daily Kos, you know?

And if you doubt this, think of the difference between the fund-raising capabilities of the left vs. the right online.  Or think of how we have Netroots Nation, and right wingers seem incapable of doing much besides creating a pathetic shadow conference to follow in the Netroots footsteps. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 01:00 PM • (18) Comments

That’s not the internet!  Those tubes are in parallel, not in series.

Comment #1: Older  on  05/29  at  02:11 PM

The democrats’ weaknesses in social media are a symptom of a deeper problem: Most of the democratic party leadership are not liberals. They are just conservatives liberals are stuck with because liberals don’t have a party of their own.

Comment #2: llewelly  on  05/29  at  03:40 PM

I think this also shows up with the hysterical entries on the America Speaks Out or whatever it is site.  Social media has been used to stampede parody traffic to the site, which is dominated by obvious parody trolling (I even found one my younger son left and called him out on it ... something about government not based on fairy tales like Christianity).

They can’t even get their own to reply to a brainstorming session in sufficient numbers to drown out their own crazies, let alone drown out our crazy.  The non-crazy stuff?  It all parrots standard traditional republican talking points.  Nothing new, nothing original - just crazy and parody crazy and regurgitation of fail.

Comment #3: Ms Kate  on  05/29  at  03:53 PM

Twitter is a better tool for Republicans than for Democrats: Republicans depend on flooding the zone with talking points of the day. Democrats never developed those kinds of habits. The most heavily trafficked blogs are the liberal blogs: RedState never managed to compete with DailyKos.

Comment #4: Tyro  on  05/29  at  04:47 PM

Tyro:

I’d even go a step further. Only if you don’t care about the accuracy of what you’re saying can you uniformyl fit it into 140 characters. So looking at twitter stats pretty much by definition excludes most reality-based discussion.

Comment #5: paul  on  05/29  at  08:56 PM

Nice analysis. I’ll just add my first impression, which is that by being heavily into social networking Republicans probably benefit on the get out the vote front. It is, you know, human nature to help our friends. I don’t doubt that, at some level at least, Republican strategists are aware of that fact and cynically advise their clients to pursue social networking solely for exploiting our natural proclivity to return friendly gestures with friendly gestures. Wow, this important person wants to be my friend. Going out and voting for him/her doesn’t cost any more than a little time. Kinda makes one feel good, you know, helping out a friend. I know it’s easy to think of the Republican base as evil, but in my experience at least, most of them are genuinely nice people. Just dupe, inherently decent people who suffer from a combination of being poorly educated and extremely gullible. The scum prey on their better natures. Yea, you’re right about us. We see right through that shit. That ability is our blessing. And it’s our curse.

Comment #6: chuckling  on  05/29  at  11:18 PM

I know, a lot of people fell for it with Obama. I admit it was tempting. But your typical democrat? Puh-leeze.

Comment #7: chuckling  on  05/29  at  11:21 PM

Isn’t this just an extension of why Fox news is the most watched cable news network?  Conservatives tend to call themselves conservatives as democrats/liberals tend to call themselves feminists, socialists, and a slew of other political and apolitical names.  Conservatives who vote see their bigoted ways in the minority.  So the need to collect into groups becomes a necessity for their social ignorance. 

Twitter/Facebook has been discovered by the middle-age crowd and generally if you look at the overall demographics Fox receives I no doubt you’ll come across the same premise on the internet.

The liberal mind has always been a place for dissent.  Which as Amanda hit upon creates a great deal of fiction within the base and it’s factions.  I picture the imaginary pie of the internet liberal sphere divided along the focus of their liberalism.  Feminism, trade/labor, and other factions jockey for attention and if they don’t disagree they don’t care to compromise on a candidate to elect because of the need of sectionalism it seems.

Comment #8: Xeranar  on  05/30  at  01:27 AM

Yeah, I was wondering what would happen if you examined the number of people following the campaign’s text messages vs anything the RNC has.

Sure, our candidates don’t Twitter.  But neither do their party have millions of followers in their news and activist streams.

Comment #9: Crissa  on  05/30  at  01:31 AM

The Republicans are not conservatives - they are authoritarians. So they will always “do better” at things that lend themselves to group think, to a leader issuing commands. Anything truly interactive , anything genuinely democratic, they will not fare as well with.

Comment #10: Theron  on  05/30  at  02:45 AM

@4 and 5 are absolutely right: the right is more interested in sloganeering than the left, and Twitter is a natural medium for slogans.  I tend to think this is a weakness that we should address - the whole “Republicans are better at framing” problem.

I would quibble only with Amanda’s first point.  I suppose it could be true, on average, that Democrats tend to be less star-struck than Republicans, but I doubt it.  When elected officials or other public figures (e.g. Olbermann, Moore) post on Daily Kos, there are always plenty of sycophants mixed in with the critics.  I suspect that the right has plenty of critics mixed in with the sycophants, and that we shouldn’t be too quick to pat ourselves on the back on this one.

Comment #11: BABH  on  05/30  at  11:05 AM

BABH, the existence of sycophants on the left isn’t something I disputed.  I just don’t think they’re the rule, when they are absolutely the rule on the right.

Comment #12: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/30  at  11:28 AM

Twitter is awesome; I wasn’t trying to put it down.  It’s not an either/or proposition—-I’m on Twitter and use it for a lot of stuff.  Mocking it for the 140 characters thing is missing the point, since a lot of important thoughts can be expressed that way.  It’s just that politicians don’t use Twitter in an interesting way, and liberals are far more likely to want to follow someone who is using it challenge and spread information, and less likely to be interested in following what’s essentially a stream of press releases.

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/30  at  11:40 AM

I’m not sure why, but the Republican “discourse” via social media often represents that at fantasy/fiction based sites where everyone agrees about the fantasy or is arguing about finer points of this or that within the context of a very limited, circumscribed world.

Comment #14: Ms Kate  on  05/30  at  11:43 AM

Sorry - that should be RESEMBLES, not represents.

Comment #15: Ms Kate  on  05/30  at  11:43 AM

Two thoughts:

First, you’re really only talking about the minority of the US population that is into being politically active.  I think most US voters just get turned off by the cliches content and dishonesty of most of the political discourse, whether it comes from those labeled “liberal” or “conservative,” and end up voting for whoever manages to nauseate them less that particular day.

Second, there’s one way in which all this on-line-ness hurts liberal activist groups more than conservative ones.  Liberal activists and Progressives in particular have a greater problem with infighting, probably because they’re not getting Teh Truth from a common source, and because they tend to think they’ve got Teh Truth in the first place.  On-line communication is much more susceptable to misunderstanding and misinterpretation than face-to-face communication, which makes it worse.  And the speed of on-line media, which encourages typing faster than one can think, means the misunderstandings spread faster than a stomach virus in a day care center.

Comment #16: AMM  on  05/30  at  08:07 PM

Spot on, Amanda.  I agree.  I don’t follow a single Democratic politician, but I follow more than a dozen people that I consider progressive thought leaders.  No need to follow people when you pretty much know what they are going to say.  And - why open myself up to endless fund-raising appeals for nothing in return.  And for what it’s worth, I’m a 3-time net-rooter, going back again this year.

Comment #17: wayloopy  on  06/01  at  12:58 AM

Twitter needs a sarcasm font.
It’ll be much easier for liberals to tweet (i.e. keep comments under 140 character) if they had it.
Brevity being the soul of wit and all that.

Most low-interest liberal voters I know are turned off because they don’t see the sausage making.  None I know of would be able to point to my senator, Maria Cantwell and her efforts to reinstall the Glass-Steagall act, but instead fall back to “All politicians are the same.”
And republican’s encourage that with their false equivalency.

Comment #18: cynickal  on  06/01  at  03:51 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.