The Influence of New Media on American Politics: For the People and by the People

New Media is reshaping the nature of American governmental affairs, as the cyber world entwines itself with the political world. New media is an essential tool that is necessary to maintain a functioning modern representative democracy that can accommodate a growing population. The direct accessibility made available by blogging, podcasting and social networking sites opens the means of communication to the public, thereby increasing the connectivity of government agencies with citizens and strengthening the influence of constituents, which has resulted in the manifestation of the empowerment of grassroots movements.

“The growth of the cyber world has been both the most empowering and, to already unresponsive institutions, the most influential social change to penetrate society in the last 50 years.”


The internet is fundamental in renewing the populations’ interest in public affairs. The majority of Americans are skeptical of campaigns corrupted by ulterior motives and biased funding, intimidated by the growing polarization between the two main political parties, discouraged by institutions like the electoral college and political practices like gerrymandering. These dilute the potency of a singular vote. All of these contributing factors have resulted in growing apathy amongst Americans when it comes to issues involving their government. In 1961, 75 percent of the U.S. population had a high amount of trust in the government. “By 2003, according to a CNN/Time poll, that confidence had reached a low of 32 percent.”

Americans’ distrust in their government stems from the inability to trust in campaigns that are funded by private interests. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case has further empowered wealthy institutions to infiltrate their partiality into campaign advertisements that fail to concentrate on the needs of the citizenry. American negligence to politics partially stems from the corrupt campaign ads full of slander often funded by these very companies who invest in particular policies or candidates because of the direct effect on their businesses. The United States Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, turned down recent accusations against these companies, “a bitterly divided Supreme Court […] ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in Candidate elections.” The decision struggled to pass as it granted corporations the power to influence the political market of the U.S. “The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind […] and selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.” Allowing companies to finance politicians and policies, ultimately privileges wealthier agencies to manipulate the electorate in their favor. Hence, numerous Americans are apprehensive to vote because the information accessible to them is typically influenced by economic concerns.

In the recent November 2010 election in California, for example, the expenditures of particular institutions, like the Texas oil companies who endorsed Proposition 23, were blatantly associated with the policy because it held the potential to benefit their sales. Whether directly tied to a policy like Proposition 23, or a candidate, supporters are invested in particular policies and candidates because they promote or obstruct their personal agendas. Further, it is hard to tell who to believe when “Yes on 23” commercials are telling the viewer that voting yes will save their jobs, and “No on 23” commercials convince the viewer that the environment will be destroyed if they vote yes. Although corporations should have the right to provide information to the American public, no matter the biased intentions, Americans possess the right to think for themselves and to fully understand the source of this information. The fine print that flashes on the bottom of a campaign commercial, or the miniscule writing on the bottom of a yard sign is not prominent enough to overpower the undue influence that wealthy campaign contributors have. The confusing advertisements and the often-offensive presentation of information made available to the American public during political campaigns, discourages their trust in their media sources.

In addition to policies such as Proposition 23, candidates themselves are made to appear untrustworthy and difficult to relate to. The most popular way to generate support during the short campaign period is to employ negative advertising against an opponent since the image of a candidate is a fundamental part of persuading voters. “We have today a system that rewards politicians for conflict and confrontation, and encourages them to demonize opponents.” For example, in the recent gubernatorial election in California, 35 days before the election, it was brought forward that republican candidate, Meg Whitman, employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper for nine years. This personal information seemed to, in the end, be more memorable than any of the millions of dollars Whitman spent on commercials. The predominance of defamation morally degrades the political system, which in turn dissuades the general public from feeling allegiance to any candidate. Americans are looking for a relatable candidate, and it is difficult to connect to candidates when they are portrayed as criminals. Further, Americans are distanced from government officials and this abstract relationship between representatives and constituents attributes to the lack of interest in the general public.

Even those who typically feel enthusiastic about a candidate tend to have their own hidden incentives. For instance, Whitman’s alleged housekeeper hired Gloria Allred as her lawyer for the lawsuit against Whitman. Coincidently, “Ms. Allred was a personal friend of Jerry Brown, […] and had donated to his past campaigns. ‘So there’s a clear relationship and party affiliation that’s undeniable.’” Allred’s involvement exemplifies exactly how financial investment in a candidate enables her private agenda with Brown. Allred clearly had more invested in Brown’s candidacy than just money; therefore, she utilized her power to influence the decisions of voters. Although she is entitled to do so, her financial influence corrupts the perspective of a voter. How can the public trust information provided to them if it is tainted with the prejudice of individuals or private companies?

The internet has proven to be an effective anecdote for this issue. The internet allows for information to circulate that would otherwise be limited by the nature of media, which is funded by private entities. The internet allows like-minded citizens to come together quickly with social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace. The internet does not tailor content to fit a particular political agenda, nor does it inhibit individuals from expressing their opinions. With the power of the internet, public interest in governmental issues has been revived because information is accessible to everyone, and communicating the importance of a particular movement has become easy to do. Supporting a political movement now comes at the expense of clicking a button. Individual citizens have power and influence over their government. Making a difference and being heard is a possibility for just about anyone with a blog or a Facebook these days. The result is that political interest has been revived.

“There was an astonishing 11 percentage point increase of voter turnout in 2004. While there may be socio-political factors involved that can explain this sharp hype, it is interesting to note that one difference between the world of 2000 and the world of 2004 is accessibility and popularity of internet applications such as online petitions and online networking.”

The most successful public servants are those who utilize this new media to effectively carry out their message. “Take Barack Obama. The reason he is the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee is that he combines his message of hope and “Yes We Can” with a savvy staff that understands the value and use of Web 2.0 social-media tools. His campaign effectively uses blogs, wikis, podcasts, event-planning tools, reviews, ratings, comments and rich media uploads and downloads — all of which engage constituents in ways that make them feel validated and important.” Obama’s successes can be easily linked with his efforts to reach out via new media websites. America needs relatable politicians, and new media makes even the president accessible with just one click.
New media offers newly-found power to individual campaigns as well as entire political movements, particularly of grassroots nature. The number of people identifying with political parties is waning, and the manifestations of grassroots movements such as the Tea Party, embody American dissatisfaction with the current party system. Voters feel disconnected from their candidates, and movements like the Tea Party seem to represent the desperate need for a connection that is otherwise not being satisfied by current political parties. Grassroots movements expose the frustrations of politically engaged citizens and often act as the means acquiring to needed change. The use of new media in grassroots movements has allowed the public to challenge the current political system with recognizable force. The Tea Party, for example, started when CNBC’s Rick Santelli went on a memorable rant about the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. The broadcast quickly spread via Twitter and other social networking websites. Within weeks Santelli’s message had inspired a powerful series of Tea Party Protests, which eventually developed into the Tea Party that exists today.

Grassroots movements assist in the governance of a democracy because they echo the voice of the people, and the volume of this voice is measured by the amount of support the movement has. The Tea Party would not be as successful as it has become without the use of new media to spread its message. Gathering support and communicating the message of a campaign has become much quicker and easier with new technology. Technology and social media websites have lowered the cost of communication. Finding like-minded people is extremely accessible with social networking sites, and fundraising can be done through websites like Pay Pal. Democracy thrives on the participation of its people, and the information age has made getting involved quicker, easier and cheaper than ever before.

In order to sustain the success of a campaign, people must feel that they own the movement. When a movement provides the people involved with a sense of ownership, it gives them a sense of responsibility as well. To maintain success or to win an election, campaigns must utilize new media so that followers of the movement feel that they are responsible for the movement’s vitality.

The information age has reoriented public policy around the self. “What we live in is not the age of the extended mind but the age of the inverted self.” Politics is no longer a function of ideology but of identity. Individuals identify with a movement, which is seen as an expression of the manifestation of selfhood. In the information age, identity imposes ideological coherence rather than the ideology defining the ultimate meaning of a movement. The human condition for selfishness seems to have a whole new mechanism for infiltrating politics. However, when there are biased funds influencing media surrounding a campaign or political decisions, one has to ask themself: In an age where large corporations are capable of funding a particular policy or candidate who would benefit their personal agenda, what is wrong with an individual Twittering about political opinions for free?

These new technologies are intended to increase connectivity, and when used wisely, they serve their purpose. “A social network is crucially different from a social circle, since the function of a social circle is to curb our appetites and of a network to extend them. Everything once inside is outside, a click away; much that used to be outside is inside, experienced in solitude.” The repercussions of this relative to politics are that it allows individuals to unite quickly and acquire numbers of astronomical proportions in a short period of time, like the Tea Party. However, a Facebook petition is a much less threatening form of protest than a riot. The internet holds great potential to change American government for the betterment of its people.

Enlightening peoples’ government via new media should be seen for its potential to be a force for good. The key to exploiting the good of the Internet, while guarding against the bad, is to educate consumers and create a new generation of useful consumers. The internet is necessary to counterbalance the lack of representation in American politics, and further, it serves to uncover truths that would otherwise be kept under wraps by media outlets. New media provides the tools necessary to amplify the often-unheard voices of the American population. The future of politics includes new media as an important element of public relations, and this means the future of politics includes a solid platform for individuals to receive a democratic dose of attention.

Navigating the Career Path of a Public Intellectual

The subsequent question that follows suit is whether or not public intellectuals become less-than-effective sources as their career statuses improve. Is there a direct correlation between popularity and polarity? The answer is conditional upon the public intellectual to whom one is referring. Susan Estrich utilizes her power correctly by holding on to her ideals throughout her career, while other public intellectuals provide a poor sampling of the public intellectual pool, like Juan Williams, whose intellect was sacrificed as his publicity increased.

Both Estrich and Williams have worked as editors for various periodicals, represent minority groups, identify with a liberal political position and have worked for Fox News. However, the news outlets that employed Williams eventually imputed his thinking and restructuring of his political assumptions, which can be measured by his controversial commentary on Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor, followed by his termination as the host of National Public Radio’s daily talk show, Talk of the Nation.

When asked by Bill O’Reilly if he felt the United States was facing a dilemma with Muslims, Williams responded by saying, "Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Soon after, Williams soon became a pariah in his own political party. He lost his job at NPR the following week, which was announced with the release of this statement in regard to his termination, “His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR”. Perhaps his political opinions simply changed over time, but it is hard to ignore the fact that his quick swing to the right corresponds with his increasing appearance on conservative television. Further, Bill O’Reilly was in the process of battling his own slanderous backlash from his appearance on ABC’s The View where he blamed Muslims for the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. O’Reilly was looking for support, and Williams provided just that. Williams’ opinion was clearly influenced by those around him because it was out-of-line with his previous political positions.

Public intellectuals’ knowledge can only be viable as long as their identities remain consistent and strong. Susan Estrich manages to work within the confines of the polarized media that exists today without sacrificing her opinions to meet the demands of the audience.

In a blog posting by Estrich on January 9, 2009, she defended her allegiance to Israel,“if Israel is your enemy, so am I.”

There has been no change in her stance on Israel despite the recent demonstrations in Egypt, and America’s support of the Egyptian pursuit of freedom and democracy. She does not overlook the topic of Israel, and on February 11, 2011, she responded in accordance with her previous political positions about Israel,

“They are saying that one of the best and most courageous things Mubarak has done — despite some difficult periods, he maintained relations with Israel and recognized its existence — is reason enough for his downfall. I have a hard time finding anything romantic about that.”

Estrich does support the endeavors of the Egyptian population, but she does not marginalize her own priorities in favor of the greater American opinion. That is what qualifies her as a reliable, model public intellectual. In a pragmatic sense, the public intellectual must broaden its audience in order to survive, yet stick to what it knows best. A public intellectual offers expertise, not mediation.