Tag Archives: USA

Politics as fandom

16 Nov

In the wee small hours of the morning of November 7th, President Barack Obama passed an historic milestone many had expected would go to a different kind of person altogether: a snapshot he posted on twitter, with the caption “Four more years”, became the most retweeted message in the history of the six-year-old microblogging platform. Such dizzying heights are normally attained by, well, Justin Bieber, but – never mind the millions of people who’d just voted for him – the President’s got a lot of fans.

And those fans have engaged with this election like no other. Every word said by both sides, as well as being scrutinized and analysed and spun in every way imaginable, has been reproduced in a staggering array of creative formats, from autotuned remixes that turned stump speeches into music videos to colourful graphics emphasizing emotive words, and printed (or hand drawn) on to t-shirts and tote bags and badges and baked goods.

I don’t live in the US anymore, and having never been a citizen, I couldn’t vote to re-elect the President. So I threw him my support the only way I knew. I tweeted, I Facebooked, I read and reposted funny or inspirational things he said, I bought a sweatshirt expressing my allegiance and then posted pictures of myself wearing that sweatshirt. I tossed in a bunch of West Wing references for good measure, and got possibly a little bit overexcited whenever anyone else either understood them or did it too.

It was a lot of fun. A lot.

And it made the bleary-eyed morning (as an aside, I maintain that the time difference actually made it better – there’s something terribly romantic about waiting until dawn for the results) waiting for Romney to just get over himself and concede already feel meaningful and moving, in a way that the policy implications of the result (however vital), just didn’t.

Of course, this is all feels slightly detrimental to the business of politics and governance, but it’s not like before animated gifs (the latest thing in instant debate commentary) the sparkle and flash of the campaign trail wasn’t already getting in the way of reality.

But here’s the interesting thing: in the face of the biggest criticism of the process overall – that it costs an enormous amount of money, an obscene, staggering, shocking amount of money – the “fandom” elements are actually, in and of themselves, almost free. You can’t buy quotability. And selling people t-shirts with your face on them actually raises cash.

The tools of modern fandom are free and widely accessible. They’re the social media platforms: twitter, tumblr, facebook, pinterest, reddit, youtube, the list goes on. Their reach is tremendous, and instantaneous. And in the fast-paced, brightly-coloured, emotionally-driven world of Twihards and Whovians, a picture of the President’s dog appearing sandwiched between a One Direction video and a misattributed inspirational quote in a whimsical font is an assertion of allegiance as powerful as the color of your Hogwarts scarf or your preference for Sherlock or Watson (personally, I’m team Molly). What it isn’t, is disrespectful. And what last week proved, is that it doesn’t mean that fan isn’t also going to vote.

In fact, fans of democracy got a bit carried away. You couldn’t click on anything without another blurry self-portrait-with-I-Voted-sticker appearing on your screen, which is all well and good (and yes, I was really jealous), but when folks started instagramming their ballots, things got a bit sticky. There have been no reports of anyone actually being cited for it, but in many states, it’s against the law.

Another extraordinary thing. It’s not new for people to idolize political figures. Many people would probably characterize themselves as “a fan of voting”, even if not quite to the extent of buying a t-shirt that says so (I did though). But in the aftermath of this election, a statistical analyst named Nate Silver, who cut his teeth on baseball predictions and got every electoral result of the night except for one single Senate race right, became an overnight sensation, spawning several trending topics on twitter and the website IsNateSilverAWitch.com. A STATISTICAL ANALYST. Who now has a legion of fangirls and fanboys hanging on to his every word. His words being mostly about polling data. Don’t let anyone tell you the politics fandom is superficial.

Of course, some of the other names of the “political fandom” are better known. The merest mention of Hillary Clinton sends the internet at large into a frenzy – speculating, yes, about the chances of a 2016 run, but also passing around favorite versions of the “Texts from Hillary” meme. The beauty of that is that was funny, without being in any way mocking, derogatory or sexist. It was affectionate, a way to express awe and admiration, that captured people’s imagination.

It’s naïve enough to think that the people who typically attract fan followings – sports stars, actors and musicians – are real life heroes, and even more so to think that about politicians, who are bureaucrats with enormous PR teams (although before you make up your mind on that, do look up Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark New Jersey. He might be the exception to the rule.). But while the trivial aspect of it is frustrating to policy wonks, it’s an engaging, inspiring way for people to take ownership of the process, and of the leaders that come out of it.

Michael Higgins vs The Tea Party

23 Aug

It’s an oldie, but a goodie. Michael Higgins tears apart Tea Party values, and for once, Michael Graham can’t get a word in edgeways.

Grassroots versus Advertising

17 May

by Becky Wright

Generally the forces that disagree with us have a wealth of monetary resources at their feet.  They can pour money into TV ads, into billboards and in reaching the powerful to support their aims and messages. What do we haveGrassroots to compare to change the way people think on our issues?

This question resurfaced while I was watching this article on the Rachel Maddow show.  In describing the Republican attack on the rights to abused women who have come to the US via marriage (and whose visas depended on this relationship), she outlines the relationship between the owners of sites that advertise mail order brides (who this law helps) and the groups who are lobbying to repeal the law. Half way through the piece, I began to consider again about the impact that money has on building support for campaigns coupled with a focus on slogans, messages and polling.

A while back I read David Plouffe’s Audacity to Win which described how their planned and ran the Obama election campaign.  With my organiser’s hat on, I found it a really interesting and thought-provoking book.  In his description of how they built a grassroots membership and activism and the importance of this to winning the election, I was struck at first by how this was very similar to an organising campaign rather than any elections I had witnessed.

What impact did this emphasis on people have on the campaign?  Profound in terms of leadership, and authenticity.  If there was a negative ad about Obama, the network of activists would refute it to their families, friends and colleagues.  While looking after the front lawn, they would talk to their neighbours about why they supported him and what he stood for that was in their interest.  What had the most impact on that person’s viewpoint and was able to effectively bring someone on board?  Was it the ad or the person they trusted and respected?  Often we overlook the power of human interactions and subtle leadership.  The person in the community, workplace or family who everyone looks to for guidance or trusts in analysis.  Get that person on board and despite the prevailing winds, a campaign will be in a good position.

I advise campaigners and organisers to look at structuring plans in five basic areas:

  • Goal: what are you trying to achieve (be specific!)
  • Organisational considerations: all of your resources plus what you know you’ll probably need.
  • Constituents:  Allies and opponents and who you want to campaign with/for.
  • Target: Who is the person that will make the decision you will get you what you want.
  • Tactics: Actions that will build up your organisation, and put pressure on your target.

I’m highlighting this because the order of the planning underlines where a campaign should put its emphasis.  Who is on your side and will be your advocates should come a long time before working out your slogan or title.  Groups as mentioned on the Maddow show have endless pots of money to spend on snazzy logos, slogans and ads.  When we try to compete on their terms we lose and overlook the most powerful resource that those of us on the progressive spectrum have – potential of people power.

There is a reason why astroturfing is so big in the US, it’s because those campaign groups have no organisation or people power and have to make it up.  We don’t.  Concentrate on how your campaign will build up your base rather than snazzy logos and slogans because the word of a trusted person is worth more than an ad.

Becky Wright Becky Wright,  Director of the TUC’s Organising Academy, also writes for Stronger Unions

Grassroots is being held at the TUC, Congress House, Great Russell St, London on 26 May.  To register go to http://grassrootsuk.org/register-to-come/ 

%d bloggers like this: