Information alone can't *make* people care. Some people don't really like to think...maybe most...

Edited by author 08-24-2003 04:43 PM
You touch on some very interesting points, Cory. Following on, I think the biggest contributors to the "lack of effectiveness" phenomena are perhaps that a) e-anything is generally easier/safer/softer then the physical counterpart and b) e-protestors may pick causes to rant about that may not have the biggest return and c) e-protestors may preach to the choir, whipping our/themselves into a frenzy that may be good for venting/self-expression but not so good at getting results.

On type A above, I think there's a perception that e-anything is just too easy to be of value. How hard is it to click a button to rant to your congressman? I'm not saying it _should_ be hard, but the value ascribed to that expression of speech may be understandably less. A hunger strike is more effective than foregoing cheesburgers, not that everyone needs to run out and set themselves on fire, but there's a range of activities that do get results (the war protests were a good example IMO and I think they actually did have an effect, though not the immediately desired one).

The Lott fiasco is a good example of type B. Yes, the guy is a segregationist, but the constitution allows for people to hold unpopular (or wrong, IMPO) views and still be elected. His leadership is a national concern, his electability or unelectability is Mississippi's decision (or the Senate, if he violates Senate rules). I think we have to be really careful about assassination politics, even when we're right. How much of the internet activism is like that? Seems like a good deal, though I have no idea of relative percentages. It often serves for better entertainment than activism.

On issue C, it seems to me the liberal and conservative bases are pretty entrenched. Convincing most pro-busines conservative voters that a FCC sell out to corporate power is bad is probably a hard sell. Convincing liberal voters is perhaps unnecessary, but connecting the issue back to the federal elections may actually help to undo it in 2-3 years (anti-abortionists have this down to a science, targeting the judicial big picture). But for the entrenched voters, we're all so cynical that we can spot that sort of good/bad partisan rhetoric a mile away--it often just reinforces the cynicism. So we have to reach the swinging middle, or concentrate on the big picture of getting the bastards out of office on the merits--this is why I get concerned when we go after Ashcroft for Patriot or Powel for FCC sellouts. We need to focus on the elections, IMO and go with the big picture.

By the way, this whole email was pretty easy and I'm aware of the irony. I'm neither advocating real positions nor am I running out and doing anything about them. So I'm hereby offering myself up as a perfect case in point.

Internet Politics 101.

" Convincing most pro-busines conservative voters that a FCC sell out to corporate power is bad is probably a hard sell."

Huh? The last time I checked, the House voted 400-21 to overturn that regulation, which means that making the case against media consolidation to pro-business conservatives was a rather soft sell (yes, the Republican leadership opposed the vote, but the rank and file Members heard from their often-conservative constituents loud and clear).

"Huh? The last time I checked, the House voted 400-21 to overturn that regulation..."

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply just that one "sell out."

But on that one issue, I agree, it was hard to make a case for the rule that works even for conservatives at large. I think that's actually a case where internet advocacy did a better job than the mainstream media (probably for the obvious reasons).