There I sat in forum 114 of Linn Benton Community College, Albany Oregon. The epicenter of new political ideas and media revolution. Well, maybe not, but it was an interesting discussion on how our political world is changing, and how our media preference is influencing these changes. The speakers in this discussion were from three sets of backgrounds that pertained to the discussion.
Dr Rob Sahr was from Oregon State University's School of Public Policy and political science. He would serve as the panel’s speaker on political process and public opinion. Hasso Herring; 30 year employee and executive editor for the Albany Democrat Herald would serve as the ‘old world media’ representative, giving a grounding in local print news media influence and process. And finally, LBCC’s own Rob Priewe would serve as the new media/social media advocate, explaining the impact of the net-connected world on the American political scene.
Dr Sahr’s first topic of discussion was the American political process, and the growing rift in partisan politics. He explained how many voters feel put off by the fact that the American political scene has become so fiercely partisan. In his words America had the “best political system in the world, but....”. This but was the area in the political system that was muddled by special interests and general party politics. This brought him back to the topic of partisan politics and distrust by voters. Dr Sahr then introduced a website called www.nolabels.org. No Labels is a non-partisan website that was designed to help people vote on a larger number of presidential candidates that came from a more diverse background. It also allowed for voters to pick and choose the individual aspects that they found appealing about each candidate, and would inform them of their stance on popular topics allowing voters a choice on candidates outside of the normal two party system.
He would go on to explain the electoral college system, and how it affects voting. This is the point where Dr Sahr covered a lot of ground, really fast. This is also the point where I was struggling to keep notes as fast has he was talking. He went over some pretty interesting points about third party candidates being less effective in their own candidacy, and more effective in robbing a republican or democrat from votes that may win them elections when a race was extremely narrow, or when electoral votes were unbalanced. As a summary, I would say that Dr Sahr believed that the power of a political candidate lay in his or her influence over people through speaking ability and less from super pacs, or social media.
Next in the chute was Rob Priewe with his thoughts on super pacs and how social media affected politics. Rob shared the same optimism about super pacs negligible effects on political outcomes that Dr Sahr presented. Like Dr Sahr, he did not seem to believe that super pacs would carry much weight in terms of election results. He did seem to think that the massive amount of money that super pacs could raise was a definite advantage in getting a certain candidate to the forefront of a political party, but like Dr Sahr, he did not believe that money alone could sway an election. Rob even invited the presence of super pacs, as he seemed to consider them to be a good group use of first amendment rights, and trying to impose restrictions would be a violation of those rights.
The big divergence in Rob’s presentation versus Dr Sahr was in the impact of social media on presidential elections. He cited the extremely successful use of a huge social media campaign by the Obama administration during the 2008 presidential elections. He would also point out that there was no traveling involved in the Obama fundraising, saving a ton of money for the campaign. A campaign that managed to raise far more money than John McCain’s traditional, traveling fundraising efforts, as Rob pointed out. A summary of Mr Priewe’s speaking would be to say that he believed that social media and web interaction were going to be instrumental to the outcomes of future elections, more so than super pacs or other massive sources of funding that have been the norm until now.
The last speaker was Hasso Herring. His opinion on super pacs was in line with the other two speakers, as he too did not believe that they were unconstitutional, or that they posed any real threat to elections. He would not share Rob’s optimism about social media’s role in the election process. In fact, I believe that his opening sentence pertained to his pessimism of social media’s role in elections. Herring most definitely seemed as if he was an old media believer, and that was readily apparent in his mannerism when speaking about social media. He spoke with a slightly irritated tone for the majority of his lecture. The same irritated tone that a father takes when his teenage son tells him that he doesn’t follow his political train of thought. He went on to speak about the irrelevance of social media in local elections, and how they would have no real impact on issues like voting for open release of who had obtained a concealed carry permit in Linn County. Herring believed that social media was not interested in local events, and was too slow in comparison to traditional print coverage. He would downplay the role that social media had in the Obama election, saying that there were many factors that lead to Obama’s win, and social media was a small player, but not a key one.
Super pacs, social media, the elections, and lots of money; what does all of this mean? My overall impression from this forum was that our political process is in a stage of transformation, just as it has always been, and hopefully it will always be. I believe, just as all three of these speakers believe; that super pacs are something that is a bit ticket topic for right now, but ultimately something that will come to pass with no corporate takeovers of the US election process. I also believe, unlike Mister Herring that social media is a quickly growing player in the way this country chooses a president. While Facebook may not directly lead to an election of any president I believe that it will surely be something that everyone -who wants to be anyone- will have to take seriously from now on. Even if super pacs should strike such a serious blow to future elections that many are forecasting, I think that the power of social media will be a direct counterpart in this influence. Facebook, and other social media contain a power that money cannot buy. Money will only get at the minds of those who are willing to sit through an advertisement. Social media contains the power of the voices of everyone you know, and anyone you don’t. The recounting of a powerful speech, or the persuasion of opinion by your best friend from high school is much more meaningful to people than a conglomeration of corporations trying to throw money at you through your tv and radio.
