Not-So-Smart Mobs

Were more people willing to let Howard Dean be their Friendster than their friend? Clay Shirky dissects the first social-software powered campaign.

The broader point implicit here, I think, is that maybe organic social networks aren't such an ideal political tool after all. Candidates need a well oiled machine—a gun they can point, aim, and fire. What they need, in other words, is a means to a straightforward end, when communities tend to become ends in themselves, difficult to subject to subject to top-down control.

Comments

[Arnold Kling]

I think that we have not yet had the definitive experiment on Internet mobilization. The "echo chamber" weakness of the Dean campaign might be due to the Internet, as Clay argues, but it could be due to the fact that the far left tends to be an echo chamber itself.

[John Hood]

Julian:

I generally agree with you, but I would add that Howard Dean just turned out to be a horrible and undisciplined candidate. His experience shouldn't necessarily be taken as proof of a proposition about the political usefulness of blogs and the Web.

[Alex]

As anyone unfortunate enough to land on a Dean spam list knows, Dean's "social software" resembled KLEZ far more than Friendster.

[Brady]

I agree w/ John. Very unscientific way to draw a conclusion.

Dean's meetup groups were about more than the candidate himself; many were getting together to volunteer in their community and Dean was secondary. At least that is what I noticed here in FL.

[Mo]

Look at it this way. If the internet could make Dean a powerhouse (at least before any votes were cast), imagine what it could do for a half decent candidate?

All joking aside, I liked quite a few of his views before the hype (pro-NAFTA, civil unions, high NRA rating) a lot better than after he started to believe the hype.