I’m going to go out on a really thin limb here, and feel free to saw it off in the comments. :-)
If you haven’t been to change.gov yet, you need to go. Now. I’ll be here when you come back.
There is little question that Obama was Presidential Candidate 2.0. And it’s becoming increasigly clear that he’ll be President 2.0. What made this possible?
Of course, without his intelligence, and desire to be involving and inclusive, it wouldn’t have happened. But there is no question that there is a technical aspect to what made this possible. New technologies, the web, Web 2.0 services like Twitter, Flickr and Facebook, text messaging, all of these made this possible. Plus some amazing underlying technical infrastructure. It engaged voters (largely young voters, but others as well.) It allowed people to get involved and helped motivate.
So, to go even deeper, what made all of this possible? Well, Web 2.0 depends largely on two things: open standards, and open source software. It is my arguement that without these two things, Obama would not have been able to harness the technology in the way that he did. He might have won anyway, but I think that these two factors made it a lot easier. And I think that they will be key to providing Government 2.0, which is as technically transparent and open as it hopefully will be in actuality.
Open Source software and open standards are the foundations of Web 2.0. Open standards are now becoming de-riguer for application developers, and even proprietary vendors are adopting longstanding ideas and methods from free and open source software.
I think the next 4-8 years are going to prove Yochai Benkler right.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I think you’re out on a strong limb! It was amazing to see how he used web 2.0 to get to the White House but now the test is going to be how he can use it to stay and not get booted out with all the engagement options. I hope he thrives in his transparency and promotes more Open Standards and OSS!
I ran John Kerry’s blogsite in the 2004 election campaign. There is a generational battle going on, not only in the political arena but throughout the conflicting spaces of old and new media. The old hands see their models sifting away from them like sand running through their fingers; holding on is the impulse, but it’s not really an option. Their carefully constructed careers and businesses plans are wafting toward the chemical shittters on the outskirts of all political campaign rallies. Younger adopterss, with little or no allegiance to the old pattens and tools of tv-media-based traditional planning, are out there running wild, trying anything they can get their hands on, and moving fast enough that failures disappear quickly into the past, overwhelmed by the successes of experiments that worked. And the new stuff is sending vast quantities of personal and democragraphic data back to HQ for the fun of the campaign’s rabid number crunches. There are plenty of privacy problems hiding in this unregulated process, but no one gives a damn right now, and accepts whatever feeble promises the companies and campaigns are making.
I’m not in favor of any form of unilateral disarmament here. If progressives are going to be significant actors in the years to come, they will to find ways to square their consciousnesses with the implications of some of these powerful identify tools, doing the best job they can to shield the identifies of individuals without wrapping themselves in such tangles of moral righteousness that they are unable to use the tools at all.
There is an interesting tension over how much of this new work one can bring inside the iron walls of the executive branch without exposing the strategy and workings of the questions, if not the final analyses themselves. Who wouldn’t want to fill a few Freedom of Information act requests to look at every piece of paper involved?
So I expect to see the Obama people keep this stuff outside the Whitehouse and the prying eyes of the Congress and the Justice Department. A nice 510(c)(4) would do it, funded with a few million left over from Obama’s campaign, if such a transfer were legal. Otherwise the netroots could raise the moeny easily.
Then the politically interesting thing is what’s the realtionsihp between the people putting up the money and the people Obama would pick to run such an operation.l A 501(c)(4) with a $5-10 million budget would attract a lot of flies, at least some of whom might not have either Obama’s or the country’s best interests at heart.
Without strong outside agitation, it is hard to see any other way in which mass pressure will be felt in the early workings of the Obama administration. Just look at the more than two decades which the Republican business men were able to use abortion and other social issues to snooker right-wing moral conservatives into voting repeatedly against the economic class interest, and in return gave these funds as little as they could possible give in order not to further annoy the vast majority of both parties who were not interested in going to the barricades on abortion.
Fun will be had by all.