Why do politicians hire bloggers in the first place?
February 9, 2007
Jon Chait over at the Plank argues that the Edwards “controversy” (*) will make it harder for bloggers to get hired by political campaigns:
But will this open doors to bloggers being hired by campaigns? My guess is, just the opposite. What this episode demonstrated is that, if you’re a candidate, hiring a blogger may or may not win you the loyalty of that blogger’s friends. But firing that blogger will certainly bring their wrath down upon you. But campaigns, of course, fire staffers pretty often. So why would you hire somebody you can’t fire?
That’s true, and expect it’s a lesson that most political campaigns will learn. But I think the bigger question is: what’s the point of hiring bloggers in the first place?
I’m serious. The skills needed by a political campaign are not the same skills that make for good blogging. There’s certainly some overlap — interest in politics, actual writing talent, familiarity with the culture of the internets — but blogging and a good online political presence are different things.
Good blogs can make fun of the goofier tenets of the Roman Catholic church’s political theology, in language not typically associated with a presidential campaign. They can be sarcastic and rude and offensive, and that’s great, because life can be sarcastic and rude and offensive. Political campaigns, obviously, require a different approach, with a little more structure and a little less independence.
Interacting with and communicating with online communities is part of modern politics, but that doesn’t mean a campaign needs a blog. I certainly don’t read any official blogs, and I don’t know anyone else who does, either. They’re uninteresting and bureaucratic at best, and patronizing at worst.
I don’t expect any politician to take advice from commenters on a Daily Kos diary (and there is very little as condescendingly repellant as feigning consultation when none is intended — “email me if you think I should run for president!” — or about a decision that has already been made).
On the other hand, answering questions, proposing ideas, responding to feedback — those are all good things, and increasingly, a necessary part of a successful campaign (Elizabeth Edwards, for example, groks this perfectly). Online communities — communities of any type, really — respond well to open and transparent engagement and interaction.
And over time, that process, if honestly done, gives a politican a true sense of their political support, and allows them to more accurately judge the freedom of action they have. If you know five million bloggers and readers and concerned citizens and voters have your back, you might be more likely to introduce that nice progressive health care plan.
(*) What the “controversy” reveals more than anything is that Democrats need to fight back effectively against fake stories ginned up by the right-wing press and then injected into the national debate.
Whether it’s “Senator Edwards hired someone who has, in the past, strongly expressed minoritiy opinions” or “Senator Obama has a foreign name and once attended a public school in Indonesia” or “Speaker Pelosi would like to fly commercial, if the provided military plane can’t make it to California without refueling” or “Senator Clinton contracted with Murder Incorporated to put a hit on Vince Foster”, every single prominent Democrat who runs for public office has to deal with lies like this. It’s what the Republican Party does.
It’s greatly to Hillary’s credit that she has successfully fought back against these kind of attacks for fifteen years now. And Obama was successful in getting the true story out there as well, to the degree that almost every major daily in the nation ran stories with headlines like Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It’s False, documenting not just the smear, but the mechanics of the VRWC behind it. We’re getting better at this, and that’s certainly reason to be optimistic.