Likes are not votes, progressives! UK
Labour campaigners learned the hard way.
Bill Tieleman’s 24
Hours Vancouver / The
Tyee column
Tuesday
August 18, 2015
By Bill Tieleman
Here's
my melodramatic theory: social media lost Labour the last [United Kingdom]
election and it's going to lose Labour the next one, too."
-
Helen Lewis, The New Statesman, on U.K. election results
Will
Canadian "slacktivists" blow progressives' chance to defeat the
Conservatives by overemphasizing social media instead of old-fashioned
electoral politics?
That's
a serious concern after the United Kingdom's Labour Party focused heavily on tweeting
to victory and instead did a Facebook face plant, losing the May election and
forcing leader Ed Miliband's resignation.
"A
lot of what happens on Facebook, as with Twitter, is 'virtue signalling' --
showing off to your friends about how right on you are," Helen Lewis wrote
in The New Statesman.
"It
was this 'Tyranny of the Like' that had many social media users convinced that
Ed Miliband could squeak the election," Lewis said.
British
gadfly comedian Russell Brand inadvertently illustrated Lewis' point perfectly.
Brand
utterly reversed himself -- from saying he had "never
voted" and that "like most people I am utterly
disenchanted by politics" -- only to endorse Miliband after the Labour
leader appeared on Brand's million-subscriber webcast
just before the election.
But
despite Brand's boost, the Conservatives easily won a majority victory.
"When
we interviewed Miliband, it was like: 'Oh my God we can probably influence the
outcome'... now I think you can't influence the outcome of an election,"
Brand told The Trews' viewers
last month, reversing himself yet again.
And
that illustrates the danger of confusing social media sensations with actual
votes.
Clicking
together
In
Canada, several advocacy organizations are gearing up to defeat the Stephen
Harper Conservatives by harnessing social media's significant power combined
with strategic voting.
But
will failure to follow old school campaigning with door-knocking, leafleting,
local meetings and direct involvement with political parties' efforts lead to
another Tory majority?
Leadnow says it won't fall victim to "clicktivism"
-- where voters think social media activity takes the place of actions like
campaigning and casting a ballot.
"Our
focus is on connecting with people online and then mobilizing them to volunteer
through local teams that are going door-to-door in Conservative swing ridings,
and through our distributed phone bank which makes channels phone calls from
across the country into Conservative swing ridings," Leadnow campaign
manager Amara Possian said in an email interview Friday.
"Our
campaign is modeled on the [Barack] Obama campaign's successful integration of
online and face-to-face organizing," Possian says.
"Both
tactics have an important part to play in our strategy for connecting people
who want change, helping them to select and support the best local candidate to
win, and getting out to vote to defeat Harper and build for lasting change
after the election."
Veteran
U.S. activists The Yes Men recently criticized
dependence on social
media.
"Even
'clicktivism' -- tweeting, liking, or adding your email to online petitions,
ultimately a less impactful version of writing to your congressperson -- has
its place. But policy shifts and paradigm shifts require more than a
click," The Yes Men wrote.
Leadnow
believes it is bridging the social media and real worlds in its efforts.
Swing
and a miss?
But
Leadnow's "Vote Together"
campaign as of Sunday had about 53,000 pledgers who said they will "vote
strategically" in 72 key swing ridings and elsewhere to elect whichever
parties' candidate can defeat the Conservative there.
Yet
just one swing riding -- Vancouver South
-- had over 80,000 eligible voters in the 2011 federal election.
And
the Conservative Party's official Facebook page has over 146,000
"likes" -- they aren't ignoring social media either.
Possian
isn't worried Leadnow will have too few pledgers to impact the results.
"We're
very happy to have connected with 52,000 Vote Together pledge signers by week
two of an 11-week federal election," she said. "In the last federal
election, just over 6,000 votes in the closest 14 ridings made the difference
between a majority and minority government."
Fair
enough -- but in Vancouver South Conservative Wai Young defeated Liberal Ujjal
Dosanjh by 3,900 votes.
For
the strategic voting promoted by Leadnow to have worked in 2011, about half of
the 8,552 New Democrat voters would have needed to switch to the Liberals -- a
very tall order.
Leadnow
also faces another significant problem -- the New Democratic and Liberal
parties don't agree with their strategic voting plan to defeat Conservatives
and are running full slates of candidates competing in every riding.
That
means Leadnow needs voters to have more brand allegiance to their organization
than to a political party voters may have supported for decades.
Many
New Democrats do not agree that the Liberals are "progressive" and
many Liberals find the NDP too left wing.
Watch
that death spiral
And
there's another problem facing left politicians trying to attract centrist
voters -- what American writer Matt Bruenig calls "The death spiral of
futile leftism."
"It
is hard enough convincing someone that a minority movement can win, but that
difficulty is compounded many times over when the movement itself is full of
the type of people who do not actually care about winning," Bruenig wrote
in 2013.
"Most
people, especially those people you should want to attract to your side, do not
want to waste their time doing things that will achieve nothing," Bruenig
says.
"Winning
things from time to time and being able to articulate a vision of how this is
supposed to work that is halfway plausible is the only way to attract the kind
of people who are able to moderate leftist dipshittery," Bruenig
concludes.
Those
who want to defeat Harper in October need to learn lessons from the United
Kingdom's May Conservative victory -- and not lean too heavily on social media
to make change.
.
1 comment:
Strategic voting is usually negative partisanship, in our case, getting rid of Harper. It isn't Leadnow's problem that the NDP and Liberals are running full slates; it's goal is to identify which one is the strategic choice, and social media is the best way to do it because the relative popularities of erstwhile vote-splitters changes during the course of the campaign, and results of previous elections, particularly the most recent, have been rendered almost useless in discerning which party is the strategic choice due to riding boundary, demographic, and democratic changes developed during this most extraordinarily bad Conservative majority.
In my town, Votetogether is visible in the flesh, on the ground.
Anyone who thinks liking substitutes for voting is an idiot. Same goes for parties who think social media substitutes for old-fashioned door-knocking or telephone canvassing.
Post a Comment