So we've all seen and heard the news this week. The "Bailout" failed to pass the House, Wall Street reacted with a 778 drop, and then went back up 485 after coming out of their temper tantrum. This is not a post about why that happened or who is to blame. It is a reaction of sorts to one comment I heard in the wake of all the media this has attracted. The specific comment (roughly translated from memory) is this:
"I think this is a failure in marketing. Had we talked about this as an economic rescue plan rather than a Wall Street bailout, we would have seen much different reaction in the House [of Representatives] and from Main Street." (Martin Kady II, Politico.com)
I found this of interest as a marketer, but more of interest in thinking about how politics works and how everyone says Washington is broken. And what I mean by that is in the statement of marketing to the constituents. We are a representative democracy. In theory, we threw a bunch of tea in the harbor and campaigned that we no longer wanted to be taxed without proper representation. We formed a government "...of the people, by the people, for the people..." so that everyone could have a say in their government. In modern times, we can add party loyalty, administration, and special interests. But the system is very much a participatory government rather than something that needs to be marketed. And this is why I wanted to add a comment on "fixing Washington."
We often write about social media being participatory. We read the Cluetrain Manifesto that talked about how companies needed to relate and engage with consumers rather than market to them. And I don't think that stops with consumer brands. I really think government should look at this model as well. In fact, it really was founded on these principals and has moved away from them a bit. (OK, a lot) Are we really a representative democracy when our elected representatives need to market and spin legislation so as to keep us happy? Does the proper wording of the "explanation" of pending legislation change the meaning of that legislation and what it actually does? Or more to the point, where is the dialogue with the people in our politics? You can learn more on the process at The Center on Congress. Or remember back to the learnings of Schoolhouse Rock.
So, without opening up a debate on how we got here, I'd like to have some fun and see if we can call on social media to help us get back. In theory, the representation on the Hill was a mouthpiece for the people. Without a robust mail system and before the Pony Express, this is how the masses were able to communicate to the leaders their opinions on their governing officials and pending legislation (plus, real people can debate better than a piece of mail). But the system relied on that representative spokesperson to be in touch with their constituencies. And in cases like we have going on now, where speed is of the essence (if that is your belief), how do you get a pulse of your district/state beyond the emails and phone calls that come to your office?
The Internet has played a big part. We can read opinions in blogs and editorial pieces. But politicians don't rely on those solely because a lot of opinions are extolled simply on emotion and what little information they got from the media. And besides, sometimes their constituents wouldn't understand the full reason for the vote because they "didn't have the full background." Well, how many pieces of legislation are seen by anyone outside of Congress before the final vote? How do we get the full background? Drafts are released to the media, but generally the full detail doesn't fit into the short segments they have to air their reports.
So, what if they were available? What if legislation was displayed online for all to see? And what if it were broken into "chunks" that can be commented on and "voted" on (DIGG style). Opinions discussed point by point (like they do in the House and Senate chamber). This would show full detail. It would show the nuances being discussed. It would show those earmarks we've heard a lot about in this campaign. And it would give almost instant feedback to the representative what a large part of their constituency is feeling, and in much more detail than the general comments they receive now.
Let's look at the bailout...I mean economic rescue plan. Debates outside of Washington are often centered around if this is simply helping out the Wall Street CEO's. Some dove into the points of CEO pay restrictions, Government ownership of equity and assets, oversight, how much money and in what phases, etc. But there is more to it. There are clauses and amendments we don't see that effect the vote. For instance, not enough protection for those in foreclosure, or too much regulation on a "free" market.
Look at the recent debate between Senators McCain and Obama. Sen. McCain accused Sen. Obama of not voting for more funding to the troops. Sen. Obama responded that he had voted for the bill to fund troops, but the one attached to a withdrawal time-table. He then countered and stated Sen. McCain voted to not fund troops, but that was the bill that had a time-table. He had voted to fund the troops with no time-table. This pointed out how transparency vs. spin can help restore some faith in Washington. They both wanted to fund the troops. Neither were against helping our military. They just didn't agree on a time-table.
We had to see a debate many months later to see and hear that. In the mean time we were wondering how a politician could actually vote not to fund troops and protect them. Well, what if those options had been posted? What if we saw, real-time, what our politicians thought about the sub-issues contained in the legislation, not just the resulting Yea or Nay? And what if we (the people) could comment, vote, and discuss these sub-issues point by point in real-time online? Would it change anything?
I know that the online population is not representative of everyone in this country. And a DIGG vote doesn't speak for everyone. But the media that reaches the masses beyond the computer and mobile device get their information from somewhere. Getting it from the online forums maintained by Congress and representing viewpoints from all aspects of the online user base, and reporting on that activity would extend this new-found democracy and maybe even promote more responsible journalism. Or at least provide a more democratized place than independents like Factcheck.org to work through the spin. (Factcheck.org and other watchdog agencies are doing a great job, by the way).
So, can DIGG save Washington? Not by themselves. But transparency, dialogue, and some creative uses of social media technology tools like DIGG and Twitter's E08 just might be a great first step. Oh, and DIGG this in the links below the post. I'd love for them to see this (or anyone really).
More to come...
