There’s something that’s been bothering me about all the speculation over how a President Obama will use the Web.
There’s an assumption that the online techniques mastered during the campaign (from social networking to search-engine advertising) will in future be deployed to advance the issues promoted by the White House.
Certainly, using the Web to make government more transparent and to continue to harness the engagement that many voters showed during the election are laudable aims.
But presidents don’t campaign – they lead. And that means leading all the country, red states as well as blue.
By definition, broadcast technologies are well-suited to that. But how do presidents lead in an era of micro-targeting and affinity-group politics? Do we really want national leaders to use Google’s AdWords and targeted emailing lists to talk to us, adjusting their message to suit the audience? And how should we feel about a White House that is skilled at mobilising interest groups on the Web that favour its pet initiatives?
No doubt these are the same sort of backward-looking, unfounded misgivings that some people felt when FDR first turned to the radio. Still, it bears some consideration.
