Twitter and Politics - Part 2 - A Case Study

Last month, I wrote a post about Twitter as a tool for political communication and the Republican Party's hopes for microblogging as an integral part of its return to power. Since that essay, Twitter has made more headlines in the political world, especially for its international role in facilitating grass-roots protests in Iran and China, although the benefits and perils of Twitter in those cases still generate debate (see Darrell West's HuffPost article on "The Two Faces of Twitter").

So, setting aside for this post, the issue of Twitter as a tool for organizing social protest, another way to study Twitter politics is the old-fashioned way--looking at the utility of the platform for making and circulating political arguments and information. In other words, will Twitter change any minds? Will it influence? Or is it just good for venting?

Pursuing these questions during the past few months, I've been reading a Twitter page that engages almost exclusively in political commentary. The writer, a friend of mine during high school & college years, is a very intelligent guy from an everyday background. His Twitter name is "indyrallen" and he describes himself as a "Christian, conservative, news junkie, systems engineer, cyclist and drive-by political commenter." He probably is the type of smart, articulate, and dedicated conservative whose regular presence on Twitter gives those on the right such hope for that platform. He has 347 followers, and, judging from my random viewing of about 15 of those folks, they seem to be mostly, if not all, fellow conservatives.

After reading "indyrallen" for most of the summer, I have to admit I'm skeptical about Twitter as an effective tool for political advocacy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hater. I tweet daily and often about politics. But the platform is quite flawed if one's goal is political persuasion.

First, Twitter's design is problematic. The 140-character limit is the most obvious hindrance. It encourages sound bite logic, generalization, and unsupported claims. One could use multiple tweets to make an argument, but Twitter is usually consumed via a real-time feed consisting of tweets from all of one's followers, so a multi-tweet argument would likely be interrupted by other people's messages. Clicking to the person's profile to read the tweets uninterrupted is possible, but Twitter posts the most recent messages first, so the reader would have to scroll down to the start of the argument and then read up. None of this takes long, but it's well-established that the more levels one has to penetrate to reach online material, the less likely it will be consumed. Twitter does allow the writer to insert links into the tweet, which significantly bolsters the ability to support claims. However, multiple concerns arise here: (1) the previously mentioned extra level of access issue, (2) the entire link address must be inserted, which eats up much of the 140 character allotment, and (3) the writer inevitably morphs from an advocate to a distributor of others' advocacy.

Regarding the quality of argument itself, Twitter leaves much to be desired. In the case of "indyrallen," tweets sometimes are repeated verbatim, or nearly so. The writer has recycled tweets about Obama responding to foreign policy and military challenges with "more adjectives," the prospect of needing a prescription to buy Cheerios, and comparing presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs to "Hogan's Heroes" character Sergeant Schultz. Maybe the pressure to tweet numerous times each day encourages such recycling; nevertheless, excessive repetition injects a bit of staleness into a medium which embraces the immediacy of text messaging.

Such immediacy also leads to carelessness and lessened credibility. Tweets posted in haste and with insufficient context are more likely to offend or cause unwanted controversy (as discussed in my previous post on this subject, or as seen in the cases of Senator Chuck Grassley or CNN journalist Rick Sanchez). In indyrallen's case, misspellings and typos are the culprit, as numerous messages contain errors of haste. The writer seemingly agrees that such mistakes are credibility indicators when he tweets, "Interesting to read the tweets of those calling Palin stupid. Usually full of misspellings and profanity." A more serious credibility issue arises from the writer's reliance on biased sources. In one tweet, he cites a title of a right-wing blog post as a “headline," suggesting the quote comes from a more objective journalistic source.

The succinctness of Twitter makes for easy use but also results in confusion and unanswered questions. For example, indyrallen, on several occasions, states that he is a former liberal who is now a conservative. However, his tweets don't address the reasons behind his conversion, so it comes off as a simple flip-flop rather than a thoughtful political journey. Such a journey, if explained effectively, could significantly bolster the writer's appeal. In one of his most recent tweets, indyrallen writes: "Obama's comments about the [Henry Louis] Gates incident are setting up "no" votes on Healthcare and Cap & Tax as racist." Similar sentiments appear on a number of other conservative Twitter pages. However, without more explanation, this claim lacks coherence. Why would Obama intentionally inject himself into a brewing racial controversy at precisely the same press conference intended to energize his health care policy? In fact, his comment distracted public and media attention away from health care to the point that the President eventually offered a public clarification of his Gates statement. To argue, without reasons or evidence, that Obama was setting up an elaborate "race card" strategy for two major legislative initiatives down the road is tantamount to the type of conspiracy rhetoric that is far too common on both extremes of the political spectrum. What it's not is effective political communication. Again, the writer is a smart guy, but Twitter doesn't give his intelligence much room to operate.

I believe that Twitter can be effective for political organization (as demonstrated in Iran and China) and, to a lesser degree, the distribution of political information (through the use of links, hash tags, and retweets). However, on the 15 conservative Twitter pages that I reviewed, only two recently attempted to organize political action, such as encouraging calls to Congress or participation at an upcoming "tea party" protest. The rest engaged in micro-punditry, or, as indyrallen puts it, "drive-by" political commentary. His metaphor is apt and illustrates the level of superficial engagement that Twitter encourages. I should note that, to his credit, indyrallen employs a level of civility in his tweets often not found in the followers that I sampled.

If Republicans bank heavily on Twitter to reverse their political fortunes, they need to develop the platform into a massive yet nimble organizational force in a way that their opposition won't anticipate. According to The Atlantic, Democrats are already using Twitter for online fundraising. So the GOP doesn't have much time to figure it out. If they don't, Twitter will become not "the central component of GOP resurgence" (see my June 6 post) but rather a high-tech, low-impact echo chamber of sniping and snark.

Sarah Palin's Resignation--Game Changer or Game Over?

There's been a lot of chatter already (and rightly so) about the stunning, peculiar aspects of Sarah Palin's announcement to resign as Alaska governor. So, let's pull back from the more sensational and overheated analysis and look at this move from the perspective of political strategy and communication. Let's assume, for this essay, that she's not resigning because of an unknown scandal or a personal health issue, or as a permanent withdrawal from politics (although those remain possibilities) and let's look at this as a move to begin preparations and positioning for a 2012 White House run. The question then becomes, from a communication standpoint, what arguments emerge from this move that will bolster her presidential prospects?

My initial answer to this question is: not many. Palin's governorship was of value to her national political fortunes, because it provided evidence of high-level executive experience. It was an effective counterpoint to her running mate John McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama, both of whom had none. However, in 2012, Palin's one term (or two-thirds term, as it turns out) as governor of a sparsely populated state will pale in comparison to Obama's stint as President. From an experience standpoint, there's no getting around that, even if Obama's not doing well. So Palin probably knows that the argument made by her status as governor will be weighted very differently next time around. Maybe she's decided that her time would be better spent building political support without the constraints of a demanding, full-time job. Yet, to defeat Obama in 2012, a candidate will need to argue that she or he could have done a better job managing the country. That argument now becomes very difficult for someone who couldn't even finish the job.

So what will Palin do now? She will probably appear on talk shows, write a book, make public appearances, and engage in fundraising. In other words, she'll become either a pundit, a conventional full-time politician, or both. All of those actions will win her political allies and help her sharpen her political communication skills. However, it has the potential to strongly dilute the most unique and appealing aspects of her unique political brand--the fresh-faced outsider from the frontier. In order to make this time politically useful, she must engage in activities that will render her typical of most politicians. Nothing could be worse for Sarah Palin, to become, after all of the trailblazing maverickosity of 2008, the female version of Mitt Romney. On the other hand, if she vanishes from the public scene altogether to reinvent herself and re-emerge in a couple of years, the political ground beneath her may have shifted so dramatically that the voters very well may have moved on.

The balance of her gubernatorial term also presents rhetorical problems. If her successor does well, then the refrain will be that Palin was not even the most qualified person to lead Alaska, let alone the whole country. If the new governor stumbles badly, many will hold Palin responsible for bailing out in the first place.

The one argument option that remains viable is one that goes something like this: "Look, you said you wanted change in 2008, so you voted for change. But the change agent you elected came from the same old system, and so we didn't get much change. We need someone who has no connection to that old system, so that's why I got out in 2009. I'm the real deal." Now much would depend on the execution of such an approach and Palin would still have to prove her policy competence during the campaign. But, as I see it, that's the only truly powerful rhetorical option generated by her brash resignation. And a bold move that leaves you with only one option is usually a bad move.

Of course, I could be wrong. Pundits like Mary Matalin and this guy from FOXNews.com see this as some sort of brilliant "checkmate" move. But the latter's argument is based on Palin now being liberated from her Alaska responsibilities and building a national political presence here in the "lower 48." All of which make her into something altogether uninspiring--a typical pol who quit on her constituents. Try making a bumper sticker out of that.