The YouTube Effect
Imagine how different history would be if a century and a half ago politicians (Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, Silas Wright, James K. Polk, Andrew Jackson) had been able to use resources like YouTube to promote their campaigns and smear their opponents.
Indeed it’s likely James K. Polk might never have been nominated, and that Van Buren might have been returned to office in 1944. This is just one example, of course, but the general idea here is that YouTube seems to enforce the notion that candidates must be accountable for their message.
I pick the Polk example here because his administration is one of the most significant in American history. Under Polk, the United States made a land grab the likes of which will probably never be seen again. Under Polk, America finally stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
But what if Van Buren had been the nominee, and not Polk? Or better yet, what if Henry Clay had used YouTube to defeate Polk in the general election? America might well be a very different country today.
The YouTube effect is not necessarily a long term positive one either. It’s plausibly, certainly, that candidates in the mold of W. could use YouTube to their advantage by taking-down the opposition.
In the following example, John McCain gets the shank:
Of course, it cuts both ways in 2008. In this more conventional spot, McCain plays the Hillary card:
YouTube also allows for greater saturation of campaign ads since they do not charge for airtime. Accordingly, more innovative ads (and often, more negative ones) which might not otherwise be aired on television, are finding a home on the Internet.
But YouTube is part of an overall paradigm shift in American cultural thinking. As we become more skeptical of our leaders, we demand greater accountibility (hence the ‘niche’ filled by YouTube). For example, it is no longer the case that politicians can simply enact foreign policy on-the-fly without significant fall-out in the media.
YouTube is one of the primary tools through which Americans are examing politicians. But who is watching? There are a wealth of studies showing that most everyone of voting age owns a cell phone and uses the Internet on a regular basis. And it is often the latter, where people are getting their information. But again, who are these people, and how much political power do they have relative to those who do use the Internet, but don’t pay attention to YouTube?
Conventional wisdom suggests that these people are young (age <35) and tend to be left-leaning. These folks might also be more cynical than others about the political process, as well as the media.
There is still much to be learned about the effect YouTube will have in the future, but I suspect it will grow in significance over the coming decades, or until something replaces it.
