Everyday Politics Blog

YouTube and Politics Conference

Michael Xenos

Every year or so, typically in the pages of magazines focused on news and public affairs, one usually finds a journalistic account of the annual Midwest Political Science Association meetings.  As far as the content of those publications goes, it's good copy: useful and interesting insights from some of your professors into key questions of the day (such as post-mortem analyses of the recent elections, or new developments in political science research), mixed in with some mildly snarky sharing of notable or humorous panel titles. You can read a specimen from this year here.

In line with the idea that this blog is tailored more toward "everyday politics" as experienced by students in introductory American Politics courses, in this post I share some of what I learned at a special conference I attended last week on the UMass Amherst campus.  Unlike the Midwest Political Science Association meetings, which cover a range of topics, this conference was specifically organized around the role of YouTube in the 2008 Election Cycle.  In the interest of full disclosure, I'll note at this point that, along with Stu Shulman (UMass Political Science), I served as a co-chair for this event -- which is another way of saying that I'll leave out any show and tell focused on odd paper or panel titles, and focus on interesting insights I gleaned from the two-day conference, which featured research on the role of YouTube in politics from political scientists, as well as presentations by computer scientists, communications scholars, rhetoricians and others.

Many of the papers provided systematic documentation of things that many readers of this blog likely already feel at an intuitive level -- mainly that YouTube has definitely started to change our experience of politics, everyday and otherwise. 

For example, G.R. Boynton of the University of Iowa presented a paper examining the dynamics of viewership for YouTube videos related to the campaigns.  Represented by a "simple dynamics equation," Boynton essentially documents the rapid rate at which once released, campaign videos (like McCain's "Celeb") find their natural or potential audience. In a related paper, Kevin Wallsten of California State Long Beach analyzed views of will.i.am's "Yes We Can" video, showing the role played by campaign communications and blog discussion in driving views of the famous video.  Despite what we might think about how coverage in the mainstream media might explain the rapid diffusion of videos like this, among other things Wallsten's analysis suggests that in this case, the media coverage actually followed rather than led the viewing statistics. 

Still other papers examined things like the YouTube debates (which stood in stark contrast to traditional debates where the "audience" is basically barred from participation), and the ways in which sending someone a link to a video (either through email or by posting it on a Facebook wall) has become a new kind of political conversation.  In all, these papers and others presented at the conference show how digital media like YouTUbe have in some ways taken us into a whole new world of politics that dramatically differs from the "old media" world of broadcast television and more formal ways of engaging with election politics. 

At the same time though, there were also other findings that might surprise you in a different way, or at least dampen any thoughts about YouTube radically changing the conduct of campaigns.  On this side of things, Robert Klotz of the University of Southern Maine shared research documenting the dominance of campaign-related content on YouTube with a decidedly "old media" feel -- such as those all-too-familiar 30-second television advertisements, and clips from cable talk shows.  So much for the motto of "Broadcast Yourself." Similarly, Christine Williams and Jeff Gulati of Bentley College (who also took "best paper" honors at the conference) presented an analysis of candidates' use of the new tool, some of which showed that even though the technology is cheap and relatively available to all kinds of candidates, candidates with more financial resources, those in tight races, and incumbents were more likely than other kinds of candidates to create a channel and post more videos.

In his presentation at the conference, David Karpf of the University of Pennsylvania presented another take on the infamous "Macaca Moment," where 2006 Virginia Senate candidate George Allen in many ways put YouTube on the political map.  Although many have come to view this incident as a key example of how new, participatory media like YouTube can enable 'a lone person with a videocamera' to have a powerful impact on the process, Karpf's research uncovers the sense in which this popular understanding of the event ignores the roles played by activists, bloggers, and political organizations in determining how that event and others like it have played out.

Naturally, as a conference about YouTube, there are associated videos and lots more information freely available online.

Conference information here.
YouTube clips related to the papers are here.
And, there's also another really important finding related to the conference here.

EPA, Greenhouse gases and Climate Change: A follow-up

By David Watkins

A quick follow-up to a post I wrote last October (here): The EPA has determined that greenhouse gases "pose a threat to human health and welfare" and as such should to be regulated by the EPA, according to the Clean Air Act. As readers of my post will recall, the EPA had been ordered to do this by federal courts over two years ago. What changed? It's no secret that the leaders of the EPA under Bush didn't want to take this step, and that they dragged their feet on complying with the judicial order. Under Obama, EPA officials serve a president who has pledged to make climate change a priority. (For more, see Kate Sheppard and the EPA press release for more)

But what does this mean? At this point, it's hard to say. After a 60 day public comment period, the EPA is legally required to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. But the extent, nature and timing of those regulations are at the discretion of EPA officials. (more details here) It's far from clear what those EPA regulations will look like. In terms of politics, this ruling puts the ball on climate change policy squarely in the court of congress. As we've seen with the stimulus and other bills recently, the overwhelmingly Democratic congress is not always inclined to give Obama precisely what he wants in legislation. For a variety or reasons, members of Congress with to have real input and leave their mark on public policy. Now, if Congress drags their collective feet on climate change, the Obama administration can simply begin to construct major components of a climate change policy without them, through the administrative process of the EPA as outlined by the Clean Air Act. Obama still probably won't get precisely what he wants out of any future legislation, but the EPA's mandate to regulate greenhouse gases slightly shifts the balance of power away from congress and towards the executive branch.

Still, it remains to be seen whether any new greenhouse-gas specific bill will have much of a chance of passing the Senate, where the opposition party still holds some power through the filibuster and many Senate Democrats have long been wary of enacting climate change policy. The EPA decision does raise the stakes on congressional inaction. The time frame? The House of Representatives is planning to work on a climate change bill this summer, when the new EPA regulations, whatever they may be, might begin. There's an international meeting on CLimate Change in Copenhagen in December, and Obama would surely like to have something to demonstrate to the international community that the US is now serious about climate change--if not legislation, new EPA regulations will have to do.

Iowa's Same-Sex Marriage Ruling and Judicial Power

By Scott Lemieux

Earlier this week, the Iowa Supreme Court held in Varnum v. Brien that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the state constitution.   This decision has, of course, generated hope among supporters of same-sex marriage rights and fear from opponents.   It is worth considering, however, that the power of courts to generate social change can sometimes be overstated.   Power and Purpose includes this data about school desegregation the Deep South after Brown v. Board of Education from Gerald Rosenberg's classic The Hollow Hope:

The Supreme Court's opinion had almost no effect on segregation in the Deep South before the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Is it possible that the Iowa court's ruling will have similarly limited impact?

Probably not. As Rosenberg's data also indicates, Brown did have some impact when it came to desegregating border states where opposition to integrated schools was much less intense. His data indicates, in other words, not that the Court is powerless but that the Court needs either some collaborators in the political branches, or in some cases public officials who will not obstruct enforcement of a court's directives. The Iowa court will need collaboration, in that both houses of the Iowa legislature can vote in consecutive terms on a constitutional amendment that would go to a public referendum. Legislative leaders, however, are already indicating that such an amendment will be not on the table in the near future. It is therefore unlikely that the Court's decision will be overturned, and almost certain that it could not happen until at least 2014. (Massachusetts, although a somewhat more liberal state, could not get even 25% of its legislators to approve a similar amendment being put to a vote.)

The decision is unlikely to create an immediate wave of support for same-sex marriage, but it is also likely to confer such rights on Iowa's citizens for the foreseeable future. In the right institutional circumstances, courts can have (for better or worse) a significant policy impact.