July 10, 2008
There’s a great debate going on right now over online youth activism. Many are calling for millennials to shut down our computers and protest in the streets. Others still say that Netroots activism is more powerful.
What do you think?
7 Responses to “Online vs. Offline Activism”
Got something to say?
And thank you! Thank you for changing the tone of American political discourse. Thank you for calling on us to sacrifice. Thank you for all you have done, and all we are about to do together!
Tune in Wednesday mornings at 10:30 EST / 7:30 PST
hmmmmm, this is a tricky debate. Before I give my profound answer I will ask two questions:
1) What is a millenial?
2) What is Netroots activism?
ooh, and 3) What are we supposed to be protesting?
Jeff:
1) Someone who is coming of age at the turn of the millennium. I think you count.
2) Netroots activism is online organizing.
3) The war in Iraq, global warming, the Bush administration’s violations of civil liberties…
I think what’s lacking but rarely battled for isn’t an either or, but rather a healthy does of both. There is a need, like with any movement, to have a foundation of reason and a foundation of kinetic movement. I think that by laying the groundwork and then literally demonstrating the commitment personally it makes the perfect one-two punch.
Do Gen Y and Millennials “get” that idea? I think many do, especially “high” Millenials (early or first-born of the generation who are in part so heavily influenced by Gen X near them). But there is a perfectly valid fear that many will stay inside online cocoons. The good news is, there’s a need for that too and there are Boomers and Gen X that need online convincing as well. But they also need to see feet in streets to know it’s real and not just a measure of support for an idea that some fear has jumped the shark…
[...] Online vs. Offline Activism : TeresaCentric [...]
I agree with Dean that it’s combination of thorough organization (which can be provided by the internet - the Netroots) and some foot marching (can’t do that on the internet) for something to be effective.
I also agree with Teresa: I am in fact a millenial.
I’ve spoken with several old-hat and experienced Democratic organizers recently who have all lamented that the problem with Howard Dean’s run for president was that his campaign over-relied on the online medium - much of the excitement behind his campaign was online-only, much like Ron Paul’s anemic campaign was this year.
So people spent lots of time behind computer screens “organizing,” but when it came to real, get-on-the-ground work, there was little to no physical human presence. True, presidential campaigns have been run that way for decades, but, the strength of the online organizing created a false confidence in the campaign that did not translate to votes.
Obama’s campaign learned from that mistake - use the power of the internet to raise funds and get people involved, but then push HARD to get them to a campaign office or to campaign events (I get probably 50 emails a week from 3 local groups). In Virginia, for example, the campaign has opened dozens of offices where there has NEVER BEEN a presidential campaign office - and the end result is that we get thousands of volunteers we would not have had otherwise. Every volunteer translates into 5-10 more votes when properly utilized.
What I’m getting at is - neither medium, in this day and age, can be overlooked. They MUST be used to compliment each other and ultimately, they must be used to turn volunteers and participants out to events. GOTV must literally be Get OUT the Vote. It’s exhausting. And sun-burny. And sweaty. And it’s necessary.
I asked a similar question on our site, though ours looked at how online activism feeds into offline activism, and how the opposite happens. There, I suggest that offline activism can help augment online activism/commitment by strengthening social trust.