Ron Paul is certainly an interesting case when examining the productivity of online campaigning. He is extremely popular in cyberspace and has raised a ton of money from online fundraising; yet still, he isn't getting the votes.
The fact of the matter is Ron Paul is a libertarian academic. He is not running to win, he is running to be heard --and I think many people can see that. People will proudly donate to his justifiably worthy cause, but at the end of the day they don’t want to vote for him; if he were to actually win, his seemingly noble theories would be tested and would risk failure. If his ideas proved inefficient when put into practice, some people would be left disenchanted. I think many of his followers would rather protect their ideals and vote for another agent of change. I realize the flaws in my argument, but I think there is something to be said for those little tokens of idealism we keep to ourselves; the ones we respect but don’t want to see destroyed; the ones we can support anonymously through an internet movement. It’s easy in the online world to be something you really aren’t. It’s just as easy to be something you really are.
Regardless, Paul has made valuable use of the Internet as a tool to spread awareness and capture some admirers (not necessarily whole-hearted believers).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I understand the point that is being made, but I feel that it has less to do with the fear of being disenchanted and more to do with not wanting to waste a vote. Ron Paul is not going to win, everyone knows that. By donating money to his campaign a person who sympathizes with his ideas can help get those ideas heard and hopefully sway the popular opinion a bit their way, while still voting for a candidate they feel can win and who most closely agrees with their beliefs. I agree with many of the Green Party ideals but they will never win the presidency so I'm not going to waste my vote.
Post a Comment