Now, this is sad news! Since George Bush has been gone, and Dick Cheney along with him, there has been a lack of politicians to make fun of.

Yes, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina dutifully filled that gap with the announcement that he’d cheated on his wife with an Argentinian woman. That kept pundits and Jon Stewart going for a good few days – but for the long term, that’s not enough! And now, with the loss of Sarah Palin, who will be left to joke about? I am considering re-joining the Facebook group “I have more foreign policy experience than Sarah Palin,” just for old times’ sake.

But friends, don’t fret: There are rumors Palin might seek the Republican nomination for President in 2012. Hurray and a happy Fourth of July, everyone!

But, the creative minds of the CDU didn’t not stop there. tapmag can’t help but recognize the new logo from some other quite successful campaign…

The German election 2009 might look just like the US election 2008—literally.

(via Subjektivitaeten)

One of the greatest dangers facing American democracy today is extreme partisanship. The division of public and politics along party lines hinders political discourse and halts social progress at great costs to society. If little else, Americans can agree on that. But, as soon as you ask who is responsible for political bipolarity, people are divided: Fox News or the liberal media, fundamentalist evangelicals or the eastcoast elite, rich republicans or wealthy democrats, SUV drivers or treehuggers.

“Split: A Divided America” is a documentary that shines a light on the roots and consequences of this political divide. While it can’t solve all the problems and leaves the viewer with open questions, there are still some insights to be drawn from it.

First of all, the paradigm of red states vs. blue states is a construction, and not a political reality. But, its adoption is of use for some people, which explains its popularity. Partisanship can win campaigns and makes the media’s job a little easier. Alas—it fails to describe a much more complex reality.

The 2008 documentary features well known scientists, publicists, and political activists such as Robert D. Putnam, Nicholas Kristof, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and Jesse Jackson.

Plus, it is remarkably bipartisan and although the producers are part of the story, they manage to step aside and let their subjects speak for themselves most of the time. In taking this approach, “Split” is a step away from the Michael Moore kind of opinionated reportages, that preach to the choir and seem to divide rather than unite.

The movie is not officially available in Europe yet, but—much to our delight—we found it on Hulu (once again, how to watch Hulu if you are outside the U.S.):

We remember watching the New Hamsphire primary and I’m sure government teachers around the world rejoice at how much students and the general public have learned this year about the US- election system. Also, pundits have regained credibility, if boringness, too, by spoiling the fun and calling the winner already before election day.

But for us – No more scanning the net for funny skits of candidates’ lapses, no more wondering how expensive a couple of suits need to be, or if a middle name has any implication for leadership qualities. Really, what now?

Tapmag will give you a roundup of election night in Berlin soon, but for the moment, we second what German media journalist and blogger Stefan Niggemeier has posted here.

And of course, not to forget more election fun coming up next year, this time in Germany. We only need Frank- Walter Steinmeier to be a little more like Barack Obama and it might actually be interesting.

For the Dems, Jerry Gerber and Michael Steltzer, press secretary and chair of Democrats Abroad Berlin respectively, stepped into the ring. Republicans Abroad Germany sent vice-chair Stefan Prystawik and lawyer Paul Kiefer. Sadly, the format ensured that direct exchanges were kept to a minimum. Moderator Michael S. Cullen granted each side amble time for long monologues but little for an actual debate.

As was to be expected, the predominantly German audience in the packed to capacity auditorium was totally in the tank for Obama. Requests by Cullen to refrain from applauding were largely ignored, in fact the audience behaved very Un-German and made constant noises to indicate their support or disapproval.

Both sides mostly stuck to the usual talking points in their remarks, “McCain=Bush”, “Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes” and the like. It only got interesting when topics not discussed at the real debates came up.

The Republicans appeared to be on the defensive most of time. Especially Gerber visibly enjoyed taking shot after shot at John McCain and the Reps. Example: “McCain even seemed to have forgotten the name of current president. I’m older than he is, I know what it’s like”

Prystawik appeared to sense some ungratefulness in the audience given that “Berlin is the city that over the years has profited the most from Republican presidents.” This remark generated the most vivid discussion of the night, with Don Jordon, a journalist who was also on stage, pointing out that while there are a “John F. Kennedy High School, a John F. Kennedy square and a John F. Kennedy-Institute” in Berlin, Ronald Reagan, who “practically abolished the Wall”, is not honored in any way. Needless to say, the crowd was not pleased.

The ensuing question period was roughly equally split between fairly thoughtful questions and painful idiocy. Apparently, the intellectually challenged also feel the need to voice their opinions. The low point was a very German moron who with a pathetic attempt at irony proclaimed, “I’m about as educated as a citizen of the Midwest!”.

A more sensible audience member touched on the importance of race in the campaign, leading both Gerber and Jordan to remark that they believe Obama would have a hard time getting elected to high office in Germany because of his skin color.

All in all, nothing particularly new or earthshaking, but it was nice to see Germans so engaged for a change. Stefan Prystawik told us afterwards it’s because Germans and Americans are “way too similar”. But maybe it was only the wind chill 35°C inside the auditorium.

The debate was part of the series “Wie wählt Amerika?“, organized by the Initiative Amerika Haus Berlin. The series will continue this Wednesday, October 22nd, at 7pm with “Die Außenpolitik des neuen Präsidenten. Was die Welt von Obama oder McCain erwarten darf”,  Hardenbergstraße 22-24, 10623 Berlin.

Also, this election is increasingly fought out not on the TV screen or in newspaper editorials and op-eds, but on the Internet – which adds another historic element. German journalist Tobias Moorstedt has travelled the US to find out more about this development and the changes, challenges and criticisms digital campaigns evoke. He touches on all of these questions in his new book and in the following interview with tapmag (you can also read the interview in German on my private blog).

tapmag: Your new book is called „Jeffersons Erben“ („Jefferson’s Heirs“). You discuss the influence that the Internet and other new media have on political elections in the US. How can this change be described and what does it mean for voters and candidates?

Tobias Moorstedt: The net brings change to our private life (Instant Messaging), the entertainment industry (MP3) and the economy as a whole (Amazon). Who could imagine getting through university without the help of Wikipedia and Google nowadays? Email, Skype and webcams let us stay in touch with friends across the globe. Why should the new information technologies and the change they bring leave the political system untouched? After all, this system is based on the exchange and processing of information.

In a nutshell: The Internet has made it easy to collect ever more data, to share it with other people and to organize action with those people. Just think about the tedious process of political action fifteen years ago – you had to design a leaflet, produce copies and distribute it. Today, you just write an email to an audience which size is technically infinite.

tapmag: Who are Jefferson’s heirs and what connects them to the ideals of the American Founding Fathers?

Moorstedt: On my journey through the Internet (and the real USA) I met very different people who are all politically active on the net; a student from Texas who isn’t of voting age yet, but is campaigning for Obama in his conservative community nonetheless, a blogger who reaches hundreds of thousands of readers by the click of his mouse, a computer engineer who dreams of programming a new constitution.

Almost none of these net activists invoked Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, but they might be surprised how many beliefs they share with the Founding Fathers. Jefferson called Information the currency of democracy. He tried to find ways to directly include citizens into the decision making process of the government – and thus educate them to be better, more responsible citizens.

Also, I think he would have liked the energy and passion of the bloggers and activists. He once remarked: “I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”

tapmag: Barack Obama was able to reach out to a lot of his younger voters via social networks like Facebook, MySpace and his own platform MyBarackObama.com. Republican Mitt Romney has tried similar tactics in his campaign for the nomination of his party, but failed to build up support online. Are Democratic voters more Internet savvy?

Moorstedt: Democratic voters are on average younger, better educated and have traveled more. There is a sort of digital divide between the two American parties – which doesn’t imply that Americans in the heartland of the US do not use email or have no knowledge of Wi-Fi.

I spoke to Republican strategists in Washington; they think that their candidates have a problem with the open structure of the net. When I present myself online to a certain degree I have to give up control over how people use my picture and statements and what they write on my website.

Republicans have mastered the art of the classical, top-to-bottom campaign in which everyone stays “on message” all the time. They are control freaks. Plus, the Republicans never had a reason to use the net for a long time. They beat their opponents with the old media. Because they had this success with traditional media, they now face an innovation backlog.

tapmag: To which degree did Obama’s success in the primaries depend upon his Internet strategy? How might the Internet help him to succeed in the Presidential election?

Moorstedt: The Internet was a huge advantage for Obama – he understood to use it in a new way, which matched his campaign. Obama was new, young, exciting and different – he was like a funny YouTube video or a young band, a kind of thing that spreads fast in social networks. Obama had hype potential and the Internet is a hype medium – a perfect match.

Additionally, he collected enough donations over the net to successfully compete with the richest and most powerful family of the Democratic Party [Ed.: The Clinton family]. Obama is the first candidate who made the net an integral part of his campaign – it is more than just another channel to send the same message out.

MyBarackObama.com is a network or platform on which local groups can form and organize independently from the campaign central. These volunteers make calls and knock on doors for Obama and have created a “surge on the ground” in the last days.

The Republicans used to have an advantage here; they could draw from the network of churches and organizations in which they were traditionally organized. Obama uses the virtual net to reach out to the reality on the street.

tapmag: How does John McCain – the self-proclaimed Internet-illiterate – use the Internet for his campaign? Does Obama still have a substantial advantage, or are his campaigns well copied and applied by all candidates?

Moorstedt: McCain did say, he is in the process of learning how to use “the Google”. I think that sounds as if he views the search engine as a sort of sovereign oracle, an übermensch creature. Maybe he’s actually one step ahead of us.

Seriously, of course McCain has email groups, social networks, and he also twitters, chats and podcasts. Still, the activity surrounding Obama online is much more substantial. He understands the mentality and the culture of the web far better. We will see how the number of Facebook friends translates into votes.

tapmag: Before Barack Obama, Howard Dean build up a lot of support online for his 2004 bid for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, which did not help him win the nomination. Was the social magnitude of the Internet too small in 2004, so that the enthusiasm of the Dean-followers could not cross the border into mainstream?

Moorstedt: Four years are a long time on the Internet. Not many people had DSL or Wi-Fi in 2004. YouTube and MySpace didn’t exist. Smartphones were the exclusive gadgets of the business elite. A lot of experts believe that 2008 is the first true online election.

It is true that the Dean campaign couldn’t bring the enthusiasm that surrounded Dean online to the voting booth. But, one shouldn’t forget that Dean, once he took the lead in polls and donations, was attacked from all sides with TV ads and negative campaigning.

It is a mistake to assume that only because Dean didn’t win, the Internet has no political magnitude. Joe Trippi, his campaign manager said to me: “It was the first time a candidate lost, but his campaign won.”

tapmag: Is the Internet a battle ground to win over new voters, or do you only preach to the converted online?

Moorstedt: Every politician, every party and every NGO has to advertise him-, her- or itself on the Internet – because that is where their audience increasingly can be found. There are no reliable studies yet whether interactive media like the www can increase political activity of the citizens.

What we know for sure is that Internet users who visit the website of a candidate are very likely to vote for this candidate. That is why the candidate’s websites should be more than virtual copies of the campaign posters and leaflets, but a platform which the members of a political community, that ideally emerges around a candidate, can use to meet and coordinate.

tapmag: Obama claims to have broken the power of the big corporate checks with all the small donations he has collected online. Can the Internet contain the influence of special interest groups?

Moorstedt: Of course Barack Obama receives and accepts donations from Silicon Valley and Wall Street. However, he managed to win over hundreds of thousands of small donors who gave ten dollars one time and fifty the next time. This turned out to be a critical advantage during the primaries against Hillary Clinton.

The pool of potential donors has grown. It might very well be that a politician, who is funded by a lot of small donations, is granted a specific independence because he doesn’t need to take into account the agendas of the unions or big business.

However, it would be financial populism to claim that the corporate lobbyists and special interest groups now have to take a back seat. The more interesting question is: How can the small donors hold politicians and parties accountable? Their line of arguing could be: We supported you. Now we own you!

tapmag: How are your findings comparable to Germany and Europe? Hubertus Heil just twittered from the Democratic National Convention in Denver, will that bring him any closer to the young voters? Which strategies could be implemented, which would fail because of transatlantic differences?

Moorstedt: A journey through the US is, at least with respect to media technology, a trip to the future. The US has a five-year lead against Europe when it comes to the usage of smartphones, Wi-Fi or Pay-TV.

I am confident that the German blogosphere will develop into an important voice in the political debate in the near future. Also the SPD has a social network now, called meinespd.de, which is online but hasn’t really attracted a lot of members yet.

Again, we shouldn’t forget that we have a different political system in Germany than in the US – parliamentary democracy vs. a strong President, multiple party system vs. election coalitions, etc.

But also in Germany the numbers of registered party members are falling. The tendency to bind oneself to a single party for a long time and fill out a membership application is shrinking. Which doesn’t mean that the citizens are becoming more and more egoistic, their engagement just follows another fashion – shorter but also more intense.

tapmag: Which dangers could arise when the election campaigns take place on the Internet? Do you think that a fragmentation and gradual radicalization of the public along political party lines is a threat, as Cass Sunstein describes in his book “Republic.com”?

Moorstedt: There are a lot of threatening scenarios, for example the possibility to anonymously spread false information. The web is an ideal medium for propaganda.  The handling of personal data of voters has also to be controlled tightly.

Sunstein talks about a radical effect of the blog communities. Because blogs like MyDD, Daily Kos or Little Green Footballs only attract activists from one side of the political spectrum, who reinforce each other’s opinions, these opinions and beliefs will become more extreme over time.

It’s an interesting argument. It is true that Internet users can avoid the possibility of cognitive dissonances. When you get your news online you don’t necessarily encounter different opinions or news you don’t want to know about, or photos you don’t want to see, which you would be more likely to come across if you had flicked through a newspaper.

A conservative American who only surfs the websites of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Instapundit will naturally encounter only a very few positive arguments for universal health care; he lives in his own news cosmos. Some experts call this the balkanization of the Internet.

The harsh tone of the discussion and the partisan rhetoric of the politics blogs seem to back this thesis; however, I find the activity of the bloggers rather inspiring than alarming. Even if sometimes the discussion becomes excessive, I prefer the energy of the American bloggers to the apathy of the average voter.

Interview by Kolja Langnese

Tobias Moorstedt: Jeffersons Erben – Wie die digitalen Medien die Politik verändern. Published by Suhrkamp Verlag: edition suhrkamp 2571, 165 pages, Euro 9,00 (ISBN 978-3-518-12571-7).

Here’s the trailer.

Moore’s goal four years ago was to convince millions of non-voting “slackers” – mostly between the ages of 18-29 – to give voting a try. Starting out in Elk Rapids, Michigan, in front of an audience of 400, the tour caught on and up to 16,000 slackers each night turned out to see Moore and his entourage of speakers, comedians, and musicians. To further encourage the slackers to show up, Michael Moore offered them a clean change of underwear, Ramen noodles, and a promise that no event would start before noon and no politician would be allowed to speak.

Moore, who has turned the business of documentaries profitable by adding left-wing opinion, a huge dose of sarcasm, and the character Michael Moore into the mix, said that he gives it away for free because of personal reasons. ”I’ve been very blessed and fortunate to have so many people come to my movies over these two decades, I decided why not bypass the studios and the exhibitors and make one that the fans can have for free, as a show of my profound appreciation of their support.”

The film has a budget of over $2 million, and mainly consists of tour footage. Still, that budget is ten times the size of Moore’s first movie “Roger & Me”. He said, the only return he hopes for is the largest turnout of young voters ever at the polls in November. The film is available at slackeruprising.com, Lycos, itunes and amazon. (If you are not accessing the download sites from the US or Canada, you might have to pretend that you are. This article describes how.)

In 2004, the younger generation overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry, with no effect. With the Presidential election in the US this year becoming closer everyday, this time the youth vote could make a substantial difference in the decision for the White House. Maybe that’s why the world premiere of “Slacker Uprising” will take place tomorrow night in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which is one of the hardly contested swing states.

This is Frank-Walter Steinmeier. He wants to be chancellor of Germany. Today, he was chosen as the presumptive nominee of his party, the SPD. How?

• He did not go door to door to canvass.
• No volunteers went door to door to canvass for him.
• He did not hand out yard signs.
• Or pamphlets. Or stickers. Or buttons. Or anything.
• He did not set up a campaign website.
• He did not put out any ads in newspapers or on TV.
• He did not solicit contributions from voters.
• He did not hold a public rally or a town hall meeting.
• He did not participate in any debates.
• He did not put his name on any stupid ballot and he certainly did not get any votes from anybody.

No, he met with another old guy, Kurt Beck, and afterwards declared himself the candidate.

Go figure.

John McCain

Barack Obama

The wordclouds were created with the help of wordle.net.

They are on his side here in Detroit anyways. Michigan’s economy is in shambles. The big auto manufacturers are suffering from a massive slowdown in sales since decades; each year they lay-off younger workers. I talk to one older union leader – he romanticizes about the time when the Michigan unions could bring more than one million workers out for a strike. Today, the unions are fighting Wal-Mart. They are happy if they can organize workers at all. If change is necessary, then it is most needed here in Michigan, or “fly-over land,” how people from the east coast call it. If Washington wants to face the problems in America, they might as well start here in Detroit.

A dark-blue poster promises “Change that you can belive in.” It hangs in the back of the stage which Obama will enter with ease in twenty minutes. But before that, Aretha Franklin sings the national anthem and the pledge of allegiance is sworn. Praised by the three presidents of the big automobile unions, yearned for by the tens of thousand who wait in the Hart Plaza and outside, the charismatic Senator from Illinois doesn’t face a tough crowd.

Change and unity – these are Obama’s issues. The movement he helped galvanize by his candidacy is set to bring change to Washington because Washington will not change from within, Obama begins his speech. He wants unity to replace the Republican mantra of ‘dog eats dog’. That’s why he is forming a big coalition – Obama convinced the unions and the poor of his message, he knows the youth and the students are rallying behind him and the citizen right’s activists are on his side in any way.

The speech itself is rather short. Obama talks about his strong relations to the labor movement, recognizes its achievements. “You know, I’m a labor guy!” Then he sings one or two lines of Aretha Franklinks “Chain of Fools,” before he switches to this day’s big news. Hurricane Gustav is threatening to devastate New Orleans once again. “There is a time to argue politics, and there’s a time to come together as Americans.” Instead of seizing the moment to hold a truly big speech like JFK did on Labor Day 1960, Obama aims to show respect to Hurricane Gustav’s potential victims and asks for a brief moment of silent prayer. For a short moment, Hart Plaza turns quiet, not even the photographers on the press box dare to click with their shutters now.

Then, Obama follows up and evokes the ideals of the constitution: “Each of us are vulnerable by ourselves. [...] But when we are unified, we come together in a more perfect union.” All the time, the small interpreter had enthusiastically translated Obama’s words into sign language, had smiled, had given her best. She can breathe deeply now. Obama says goodbye, jumps into the tunnel in front of the stage and starts to shake hands, hold up babies and sign books.

One of the books he places his signature into belongs to Timothy. His copy of “Dreams of my Fathers” is well-read – Timothy marked the most important passages with colored stick-it notes, so he can look them up quickly. He is fifteen and a volunteer on the Obama team. He and his mother travel to all the important events in the Mid-West, help where they can and hope that Obama wins the elections in November. Tim’s mother tells me about her time in Germany, then about Sarah Palin, who has just been picked by John McCain for Vice-Presidency. That second, the woman standing next to us interrupts. Her sign reads “Staff”, and Tim’s mom turns silent. Volunteers aren’t allowed to talk to the press.

The photographers are storming the stage, they take pictures of Obama from every angle, up and down. Everybody is after a sound-bite now, a smile for his or her camera. Obama has charisma in abundance; he smiles at every lense, reaches for every hand and looks into the eyes of every voter who has made it to the first row. It is as if he wanted to assert every one of his own incarnation. Yes, I am.

By Kolja Langnese