learning from our young leaders

one of south carolina's best and brightest, shontavia johnson, wrote such an astute article on the use of disruptive technologies in the last election.

i will not do her article justice but i would like to talk about her thoughts.

disruptive technologies are basically the technologies that change the game. she talks about their influence on four presidents - franklin roosevelt, john kennedy, barak obama and donald trump. the disruptive technologies that were used are radio, tv, the internet and twitter respectively.

even before his famous fireside chats in the white house, roosevelt used radio in a way no other political candidate had before. in a tough race for governor, he used radio to bypass the newspaper criticism that followed him throughout his political career.

many believe that john kennedy beat nixon based on the first televised presidential debates, much of it based on appearance rather than substance. kennedy prepared extensively for the first debate. he had a team to make him look good. nixon was ill prepared. he looked terrible because he refused makeup and wore clothes that were unflattering in the tv lights. nixon tried to play catch-up but he was damaged enough by that first debate to have given the advantage to kennedy in a close race.

barak obama channeled the internet as no one else had.

he was the true comeback kid.

he was well behind hillary's well oiled political machine when he started using social media on the internet.  he created facebook pages for himself and michelle. his campaign team created websites to attract youth and other specific audiences. he raised more money with smaller contributions from larger numbers of people through email. he used you-tube for videos of special events and contests.

in my opinion (not shontavia's) he was the first successful grassroots candidate.

mcgovern failed completely.

donald trump, who no one took to be a serious candidate, used twitter as his disruptive technology.

with his daily tweets promoting himself, trump was able to add followers every day and capture the attention of one of the hottest social media of the times... using 140 characters or less. his name was mentioned in ever increasing numbers, overshadowing all of his republican contenders.

as an goldie oldie, i would say that trump used twitter as the outdoor billboard medium .... just get your name out there.

while obama and clinton let their team do their policy tweeting, trump had his own without any filters... and for many reasons, it worked. his tweets began many conversations, both good and bad... but more importantly, numerous. a world of tweets were putting his name out there as a force to be reckoned with.

and it gave him so much free advertising. he spent less than any other candidate per vote. his outrageous posts put him in the position of free coverage from the traditional media of tv and newspapers as well as the internet.

of course, nothing is that simple.

shontavia certainly points this out. hers is an academic research paper on the topic of disruptive technologies using extensive references. i am not presuming to speak for her, but merely my take from her article.

please read the original article in the widener university commonwealth law school law review. mine is a poor summary of a fantastic piece.

i had many thoughts as i read her article.

my first thought was how much more significant russian interference via social media means. when social media has so much influence over voters, using social media fraudulently  may be more disturbing than that of actual voting machine fraud. it is so much more subtle and hard to prove.

perhaps the first disruptive technology was the penny press. it made the news cheap enough to be accessible to the common worker who couldn't afford the six cents. it also brought about advertising as revenue and more drama in news reporting. i can't help but be reminded of the sensationalism of fox news. it received a share of the market and an influence on the population that no one could have predicted

in each of these cases, the issues have been simplified to address the emotional needs of its audience more than to the practical methods to achieve solutions to the problems of the day.

in his presidential campaigning, roosevelt attacked hoover without giving specific alternatives.

kennedy certainly held controversial opinions, particularly on civil rights, but it was his appearance and his appeal to a better world that probably won the day.

obama campaigned on hope, one of the strongest emotions of all.

finally, trump spoke to people's discontent.

so much of the voting public is swayed by emotion more than intellect. it shows in how people maintain their beliefs even when presented with evidence to the contrary. stephen colbert nailed it with truthiness. how i feel is more important than any facts.

in all these technologies, candidates sought a more direct line to the people. i believe this is a good thing. voters want to know that they are important. these four presidents acknowledged that and sought out the technology of the day to reach them.

my last thought is why did they get the second term. i am hoping that the influence of disruptive technology meant more to their first term than to their second. i'd like to think that a president's performance in office has something to do with getting a second term.

we'll see.