mdlake.net

Dedicated to being a responsible citizen, I try to keep tabs on where the major figures of both parties stand. Frankly, my 2008 vote is pretty much cast already, keeping on top of issues is nonetheless important. My single vote wouldn’t matter in any case. Even persuading my immediate circle of friends to vote as I do wouldn’t go far. But participating in a broader discussion (as I do here), reminding people I’ve never met of salient facts, encouraging like-minded voters in the echo chamber of Well political forums, and generally staying vocal can have an impact. As inimical as it is to healthy democracy, we remain motivated in part by a strong herd instinct. The time to pick a direction and start pushing is now, before the stampede is irreversible.

So I try to stay aware. This is not always easy. Major debates always seem to end up scheduled on our occasional nights out, and the news media, even when they live up to the principles of investigative reporting, tend to stick to the most recent events in the top two or three stories to date, rather than the fundamental causes. Plenty of candidates are still out there, too, shaping the national discussion; following all of them is a task.

That’s why I appreciate the site expertvoter.org. It lays out a grid, one row per candidate, one column for each of nine issues. Clicking on a square plays a short YouTube video featuring that candidate speaking on that issue. The coverage isn’t perfect; some videos are prepared speeches while others are less polished responses in a debate. One of Edwards pays less attention to his statement than to a reporter asking a question he won’t answer, which makes him look bad, while most of Huckabee’s entries feature him speaking only to the camera, without the nuisance of questions at all. (Questions of any kind would quickly make him look bad.) The grid has many gaps, which is itself telling: the candidate can’t be found addressing the issue at all, at least not in front of a camera. Still, it’s a dense yet accessible packaging of information, and a useful starting point for measuring the candidates.

This is the second time I’ve seen YouTube used to good effect in our nation’s political discourse. Like the CNN-sponsored Democratic debates on questions collected through YouTube, we should enjoy it while it lasts. As long as we can distinguish between honest amateur efforts like this and party propaganda, we should treasure attempts to use the internet to make politics accessible. But if sites like this become too successful, too influential, too useful to the general public, it will be drowned in an avalanche of party-sponsored imitators, carefully selected and spun to resemble a fair treatment, and secretive about its sponsors. I’d like to think we can continue to make the distinction between news and editorials, or even outright lies, but the continued success of Fox news attests to the contrary.

And, while I’m thinking of it, this link is built upon a shameless factoid, but emotionally satisfying, nonetheless.