With the development of the Internet, there emerged a big push in online campaign efforts, as we saw with Howard Dean. The incredible power of the Internet can change a candidate’s profile and bring them to light. Howard Dean was a long shot for the Democratic nomination in 2004, but his digital campaigning almost won him the nomination. He raised a great deal of funds online through many small donations.
Dean also used the web to recruit voters and supporters. Hindman writes how fundraising was only one part of his successful digital campaign. The ability for it to reach across the country and to citizens that were typically uninvolved was incredible. It was an effective way to get his name out there and increase his campaign funds. I argue though that this campaign was aided by slacktivists. However, unlike Morozov might see typical slacktivism, this type of easy participation was effective. The viral spread of his campaign was unmatched, and it allowed for citizens to become involved fairly simply. While slacktivism may not involve much effort, minimal participation by citizens in this online campaign seemed to have a positive impact.
My questions for everyone are the following: what type of slacktivism can be effective? And can digital participation in a political campaign actually be considered slacktivism or is this genuine political engagement that truly is having an impact?