Ron Paul's Success Owed to Basic Psychology?
We've written about the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul and Barack Obama a lot on this blog. That's not because of any preference for either candidate's political views, but because those two candidates in this year's US presidential election made the most compelling and successful use of online tools as integral parts of their campaigns. Obama, for example, formed his own social network, while Paul even has an iPhone site. Could it be, though, that Ron Paul's online success is owed less to any great understanding of how social networking works, but rather to a an understanding of motivational psychology?
Speaking at the Politics Online conference in Washington, DC yesterday, Justine Lam, the internet director of the Ron Paul campaign, seemed to imply that the creation of the grassroots campaign around Paul was a happy accident, and the use of the campaign was more about psychology than anything else. Micah Sifry has great notes on Lam's talk over on the TechPresident blog.
The main reason people were attracted to Paul, according to Lam, was because his message was so radically different from the rest of the Republican field. Early on, the campaign decided to take the opposite route from Obama in organizing online support. Where Obama turned his site into an organized, central social network, Paul's campaign used their site as a hub for pointing to various activities organized by the grassroots.
Though the campaign didn't manage it, the burgeoning grassroots support network responded to the call to organize themselves and famously began to overwhelm social media and news sites like YouTube and Digg with Ron Paul items. Seeing the fervor that was building among their core supporters, the campaign decided to see if they could harness it for fundraising purposes.
Last August, they held a contest to see which Paul Meetup group could raise the most money. Though the campaign raised $500,000, smaller groups complained that it was unfair -- they could never compete. So the Paul campaign changed its tack and asked supporters to try to meet certain fundraising goals. They used classic methods of motivation: putting people's names on screen, using a thermometer graphic to measure growth, and play to the crowd mentality.
The rub is that Paul's success -- at least financially -- is owed less to some magical new use of the Internet, but rather tapping into a support network that grew up organically around the campaign by using traditional motivational psychology. By setting specific goals, they were able to narrow the attention of supporters and direct people toward a set activity. According to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, people have a specific need for achievement, respect, and the realization of their full potential. Playing off those needs, the Paul campaign was able to motivate people toward specific goals and keep energy among core supporters high.
This, of course, is not unique in politics. Every campaign utilized the same basic tactics. The difference was that Paul relied more heavily on letting the community organize the effort. This perhaps led to what social psychologist Gustave Le Bon would call "group mind," in which the crowd exerts influence over its members. Or in other words, the crowd acts on its own. That actually might have helped the Paul campaign reach its goals because it energized the grassroots to act as a single group with a uniform goal.
It also had drawbacks, however. Similar to how web sites that rely on user generated content cede a lot of power to users, Paul's network of grassroots supporters had a perhaps undue amount of power over the campaign. As Lam noted, for example, one of the things the grassroots network dreamed up was raising money for a blimp. The Paul campaign would have preferred to use the money on TV and radio advertisements, but the blimp idea caught on with supporters and they couldn't stop it (and dared not try).
In the end, Paul's success came down to two things: the emergence of a grassroots support network, presumably because of the uniqueness of his message compared with those of his opponents, and the use of basic motivational psychology techniques to encourage that grassroots network to organize itself. While Internet tools certainly helped to make that organization happen more easily and allowed message delivery to happen more quickly, I'm not sure they prompted anything very radical in terms of how the campaign was managed.
Please share your thoughts in the comments below.
Image via Steak Rules.
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Success?!
The crazy uncle got like 1% of the votes. Scoring with ill-informed, gullible college kids is not success.
What success? Did he ever get more than 3-5% of any primary? Everyone went all crazy over Dean's 'online success' last time around too... but when he met reality and had to get people to vote for him he couldn't. We need to raise our bar for measuring online success so we don't get excited that someone with a niche message does very well at motivating people in that niche. Small niches can be a LOT of people in a country of 300m... but it doesn't necessarily translate into success outside of a niche.
To your broader point I think his success is due to two things - a good understanding of psychology, a message that resonated with a defined, motivated set of people and an approach that as much more direct and less political - which also resonated with the people to whom is basic message appealed.
Success is not necessarily measured by the candidate's vote totals. Despite his poor showing in the primaries, Howard Dean went on to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He is very influential and led the Democrat takeover of Congress in the 2006 elections.
Clearly Ron Paul won't be the next chair of the Republican National Committee, but I don't think he or his supporters are going to fade away. How much influence will the so-called "Paultards" have in the Republican Party over the next few years? How many "Ron Paul Republicans" will run for Congress and state positions?
The short term focus on this presidential election cycle may be missing the true meaning and impact of Ron Paul's quixotic run for the White House. If the Democrats pull off a landslide Presidential victory in November, the Bushites who are currently running the Republican Party will be discredited, and Ron Paul Republicans are well positioned to fill the vaccum.
He didn't have success at the polls -- though perhaps that he was still able to score 5-7% in many states, including all four last night, is a fair amount of success for someone who was basically a fringe candidate -- but he did have a lot of success in two areas:
- fundraising, especially in the fall, early winter of 2007
- dominating attention on social media sites and in the blogosphere
There is a whole different set of reasons why that didn't translate to votes (some of which we've written about before). But it is his success at fundraising and raising awareness via non-mainstream online channels that I was speaking to in this post (and I think anyone who talks about his campaign's success is likely referring to).
I too have been facinated by the online participation this election, particularly when discussing Ron Paul & Barack Obama.
Call it psychology, but (as a relatively impartial UK user) I believe Paul often talks from the heart, in a logical and rational way, and communicates in a simple and easy to understand manner. This explains his popularity amongst social media sites and Internet users - he appeals to their sensitivities and is qualitatively consistent.
I also believe it is no coincidence that the internet generation are the most informed - willing to investigate for themselves rather than rely on a single editorialised viewpoint. That's why, in my opinion, Obama and Paul do so well.
Quite whether this translates to those who take less of a collective interest in politics or are unaware of the websites which enable them to educate & share their views, is another matter entirely. Obama's campaign has been managed exeptionally, and has utilised the online grassroots support effectively.
But then Obama has always recieved a good amount of coverage from those 'traditional' news outlets. Paul's online support is so fascinating, due to the fact it is spontaneous, user-driven and extremely innovative. His campaign often extols the virtues of individual freedoms, less overarching control and the power of the free market - something his online support has materialised in the best sense of the word.
Will Paul win the nomination? No, not unless something very drastic happens. Does his candidacy represent a new era of technological involvement in the political process?
I like to think so. And that's a heartening fact, no matter which candidate you support.
His popularity was primarily propelled by his political ideas.
The idea that his popularity was mainly amongst ill informed college age people is a lowbrow opinion, considering older people are not anymore "well informed".
The younger generation that is interested in politics may well be BETTER informed then the generation that sat in front of TV, newspapers & magazines being fed there malformed 'ideas'. To be fair...that generation probably didnt know any better as humans are generally monkey see - monkey do.
At least the younger generation have a lifetimes chance to write, read & correspond their ideas & opinions freely via the internet concerning how to live in this country.
Seeing they are going to have to pay for the largest corporate baby boom welfare generation.....it's the least they can have access to.
All Ron Paul's campaign tells us is that even if you have a ton of money you still can't win an election if you are bat-shit crazy. Guess the system needed a re-affirmation of that after Ross Perot.
Oh, and to Jeff: go and talk to some 20 somethings at a mall or a movie theater some-time and then try to say that they are "more informed." B.S. They aren't any more informed than anyone else now-a-days, they are just more opinionated.
You aren't really paying attention. He won most polls outside of the tainted MSM ones.
We just had our second convention last night and Ron Paul walked away with 6 of the 8 delegate slots. Next onto the congressional district and state conventions.
This is not being reported as delegates don't have to commit to a specific candidates yet, but we Ron Paul supporters know who we are. We are organized. It is a guessing game when the MSM reports McCain's or any other candidate's delegates.
I agree with Kris I am presinct leader for Paul over in Virginia and alot of the delegets the MSM claimed were McCains, were in fact Paul supporters from local meetup groups, so to say that the delegates are defeniately voting for MCCain in the generally elction is just plan not true. I would not be supprized to see the majority of them voting for Paul as many of his supporters did run as delegates across the country. I However did not as I did not have the time nor resources to do so.
William From Virginia
Back to the point of the piece which I believe is summarized in this sentence.
The rub is that Paul's success -- at least financially -- is owed less to some magical new use of the Internet, but rather tapping into a support network that grew up organically around the campaign by using traditional motivational psychology.
It seems to me that "some magical new use of the Internet" assumes something that is not plausible. The internet is a means of fostering communication. Otherwise it is not magical nor is communication new.
That said, it seems exceedingly unlikely that Ron Paul could have had the success he had apart from the significantly lower cost of communication that is the internet. In the past all of that communication would have been far more expensive than Ron Paul could have afforded.
More importantly the enthusiasm of his supporters was richly fostered by the internet. There are, after all, 104,000 Ron Paul videos on YouTube. When you have a small and widespread people the normal means of communicating and enthusing each other don't work. Suddenly, now, the few can find social and psychological support across great distances.
So the magic of the internet is that distance disappears. The rest is human beings being human beings.
I would like to comment on the hateful slander of Ron Paul supporters. I will grant you that many Paul supporters are young and possess a false sense of the value of and the breadth of their knowledge. This makes them no different from the masses of sheeple supporting other campaigns. Personally, I don't like fanatics of ANY stripe and I find the company of this type of Paul supporter very disconcerting.
On the other hand there are many HIGHLY educated people amongst Paul supporters. My wife and I are prime examples. I have a BS in molecular biology, I am currently pursuing a professional degree in Dental Surgery. My wife already has her first professional degree (she is a DVM). Approximately 2% of Americans achieve this level of education. Less than 10% of all college graduates pursue an advanced degree. However, in the Paul camp we are not the exception to the rule. There are many highly educated people who support Ron Paul. Considering that the candidate is also a medical doctor and an OB-GYN to boo I will offer this last statistic; only the top 3-6% of the graduating class of a medical school are allowed to obtain a specialization- such as OB-GYN. The reason that Paul engenders such support is really quite simple... we read, we remember, we grow tired of being lied to. Most of the educated Paul supporters are such because we have no other choice. There is no other candidate that we can vote for without putting blinders on our intellectual honesty.
Lets face it How often can you look at a candidate's record and see that their core principles have remained unchanged... some call it inflexibility in the face of political reality- the founders called it INTEGRITY.
I think Ron Paul did well,considering the corporate media blacklisting him,and force feeding the puppets down ppls throats 24/7.Not everyone wants a socialist America!He had so called radical ideas,they are the ideas that this country was founded on.First chance we have to get a real person in office,we need radical change to fix what the corporate puppets have messed up over time.Just my opinion but i believe the game is fixed,the cards are stacked..and we are in deep doo doo.Good luck to every one ..peace.
I guess it pays to be different and utilize the power of the community.
Raza Imam
SoftwareSweatshop.com
One of the psychological reasons that underly the dedication of the Ron Paul people is that they, just as many, ask that he be treated with fairness and respect. To call him a "crazy uncle" as in an earlier comment is a sure way to insure that his supporters will become even more devoted to him. The insults and marginalizing (e.g., the FOX debate) of this candidate is undeniable. No one wants to deal with these verbal bullies, whose lack of common civility they take as enhancing their wit and their political effect. It has no such result. I'm happy that my contact with these sniggering drones is only on the internet. I wouldn't want them in my home nor as a friend.
L.Step thats funny because they will be the ones standing up for you when your rights are being violated,and when your constitutional rights are being lost.I will leave this abusive Ignorant blog now..Still they are blind.
The people that get Ron Are the ones that dont need a govt hand out to get by in life and truthfully want the GROWING govt out of their life.
FreedomFest 2008 - Ron Paul has just been confirmed as a speaker and will join our 100 plus speakers and 1,000 plus attendees in Las Vegas on July 10 -12 at Freedomfest 2008. We must continue the campaign to promote the Ron Paul Revolution of liberty, a return to limited constitutional government and free markets to the American public.
See www.freedomfest.com
Thanks,
Ron Holland, Wolf Laurel, NC
www.ronaldholland.com
Why did they just take off his comment freedomfest.com
Psycology?
Ron Paul appealed to common sense. It's common sense to:
*Live by our Constitution and respect human rights
*Get out of the Iraq war and the war on drugs that are draining this country of a lot more than money.
*Open our country to free trade instead of managed trade with treaties like the WTO & NAFTA.
*Reduce the size of our Federal government and return many decisions to the States and the people.
*Stop policing the world and forcing democracy on unwilling countries
*Make drastic changes in our monetary policies. What we have is NOT working for the majority of Americans.
If that is psycology...then please use it on me.
Vote for the Constitution in 2008. Vote for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul supports the right to bear arms. “No guns were not just for duck hunting, their for protection of your rights and freedoms.” He is against fighting Wars to secure a foreign countries borders “Iraq” before whe secure our own borders with Canada & Mexico.
He’s against Nafta! He’s for “real money” that does not inflate. He wants you to keep the fruits of your labor “Ron Paul has the Best anti-tax voting record in congress.” More info on Ron Paul at www.ronpaul2008.com
The fact that his views are "radically different" alone can't account for Congressman Paul's vast grassroots following. It is more a matter of truth and facts. Paul speaks knowledgably and truthfully about reality. His record as a public servant and as a fellow American is without rival in this election. Ron Paul is a man of principle who has protected & served our beloved constitution -our freedoms - more diligently and passionately than any of our contemporary statesmen. Verily, to be different, to simply be popular is the task of all the corporate puppets in this show. To stand up for YOUR principles and constitution, standing firm and shouting 'the Fascists are coming!!' in the dark of night while all else is sleeping or playing the Benedict Arnold is the distinction of patriots. Win or lose, Ron Paul is only the beginning of the inevitable R3vOLuTiON!!
The psychological reason that Ron has had so much success is that people flourish and succeed when they are free. The people supporting him have succeeded and he has benefited from their success. As a supporter, while his campaign does offer advice, you are free to do whatever you think is the best thing to do to get him elected. When people are free, they are more inclined to ask how to do something. When people are oppressed they are less willing to accept something being shoved down their throats. When he wants you to do something, he asks you if you think it's a good idea. Ron does not berate or criticize those who feel that they need to yell at people or chase Sean Hannity down the street. Neither does he prod those who quietly support him to be more vocal or active.
You can be male, female, white, black, Jewish, Catholic, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, or anything else and it's OK with him. He does not distinguish or isolate into groups to go after. You are free to believe in conspiracies or not. You can dislike any group of people or like everyone. You cannot violate or restrict any other human being's rights and no one can violate yours. That's a deal most people can live with. His message is the same no matter who you are. He is for your rights.
You see the most outgoing and loudest so you assume that Ron's support all comes from college kids. His largest donor group is the military. You do not see the 30-60 somethings who are quietly working on his behalf.
Imagine what the country could do if it was free.
He (Ron Paul) has not recieved 1%. Average poll numbers nationally are 7%. The worst he has done was in Florida with 3%. The best I have found is 25% in Alaska. He has at one time or another beaten each candidate in a few primaries or caucuses although never coming in first. The only caveat is that I have not found a case of him beating Romney prior to his dropping out of the race.
Also, Crazy Uncle? Never heard that term before but I suspect it is more telling of the family of the person who invented it than the person it is being used to describe.
What fucking success? Please!
Ron Paul is still in it to win it!
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1dPkPUtfa8
He is not quitting - not now, not ever!