For Montanans with high-speed Internet access, the social media platform Twitter shares political views, connects people to politicians and allows users to read journalist’s reports from across a big state and nation.
Twitter employs messaging with just 140 characters. This is the second session of the Legislature that I’ll sporadically follow on social media. The political newsfeeds are #mtpol and #mtleg.
As more newspapers use paywalls to access content on their news sites, social media may become more prevalent.
Many politicians use social media to inform constituents on Legislative activities or simply push political messages onto the press. Twitter often has a friendly tone as in the following public exchange I had with Speaker of the House Austin Knudsen:
Knudsen wrote a message saying, “MTGOP about to vote on a motion to join a lawsuit arguing MT’s open primaries are unconstitutional.” I retweeted the message, letting others follow.
Knudsen soon messaged about the move toward closed primary elections, “general rule: if liberal mouthpieces are screaming about Repub moves, we’re doing something right.”
I replied to the speaker’s account asking, “Referring to liberals that emancipated slaves or liberals that wrote the Constitution?”
The speaker promptly messaged back, “pretty sure Lincoln was a Republican, Mike.”
I retorted, “Liberal Republican at that.”
This was one of many friendly messages among the hundreds that are daily posted. The format is often awkwardly short to discuss political differences between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals enacted policies like Social Security, women’s right to vote, Medicare, and the Clean Water, Clean Air and Civil Rights acts. In politics some Republicans are more liberal than others, just like some Democrats are more conservative that others.
That’s the way politics has been and hopefully remains. Last session, Montana may not have decriminalized homosexuality without fiscally conservative and socially liberal members like Rep. Duane Ankney.
Back a decade ago in a 50/50 split House, Rep. Harry Klock publicly threatened to rip his desk off the floor of the Republican aisle and park it next to Democrats if key bills did not move forward.
As Republicans chose to sue to close primary elections, the apparent purity test reported was how 11 “so-called Republicans” sided with Democrats to help critical legislation move with a simple majority vote.
A decade ago rules allowed either party to bring a handful of bills onto the floor for debate, subject them to the vote of the majority of members. That session produced policy like smoking bans in public places, opposing the Patriot Act, enabling wind energy production, country of origin labeling, health insurance for kids, big public education advancements, and mandating adjudication of Montana’s water rights.
Today, like a decade ago, there’s a stark ideological division within the Republican Party. Big-tent Republicans have lost as more conservative members opted to sue to close primary elections, while promoting secret caucus meetings.
To the party establishment closed primaries are about data; conversely, to voters open primaries are about privacy.
Big policy outcomes to most Legislative sessions rest with its more centric members. Both Democrats and Republicans must work together to move the state forward.
Writing this column last week, I saw on Twitter news about the governor’s $400 million infrastructure plan that creates over 4,000 jobs and make state investments into broadband and public projects.
Rep. Jeff Welborn, the bill sponsor, called it a private sector approach to protecting the state’s assets, according to tweets by reporter Michael Wright.
Journalist Madelyn Beck tweeted, “Sen. Jon Sesso says bonding is the best choice for the Gov’s infrastructure bill bc of Montana’s good credit rating.”
The infrastructure bill is a defining moment for this Legislature.
Social media allow voters a link inside the Montana Legislature, but realistically still only augment old-fashioned newspaper reporting.