Jerrold M. Post is a professor of psychiatry, political psychology and international affairs and director of the political psychology program at George Washington University. The books he has authored include 2004's "Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior." Post spoke with NationalJournal.com's Michelle Williams on Jan. 8 about the Web's effect on activism. Edited excerpts follow. Visit the archives page for more Insider Interviews.

NJ: According to a recent Pew Research Center report, this year's presidential campaign saw "unprecedented levels of online engagement in the political process." What does this say about the psychology of the public?

Post: One of the notable aspects about American politics has often been the disengagement of youth. Here we have a reversal of that, where the youthful population, who after all are the Internet generation, have been particularly energized. And the number of new voters that were brought in through using YouTube, Facebook and so forth, is just very impressive.... I think that's just terribly exciting.

NJ: What about these tools has gotten people more engaged in politics?

Post: The aspect of these tools which is very powerful, I think -- again, especially for the youthful voters -- has to do with a sense of immediacy and being a part of the process rather than just watching something happening....

Now, there are hazards to this, too, in that through this medium not only a true depiction can be conveyed, but either highly idealized, omitting the warts and blemishes, or one which spreads false rumors can occur, too. So we have the possibility of this kind of viral spread of false ideas. And how to balance this new sense of freedom and engagement with something resembling accuracy really becomes the challenge.

NJ: In commenting about the challenges of President-elect Obama's post-campaign movement, one blogger wrote that "there is a natural tendency for people to focus on what Obama can do for their cause, not on what they can do to help Obama and Congress do the right thing." Is there any truth to this statement?

Post: There's a wide spread of individuals engaged through this -- some seeking only to get their own special issue advanced and others who just wish to be a part of the process and have their voices heard. One hopes this doesn't just become a vehicle for competing special issues. And there's every reason to believe that won't be the case, from everything we've heard from President-elect Obama.

NJ: What would be people's motivation to continue using the Web to participate in politics?

Post: The reasons... have to do with that very sense of energizing, revitalizing, giving a sense of ownership to the population, and -- I want to emphasize this again -- especially the youthful population. The number of Web sites which are particularly attractive to youth and the manner in which by interacting, getting a response, being out there, one feels not just a distant individual who can have no impact in the system, but being a part of the system -- that's really the profundity of this change.

"I see this as a phenomenon that is not going to change except to grow. This isn't a fad." --Jerrold M. Post

NJ: The Web has presented opportunities for people to do more fact-checking of politicians themselves instead of relying on the press. For example, they can go to YouTube to review what a politician actually said in a speech. How do you think this will change the way politicians govern?

Post: It's much harder these days, and it's a good thing, to say one thing to audience A and the exact opposite to audience B. The discrepancies quickly get held up and broadcast for all to see. Having said that, I do worry, however, about people being able to get distorted, exaggerated, incorrect messages out there which can get a life of their own. This certainly happened during this last campaign in terms of Obama being a Muslim. Once an idea gets hold and gets engraved in psychology, it's kind of hard to sometimes change those ideas.

NJ: How do you think it will change the way people think about politics?

Post: The man on the street all too often felt uninvolved, unable to influence the powers in Washington or wherever. Now, there's a sense of being able to contribute ideas and getting opinions out.

NJ: What benefits do you see with the Internet in getting more people engaged in politics?

Post: It's not only getting people involved, but the manner in which they get involved, so that there's now a sense that "I count as an individual; my ideas are out there; I've been able to raise questions and get that out into the public discourse." So I think in terms of the issue of political identification, which all too often doesn't really become reasonably active until the late 20s or sometimes into the 40s, now we are seeing this medium, which is the medium of youth, being there to help consolidate political identity and to be playing a role in the active debate in the intellectual forum early on. And that's terrific.

NJ: What dangers or challenges do you see with the Internet in getting more people engaged in politics?

Post: One of the hazards lies in the extremity of views expressed on the Internet, too. My most recent book is called "The Mind of The Terrorist." And one of the things we're seeing -- there's now something like 6,800 radical Islamist Web sites out there, glorifying martyrdom, glorifying suicide terrorism.... So on the one hand, in this campaign, we saw vitalization of the youthful population, but children are increasingly being socialized. And if what they're being socialized to are extremist Web sites, then that has a hazard as well.

As an example of that, I have a slide in my collection of a 10 1/2-month, maybe 11-month-old infant with a toy suicide bomb belt on that is rocketing around the Internet. So children are being, from infancy on, given the toys of martyrdom and being led into very extremist pathways.

NJ: Is there a way that the next administration can prevent that from happening?

Post: I do think this is a major challenge for the Obama administration which we in the United States have insufficiently risen to -- to see the extremist messages being propagated through the Internet and finding a way of countering them, because a message not countered becomes truth.

NJ: Is there anything else that you'd like to add?

Post: I guess what's most important is that I see this as a transformational moment in politics. We have in this youthful candidate someone who combined his own skills in community organization with this new technology. He basically organized the American political community through the Internet. And that's quite remarkable.

NJ: Do you think that the Web will increase the number of people who regularly keep up with politics? How long do you think that will last?

Post: I see this as a phenomenon that is not going to change except to grow. This isn't a fad. It represents the very nature of the changed communication media. Everyone is online all the time and in connection with their friends, their colleagues -- the communication does not stop at the water's edge. So this has a very real, wonderful possibility of, on the one hand, dissolving some of those conflicts and having a sense of a greater community. But it also has the negative possibility of mounting ethnic, nationalist rivalries, too. And the question is how can we keep this moving in a positive direction and have this be a vehicle for enhanced communication rather than for the propagation of hatred.

Recently Featured