It's pretty simple: video games. If you cast a look around the video gaming world, you quickly notice that since the internet became accessible at gaming-quality speeds, the most popular games quickly became those in which gamers interact--and the more interaction there is, the more popular the game is likely to be. I would point to the success of games such as Eve and WoW as evidence here, but it's on Facebook & Google+ and every other social networking tool in existence.
There are a few obvious reasons why interactive gaming is successful & popular. First, as a "replayable" gaming experience, nothing replaces interacting with humans in terms of unpredictability, creativity, and excitement; and how could it? Interacting with random selections from a pool of (literally) millions of people will always create a more exciting, original experience than interacting with one gaming programmer's planned scenario. Second, interactive games provide a social platform--something to "do" with another person, something to discuss, something to brag about, and a community of like-minded people to participate in. Third, interactive games provide an alternative to mundane life, where success is far less complex an achievement and the cost of failure is greatly reduced--allowing measurable growth along a defined skill set in a context that is visible and respected by your peers. --Hang on, I'm getting to politics.
In this environment, leadership is far, far more linked to personal capability, applicable skill sets, and cleverness than it is in the real world. Real-world leadership is muddied by a host of things that are basically irrelevant--sex appeal, pre-existing financial or networking advantages, personal popularity, first impressions, and the brute length of time represented by a real-world career. Certainly some of these things play into gaming leadership, but in my experience these irrelevant advantages or disadvantages are greatly muted in a gaming environment. This makes gaming a much more brutal testing ground for leaders--but it also encourages leaders and teaches valuable lessons in an environment where leadership cannot rely on false advantages.
Quickly you can see where this applies to the world of politics, which is so reliant on leadership in the course of campaigning--and then serving--in elected office. Being able to maneuver a complex organization, having the cleverness to outwit an opponent in a test of true political power--these are lessons that are honed almost universally (albeit indirectly) in the interactive gaming environment. Learning when to argue, when to compromise, how to manipulate strangers--these are the indirect skills being taught by the modern gaming environment.
Why this gives me hope: our future politicians will come from the ranks of kids who grew up being taught leadership by experience, in an arena where they won't rely on real-world advantages. This will encourage people with real capability to pursue leadership when they may not have done so before, and will teach even those already inclined towards political leadership to rely on a different skill set than previous generations.
Why it doesn't: the above may not be a good thing.
