Forget the Ideas Czar or Network: We Must Create Ideas Through Peer Production

...because it seems like the best ideas are really old ideas.

Here's one for you:

Strength is better than weakness.  We should, therefore, encourage our citizenry to be strong rather than weak.

That's conservativism, plain and simple.

Here's another:

Independence with little is better than dependence with craven gain.

And another:

Freedom in no way encourages people to say 'Thank you' any less.

Everyone's running around like a scalded puppy crying about ideas this and ideas that, but the best ideas are the old ones. 

The biggest success in servo system design was the 'negative feedback loop'  which enabled the homing torpedo in WWII.

While sticking to principles is a must, listening to, disputing, and honing your arguments REQUIRES engaging in debates with the 'other side'. For example, simply denying climate change only works when 'preaching to the choir' and any good minister would tell you that you have to reach out to non-members to grow a church.

Which means... well... evangelizing!

If diaries on a website like DailyKos get torn to shreds, it's a start!

When you don't characterize things politically but come up with market based solutions to the 'cost of fossil fuels' that don't get laughed out of town, you are on to something.

~Ruff

There has been damage done to the elites relations with the grassroots, on immigration, spending, performance, etc. What better way to repair that breach with peer production based on the grassroots own input.

Polls show clearly that the grassroots base wants a more conservative party, so such an exercise will largely be about returning the party to first principles and highlighting those most popular and prominent aspect of the same.

sure - it'd be nice - but this notion that we cannot have anybody in a leadership capacity submitting ideas is a terrible idea.

And peer production is not the answer for everything. Hear about the WalMart employee who got trampled to death? He was a victim of peer production. Ever hear about "group think" or "mob mentality"? Peer production also has it's downsides.

You're assuming that this "idea czar" would be some sort of washington inisder - but let's not forget, we have some inside the beltway people who are making use of Web 2.0 in their campaigns, we have campaign operatives who are making use of the tools that we're talking about using to build a new grassroots.

You also criticize Patrick's Ideas.rebuildtheparty.com site saying it's a babystep. Show us another example of something better. Or show us what you have that's better.

A baby step is better than no step. We need to start taking some action - instead of waiting for the perfect campaign 2.0 app to be created.

...the Internet is a very, very powerful "two-way" communicative tool, the likes of which has never before been seen.  It has the capacity to empower democracy itself by empowering the peoples' voices themselves. Think about it. Why would a political party hesitate for a moment in employing just such a powerful communicative devise if it truly believed its leadership was accurately reflecting the political aspirations of its membership?

Don't get me wrong, there are downsides to any action. Applying the Internet to our political processes is fraught with dangers. It may not be possible to actually create a cyber structure capable of accurately reflecting the political aspirations of millions of party members. And even if it was possible, in my work in this area, I have found the larger the network, the greater the pressure becomes to usurp the people's voice to reflect other voices. But as Obama has now amply demonstrated beyond debate, this technology has arrived and will be used to empower someone. If we, as a political party, fail to use this new technology now to empower our own members' voices, it will be used to silence them -- as we are even now being silenced.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Ruffini should know what's wrong with ideas.rebuildtheparty.com, since he already has a tangible example of how "popular" and "best" are frequently very different things. A year ago, Ruffini used his networks to propel a weak question to the top of some ask-the-candidate competition.

Now, imagine that someone (like me) who's familiar with the issues involved had "cross-examined" McCain over immigration. He probably wouldn't have been the nominee.
 

Needless to say, my "prosecutorial-style" questions will never make the most popular list, even though they'd be the most effective.