Home › Blogs › A.J.Nolte's blog ›

Making mobilization permanent.

Submitted by A.J.Nolte on Fri, 11/28/2008 - 21:27

One thing we've all been hearing a lot about is the incredibly effective mobilization of the Barack Obama campaign, which was effective in creating and then mobilizing real and effective online communities. I think the Democrats are going to have two problems converting this mobilization into a permanent thing. First, I think we may be underestimating the pull of Barack Obama's personal charisma. Certainly, the left has built an effective online network, but it's wrong to see Barack Obama's campaign simply as the culmination. In a couple of ways, Obama had unique power to inspire his base which the Democrats may not be able to count on again in 2010, or even in his next election in 2012. Almost of necessity, some of the bloom will wear off the rose with time, as Obama finds himself needing to govern and compromise. Never again will history play the same role--even in another Obama election--that it did in 2008. The second problem is one we need to be aware of ourselves. It seems to me that the Democrats' networks are almost entirely focussed on national elections; senate, house and president. Certainly, this has been effective in winning elections for the party, but it really isn't necessarily the best way to effectively mobilize and keep people engaged. Most issues that effect people in their daily lives are decided by state and local governments, and, to my knowledge, there has been almost no attempt by the "net roots" to mobilize their supprters for these elections.

 

This is a potentially huge opportunity for the right. There are a total of 89,000 governments within the United States, and almost all the online activism and community building has been focussed on exatly one of them. There are several potential benefits to extending our online mobilization efforts to state and local governments in a systematic way:

1. State and local governments are the "farm team", so it would almost certainly have a huge impact on the national level within five or ten years.

2. Not only the states, but also local towns, counties, cities and other municipalities can be laboratories for conservatism. People considering the relative merits of the flat and fair tax would possibly have real-world examples to sight if a number of states were to adopt these two tax plans. County government would be a good place to start cutting government spending, balancing budgets and, in particular, testing the effectiveness of Libertarian policies (could this be a means to reach out to the Ron Paul folks, or will the revolutionaries balk at focussing this small?). What better place to develop innovative education solutions than at the local school distric level? And where can social conservatism's policies be better tested than at the level of the local community?

3. Increasing our local focus would make mobilization of conservative communities permanent. There are elections every year, and those in odd years typically have extremely light turn-out. This is most often because voters know very little about the candidates, and the proposals at issue. Now imagine the impact that a vigilant conservative community networked over the web, exchanging information and organizing to advance our agenda in these elections might have. From such a permanent conservative community, we would then have the ability to vastly increase our influence on the larger congressional, senatorial, gubernatorial or, ultimately, presidential elections. We should also not neglect the importance of Republican primaries, not only in national and state elections but also in the all-important elections for state and local Republican party committee members.

 

The question is, how? how can we effectively mobilize conservative activists at the local level? I would be inclined to suggest a social networking portal, hypothetically called "my conservatism" or even "my right". What features would be important for such a project? Can social networking be used to help empower conservatives to "act locally"?

 

Comments welcome, and I appologize for the somewhat rambling nature of the post.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Funny you should ask!

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 11/28/2008 - 22:58.

Allow me to introduce you to my opus maximus, The National Online Party. Admittedly, it is a work in progress, but the outline is there and should address some of your stated concerns. It is designed to address the very points you have correctly raised.

As you have correctly pointed out, the real political contest is played out at the grassroot level, for the local school boards, the city commissions, county commissions, et cetera. It is there the tried and tested leaders of tomorrow are produced.  It is also there where most registered Republicans reside. It is also there where we, as a political party, have failed to tap into this incredible resource, except at election time. This state of affairs is not an accident, but that's another story.

To get back to your question:

"What features would be important for such a project? Can social networking be used to help empower conservatives to "act locally"?"

The answer to your second question is, yes. In fact, "locally" is where the impact of the Internet can be felt the largest, with the least effort.

The most important feature in an online effort such as the one I am proposing is one of engagement at all levels, from the local effort, to state and national levels. To accomplish this, as I have said many, many times before, we must give each member a voice, allow each member to speak and to be heard. Once we have a web structure that can do that, that can allow for millions of conservative voices to be heard at their own political levels, and beyond,  people will participate. If our members believe their voices are being heard by the party leadership, they will remain engaged.

This web apporach will also go along way in addressing Aaron Marks'  "Peer Production"  issue.

Let me know what you think. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have on the project, a project I have named: Operation Rednet 

 

 

 ex animo

davidfarrar

An interesting idea.

Submitted by A.J.Nolte on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 10:37.

Have you got the social networking site built yet?

I think I may have been confused, but it sounds like you're advocating the creation of three distinct online parties for conservatives, liberals and centrists. Should we really be aiding the progressives to mobilize?

Also, the New Progressive Party already exists; it's the statehood party in Puerto Rico.

Effective deliberative groupware is still in its infancy...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 20:58.

...and really hasn't been developed to a point where good ideas can be weeded out by the wisdom of the crowds from the bad ideas. For example, try looking for a good cyber adaption of Robert's Rules. There are a few examples, but they are really just dry runs, nothing that can be duplicated and effectively used in an online deliberative meeting. But this is not really dispositive. With a concerted effort, these web challenges can be relatively quickly overcome. I challenge an good code writer to say differently.

Now to your second point. It's true, I have drawn up a three party scenario. I started out with simply designing a web-presence for just fiscal conservatives to combat the party's obvious subservience of the corporate wing of the party over true fiscal conservative values. But then I ran across Frederic Bastiat's work and realized it wasn't enough to have just one party's leadership accurately reflecting the political aspirations of it members, all other political parties, or at least the two other major political groups, the Democratics and Independents, members must have their political aspirations accurately reflected by their leadership to achieve the common good of all.

But, in the end, these three segments are not mutually inclusive. If the Republican Party adopts an online deliberative meeting structure at the local, state and national levels, I am sure the party's leadership will more accurately reflect the political aspirations of its members -- that alone will insure us victory at the polls

I have also come to see the present political divisions that presently exist  between the major political parties as something of an illusion, designed to keep the political will of the people divided up between the political elites. This isn't a conspiratorial issue, it's just that when the people's voice become fragmented, others will step in to fill the vacuum. This is why I think simply giving all their voices, allowing all to speak and all to be heard, will result in their party's leadership being more accurately reflective of their membership's political will -- and, as we know, the common political will of all is right of center, i.e, the socially liberal, fiscal conservative wing of the Republican Party.

As I stated in my blog, these names are just examples. The actual name of each segment of the National Online Party will be chosen by the members themselves. But thanks for the information.

ex animo

davidfarrar