| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Online Politics, the Right and The Next Right
I spoke to Ed Cone, of CIO Insight, last week to discuss online politics, branding and the Next Right.
CIOI: What happened to the Right that makes a site like yours necessary?
Henke: People on the Left would like to believe that the philosophy has failed. People on the Right would like to believe the people have failed, if we just elect better people we'll be fine. I think both of those are off the mark. Fundamentally what failed was the movement itself. We erected a movement based on two ideas: elect Republicans, to limit government. They elected Republicans, and then they didn't have a politically viable way to actually limit government, and so they settled for the first -- and so instead of a vast right wing conspiracy we had a half-vast right wing conspiracy.
What needs to be fixed is the movement needs to organize itself to actually accomplish the second part of the goal. Just electing Republicans is not enough, what you get is a corrupt Republican Party that is not an effective vehicle for the actual goals of the movement. [...]
CIOI: You guys are playing catch-up. How did liberals take the lead online?
Henke: The web is conducive to insurgency movements. That's been the Democrats for the last eight years. They were out of power and needed different tools. Progressives perceived that the political culture had shifted, but the Democratic Party did not shift with it, so they began telling a story about a different vision of the Democratic Party and the political system. They made fundamental criticisms of both parties and the media, and rallied a lot of people to them. They erected a very effective mechanism for bringing the party in their direction, they created a gravitational pull so the political leaders and the money people had to come to them. That has fundamentally reshaped the Democratic Party. The Republican Party, on the other hand, was perceived by most in its base as being a more effective machine.
CIOI: So there's no ideological basis for the gap?
Henke: People forget that the Right was ahead online in the '90s. Sites like NewsMax, Drudge Report, and World Net Daily were very successful. They still have large audiences, but never really made the transition to Web 2.0. They're one-way: we present the news, you read it, end of transaction. The Right does a lot of things well online, like microtargeting of voters, things the Left is just doing now. That the Left is catching up in those areas is a major accomplishment, and the Right is going to have to think about what the Left does well: mobilizing communities around specific ideas, and messaging to the media and the base.
More at the link.
- Jon Henke's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Right online is alive, but stuck in pre web 2.0
This is an important point:
This really nails the key differences in underlying technology and community use. I mentioned in another comment about how Free Republic was doing stuff in 1998 that the left wasnt doing til much later. (But then became much bigger, like Digg.)
RightOnline = 1.0, Left has leveraged web 2.0 much better.
This has a lot more precision than the 'we are behind' lament, since that is not the real story here. The right and left have different strengths and weaknesses, and different modes/avenues of communication and community.
You can't ignite the flame without a match...
YES!!!!! What is wrong with the NRCC, NRSC, RNC....why don't they get this??? You get it, I get it, most of the blogosphere gets it....why don't they?! It's so frustrating. I just commented about "passion" in another posting and your comments go right to what I was saying - it's hard to become passionate when you can't actually find a candidate you believe in and then support him/her. You can't ignite a flame without the match...where are our matches?!
fighting against the Dominant Liberal Paradigm
Because there is a vast-left-wing conspiracy in the MSM that perpetuates the myth that the only way to 'care' about 'issues' is to get more Govt spending. Any Republican who goes against the "Dominant Paradigm" is vilified as a Right-wing Nutcase.
Just look at the examples Coburn gives in his interview -
Tom Coburn: 49 Congressional hearings on waste, and the MSM didnt report on it. Didnt care.
Tom Coburn: " $2.2 trillion in healthcare. ... Do we get the outcomes we want? Is the answer a soviet-style solution? ... The intermix of Govt and marketplace has made it inefficient." ... "There needs to be leadership to get out of the way." These facts and this framework are simply ignored by the MSM, who push the liberal-view "Democrats want S-CHIP, GOP wants sick kids to die" paradigm, and speak of 'universal healthcare' as a euphemism for Govt-run-and-controlled Single Payer Canada-style FiascoCare.
The GOP is a majoritarian party, and their goal is to get folks elected. If the media narrative and the 'will of the people' is to get pandered to, the GOP candidates have a choice between bending to the pressure or getting un-elected. And sometimes both. Leadership is vital, but in a democracy, leadership without majority followership is futility.
There are issues with NRCC, NSRC, but its simply not their job to get MSM bias corrected. The ultimate answer is that to achieve the goal of limited Government, we need ultimately to change hearts and minds of 51%+ of Americans to agree to that. That means going beyond simply getting more R's elected (although that is a vital and important component).
Tom Coburn is a great Senator, who can lead on committed conservative ideas. We need more like him., but we also need those who are not elected Republicans to be out there fighting against the Dominant Liberal Paradigm - and pushing back on the liberal MSM / pardigm-makers.