Lefty blogs, tech blogs, and coalition politics 101

The meltdown of the lefty blogs on FISA allows us to point out something: there were two significant online communities that were tracking the FISA bill: lefty blogs and tech blogs. The tech blogs were more wrapped up in other things, like the fight between AP and TechCrunch. (kind of astonishing that more political blogs didn't track this), the release of Firefox 3, etc. But there was real attention at Ars Technica, Wired, CNet, etc.

Similarly with another issue that is far more obscure: net neutrality. TechCrunch's Mike Arrington was interviewed by the LA Times about his politics. The response is quite stunning:

Arrington said he had a harder time endorsing a Republican candidate because he felt each of their positions on technology was flawed. Even though Paul won the TechCrunch reader primary, Arrington said Paul's opposition to net neutrality, for example, disqualified him.

Eventually, he settled on McCain:

Though McCain is "standoffish" on net neutrality, mobile spectrum rules and the digital divide, and has voted against some bills to fund renewable energy research, Arrington blogged that he was swayed by McCain's willingness to address "inequities that arise from his hands-off policies on net neutrality and mobile allocations, which other Republican candidates refuse to do. And his positions on Internet taxes, H1-B visas, China/human rights violations and other issues are strongly pro-technology."

Is net neutrality really a voting issue for anyone? Looking at the tech blogs, you get a sense that for some people it might be. Maybe not an insignificant number of people. MyDD even hosted a debate on spectrum allocation, one of the other issues that Arrington mentions. And OpenLeft has a front-page tag and video about net neutality. (my understanding is that Matt Stoller does some work for one of the groups in this space, but still)

 

Here's another data point. Recently, I had a conversation with a Democratic new media operative. This person told me that the three most important issues to get net roots support were:

We all understand the rallying effect of the war clearly. Net neutrality is an obscure and poorly understood regulatory issue that seems to energize the online gaming community, high-bandwidth users, and others. And telco-immunity gets lots of coverage from civil libertarians and technology people.

The upshot is that the success of the Democratic netroots may be as much or more about basic coalition politics than any great technological or political innovation. Afluent, socially moderate-to-liberal, tech-saavy people were attracted to the Democratic coalition through these arguments, anger at the war, a message about the GOP becoming too socially conservative, They were given a series of tools with which they could organize, and they developed more, like Act Blue.

Again, on a certain level, there is nothing new here. Direct mail provided a way for older people with checkbooks to participate in a process that they couldn't participate in before. Door knocking is out of the question and phone calls required going to a central location. The left just found a really important sweet spot that linked technology to issues to create good activism.

On a political level, there may be larger warnings for the GOP here about how we get the support of an emerging creative class and information workers, etc. There is a very good chance that the lifestyle, if not the issues, of the modern creative worker is better suited to the current organizing strategies of the left. What does the GOP start to offer those people?

On a political technology level, we should be asking ourselves what transaction costs are dropping enough to bring new constituencies online. And it might not be the same online. The next big technological innovation will probably be mobility. How could we tap mobile people more effectively with technology?

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Repack Rider's comment from another post...

I am copying this from another post. Somehow this posted without allowing comments.

The FISA post  below this one didn't address the retroactive immunity for the telcoms except to note that the lefty blogs are pretty incensed about it.

Does that suggest a "knee-jerk" reaction, that if lefty blogs want to preserve Constitutional rights, this blog should oppose them?

Telcom immunity is a slap in the face to the Fourth Amendment, and I think both conservatives and liberals can agree that the Constitution is more important than getting some fatcat telcom executives off the hook for conspiracy against our rights.

FISA didn't need "fixing."  It requires a warrant, that you can obtain after the fact if necessary, but the Fourth Amendment is clear and is not subject to modification.

Here's the federal criminal statute that should be used on the telcoms:

CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS

Summary:

      Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.

      The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

          If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

          They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

I am not debating the issue

I was talking about the coalition politics.

Soren, check this out.

When Irwin Jacobs was CEO of Qualcomm, he and his wife hosted several fundraisers for Bill Clinton and they were very heavy contributors to Democrats in general and to the Clintons in particular.  The times have changed since son Paul Jacobs, an economic Conservative, took over as CEO.  

This might be of interest to you.  Look at the vast differences between just 2006 and 2008 in terms of party contributions.  This is one indicator that McCain and the Republicans are supporting legislation and policies that further the goals of the telecommunications industry. 

And so?

What point are you making?

Perhaps you were asking rhetorically

about what transaction costs are dropping enough to bring new constituencies online, and how could we tap mobile people more effectively with technology?   I would wonder if Qualcomm would be interested in discussions geared toward exploring a market for producing "political technology".  I don't know what vision you have in mind, or if you have formulated one yet.  Perhaps you were just asking rhetorical questions. 

oh. i see

interesting point.  That makes sense. It would very interesting to know how various demographcis use technology.