Jon Henke's blog

Some time back, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell came to a personal agreement on how many judges would be cleared this year.  Senator Reid made a very clear commitment, but he very quickly started backtracking on that.  His reasoning is clear, if lacking in integrity: why keep your promises about judicial nominations in this session of Congress when you might have more votes and a more favorable President in the next session of Congress.

Senator McConnell has had his eye on this for some time, and today he has put his foot down on it.

McConnell has essentially shut down the Senate floor this afternoon by forcing the Senate clerk to read aloud the entire 500 page global warming bill. ... McConnell (R-Ky.) believes Reid (D-Nev.) has backtracked on a promise to clear a significant number of Republican judicial nominees, but Democrats are becoming more and more hesitant to give Bush judges a lifelong appointment to the federal bench in the waning months of this White House.

I've got audio of the floor speech and question/answer session, and I've uploaded it to GoEar.com (follow the link - the embedded player doesn't work) so you can hear McConnell calmly explaining to Democrats that they can vote on judges or...stop everything else and talk about why they won't vote on judges.

There are costs and benefits to having a fight about judges right now.  

• Cost: As Daily Kos' Kagro X notes, Democrats didn't want to do anything this year, anyway.  They'd rather run out the clock this year, waiting for a better legislative environment next year.   Now...they can't do anything.  And they get to blame it on Senator McConnell and Republicans.
• Benefit: Do Democrats really want to talk about judges going into 2008?  That will only lead to more Republican turnout...and questions about the Democratic judicial agenda.   Had McConnell done this last year, it would have been forgotten by now.  But right now - with the Democratic nomination finally locked up - putting judges front and center benefits Republicans.

 If Dems continue to ignore judges, the rest of this session is going to be riddled this kind of thing by the Senate Republicans.   The Right is perfectly happy to have a fight about judges.

Why does the Right side of the blogoshere have less traffic, a smaller audience, than the Left side of the blogosphere?   Chris Bowers, writing at MyDD and Open Left, has addressed the question previously.  While I don't agree with all of his analysis, he makes very compelling points.  A substantial part of this disparity is attributable to simple cyclical dynamics.  While the Right has been in power, defending the status quo, the Left has been storming the castle. 

Storming the castle is much more fun.

There are other contributing factors as well.  Perhaps Progressive demographics and the "creative class" divide play a part; the Left has certainly invested a lot more in building smart, strategic online infrastructure.

But I wonder if there's not another factor - an artifact of the 1990s - that is being overlooked.  It's easy to forget that the Right was generally considered to be ahead on the internet until about 2003.   Opposition to the Clinton administration resulted in a number of popular websites, such as Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Free Republic and Towhall.   And while it is ideologically opaque now, the Drudge Report was generally thought to be right-of-center at the time. 

For quite some time, those sites dominated the political landscape.  But, with the exception of Townhall, they never really evolved.  While left of center magazines, online media outlets, advocacy organizations and and think tanks embraced the new media, the legacy Rightospere remained resolutely devoted to its Web 1.0 model.

It wasn't until 2003, when the Progressive blogs really found their voice over unifying grievances like the Iraq war, specific political narratives, and clear movement leaders like Howard Dean.  But when the 2004 election ended, the online Left continued to grow.   And why not?  After all, like the Right in the 1990s, they had  "an axe to grind, and plenty of fury to turn the wheel."

Today, the Leftosphere is the dominant public channel for political communication for the onine Left...but is that also true of the Rightosphere?  I'm not sure.  Take a look at the following Alexa chart of traffic to various legacy Rightosphere sites compared against Daily Kos.  

While Alexa is far from a perfect measurement, this certainly suggests the legacy Rightosphere is, at least, competitive.   But the top right-of-center blogs do not do so well.

Based on a few conversations I've had with people who have looked into online consumption patterns on the Right, I think it's very possible that the online Right has two distinct cultures: one that evolved into the new media culture, and one that never made the transition out of the 1990's internet culture.

• The Web 2.0 Right has evolved into the new media age.   They read blogs routinely, and may also use social media, social networking and bookmarking tools.  They are comfortable with, even participants in, the social, collaborative media.
• The Web 1.0 Right, however, is still operating in a one-way world - an online news media that does not really encourage dynamic online activism, collaboration or engagement with the news.  This audience is getting some news...and that's it.  The engagement process ends there.

That is only a hypothesis, at this point and I would be interested in seeing more data on internet consumption patterns on the Right.   If that's the case, though, we ought to start thinking about how we bring the Web 1.0 Right into a more dynamic, collaborative Web 2.0 Rightosphere.

How can you tell you're losing the fight for the media narrative?  Here's one example.  After month's of criticism about the many years of racism, segregationism, anti-Americanism and vile rhetoric from Obama's mentors and spiritual advisors, Obama resigned from his church.  So, what elements of that made it into the New York Times headline?

Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church

The story is becoming more about Obama being criticized (a personal story) than about the fringe-radical intellectual culture out of which Obama grew (a policy story). 

Among Republicans, the Ron Paul campaign inspired the most remarkable grassroots campaign activity in 2008.  In the past, such campaigns have had a significant impact on the political landscape, signaling the emergence of a new movement, a maturing constituency, a campaigning innovation or a future political star.  

In the case of Ron Paul, though, I'm not sure any of this will obtain.  There are a few reasons for this.

• No Coherent Coalition:  The Ron Paul campaign attracted a grab-bag of different agendas, from hardcore libertarians to alienated Republicans to Buchananite nationalists/cultural conservatives to anti-war liberals.   This is not a coalition that stays together. 

• The Protest Vote: that coalition was not brought together by a candidate with whom they agreed broadly.  It was brought together because, wherever he stood on other issues, Ron Paul pushed 1 or 2 passion buttons for each group.  Ron Paul was a protest vote.  However, protest voters tend to be bee-sting voters: they vote once, but then fall away.

• Independent Innovation: The tremendous fundraising and mobilizing success Paul's campaign experienced largely occurred independently.  The campaign was actually taken by surprise to a great extent.  To their credit, they embraced it.  However, while the idea of distributed activism is a valuable concept for other campaign's to understand and use, the actual grassroots energy is not something that a campaign apparatus can reproduce.  That is a perfect storm product, requiring a unique candidate and good timing.

• Candidate Flaws: Ron Paul was always a far worse candidate than his supporters wanted him to be.  In theory, he was a Republican who actively supported constitutionally limited government.  In practice, he was also partly a crank (North American Union, Gold Standard) who talked about smaller government, but had no real "here to there" plan for accomplishing it, and at least tacitly tolerated racism being put out under his name. 

But hey, he raised a lot of money and got a lot of support, right?  Well, sure.  And perhaps that's all he was really after in the first place. I had heard very early on that Ron Paul wasn't running for President to win, but to build his email list and bank account. Better to do that by running for President than letting Lew Rockwell ghostwrite racist tracts, I suppose.   But, as Jim Henley writes, Ron Paul didn't just fail to win, he failed to have an important impact.

Paul failed to win any states, to move the GOP debate in his direction, to accrue significant delegates or to leverage his fund-raising into a third-party run. And word is he’s staying quiet about endorsing an independent because he doesn’t want the Congressional GOP leadership to strip him of committee assignments come the fall. Paul accomplished the one thing he’s always been good at: using political appeals to get people to send money. I don’t feel freer.

The one potential exception to this is the largely under-the-radar effort by many Ron Paul supporters to join and take over local GOP organizations.  Whether the Right-of-center elements of the Paul coalition will be successful remains to be seen - bee sting voters might also be bee sting activists - but it looks now like this is the only area where the Paul campaign might possibly have a lasting impact on the Right. 

It seems to me there are three main factions within the Republican Party, and while we can see strengths and weaknesses in each of them, the future of the Right is far from clear.

1. Progressive Republicans (aka: Teddy Roosevelt Republicans) - These are the Republicans who may be solid allies on many issues, but who also seem to want a Great Leader who can do Big Things. They are Crusader Conservatives - generally reliable on limited government, but willing to go off on Big Government crusades.

   Illustrative Quote: "The object of government is the welfare of the people," (Teddy Roosevelt)

2. Goldwater Republicans - These Republicans vote for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense; they may have various opinions on social issues, but they subsume those views to the goal at hand: limiting government

   Illustrative Quote: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." (Goldwater

3. Bush Republicans - these voters may or may not care about limited government, but they're willing to accept Big Government, so long as the government does socially conservative things. (See: Mike Huckabee, Christian Democracy)

   Illustrative Quote: "Prayers can help, and so can the government." - President Bush, February 6, 2008

Of those mentioned, many have fallen into a fourth camp - Status Quo Republicans. They are mostly focused on winning that next election and consolidating their own power.

So, where does the Right stand?

At this point, the Progressive Republicans are in the drivers seat - partly because John McCain (a Progressive Republican) has the Republican nomination, and partly because a charismatic figure with some Big Ideas beats factions with no attention-grabbing ideas. At this point, no other faction has the policy ideas and grassroots support to challenge for leadership. But that position can only be maintained by a charismatic leader for a short time. It is not sustainable, At some point, the other coalitions will see to fill the core policy vacuums McCain may leave open.

The Bush Republicans are doing badly right now - you've all seen the polling - but the social conservative/evangelical base is still strong (as evidenced by the out-of-nowhere Huckabee campaign) They're not gone yet, and they could make a quick comeback with a charismatic candidate. Like, you know, Mike Huckabee. If they do that, it will mark the GOP's turn towards the European Christian Democracy style of political parties.

Finally, there are the Goldwater Republicans. They have been relegated to lesser roles, or turned into Status Quo Republicans. While a few still make appropriate noises on the Hill, a lack of publicly appealing, political viable ideas for limiting government has rendered them mostly impotent. The Goldwater Republicans have the greatest opportunity, however, because it is they who will have the most compelling arguments against Democratic and/or McCain poliices, and it is they who will need to begin driving a narrative about the impact of Big Government poicy. If they do it well, they will have a chance to reassert the Goldwater brand. If they don't, they will probably become marginalized.

It's impossible to tell which of these factions will dominate. Your predictions are welcomed.

In a story illustrative of the larger problem the Right has, the LA Times says "McCain's Web gap is showing".  Of course, the cyclical enthusiasm dynamic explains a great deal of this, and Democratic strength with young voters explains a good bit more.  But not all of it...

The presumed Republican presidential nominee is taking a serious drubbing on YouTube, the most popular video-sharing service on the Internet and the virtual town square for millions of new young voters.

Search "John McCain" on YouTube and you'll find the latest broadside, by Brave New Films of Culver City, and a lot more that's not good for a candidate who's built his reputation on constancy and authenticity.  [...]

Contrast that with a YouTube search of "Barack Obama." It's a swoon fest, with virtually all of the top entries featuring the Illinois senator at his eloquent, uplifting best. The videos range from the pop-icon worship of Scarlett Johansson and John Legend & Co. in “Yes We Can” (closing in on 13 million views) to a clip of the candidate's speech on race after the explosion over the controversial sermons of his onetime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

There's a simple answer for how to fix this: build a multi-million dollar right-of-center online infrastructure with many companies who do right-of-center digital advocacy, produce strategic messaging and content and hire top blogging and video production talent so that the talent can do this sort of thing full time.

I only said the answer was simple.  Execution is complicated.

The Right invests virtually nothing in genuinely good, strategic online infrastructure, but Republicans constantly wonder why they aren't this effective online.   

Democratic campaigns, committtees and outside organizations invest a lot of money in genuinely smart online efforts, while Republicans make relatively small investments in  the same.  And then the Right wonders why the Left rakes in tens of millions every month, while the Right struggles, raising far less.

There's a causal relationship there. 

The Leftosphere has long (and correctly) been frustrated over the media tendency to adhere to narratives and ignore contradictory evidence.  See the Daily Howler's incomparable archives or the late, sorely missed Spinsanity for examples from the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.  However, this media problem is not unique to the Left.  They have just been more aggressive at exposing and fighting back against it online and in ways that are likely to impact media coverage. 

Unfortunately, while the Right has a long, and sometimes effective, tradition of media criticism, it has never really evolved that media monitoring apparatus for the new media and social media age.  I'll have more to say about that in time. 

In the meantime, with Obama largely getting the glowing, Messiah treatment from the media, the Right has some current Narrative VS Evidence problems.  

• Obama is a silver-tongued orator...but he's challenging President Bush for supremacy in the rhetorical gaffes department. 
• Obama is a different kind of politician, rejecting the corruption and depravity of modern politics...but he certainly does have quite a lot of rather questionable associations.
• Obama is opposed to the corrupting influence of money...but he seems awfully willing to distribute earmarks to his pastor, and even his own wife.

These narratives have taken hold, and despite evidence to the contrary, it's very difficult to break them without organized emphasis on a counter-story that is consistent and sustained.  The Right does not have the online infrastructure to do that well yet.

Polls suggest the economy is a dominant issue for voters in 2008, and Republicans are faring badly among voters in this current populist phase.  The public just doesn't trust Republicans in general; and specifically, the public doesn't find the Republican's basic economic message as compelling as the Democrat's more populist economic message.

Oddly, according to Associated Press polling in April, that may or may not have an impact on actual voting.

About two-thirds of those making under $100,000 annually attach extreme importance to the economy, as do nearly six in 10 earning more. Six in 10 Republicans and three-quarters of Democrats do the same.

Yet those who have become extremely concerned about the economy since last fall show no significant difference from everyone else in backing a presidential candidate. Both groups divide about evenly between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, and between McCain and the other Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In addition, those who expressed most concern about their personal financial situations have done just what those less concerned have done — they are a bit likelier to back McCain now than they were to prefer a Republican candidate in last November's AP-Yahoo News poll.

 I'm not sure what, if anything, that means for Republican candidates in 2008.  To some extent, asking people to state preferences and intensity this early is a pretty imprecise exercise.  But another data point suggests the economy may still be a salvageable story for Republicans.  Via Greg Mankiw, a chart of Real GDP over the past 10 years.

There's been a great deal of discussion over the past few weeks over the miserable state of the the Right, the Republican Party, and conservatism (a Venn diagram is probably in order here to show the relationships and intersections of those three groups). See George Packer, Fred Thompson, James Joyner, Andrew Sullivan, Ezra Klein, Stephen Bainbridge, Arnold Kling and Megan McArdle (twice). 

I'm sure I'll have a great deal more to say on this subject at The Next Right.   In the meantime, while I cannot identify a specific point of failure, I can pretty easily summarize the journey to failure in just two quotes.

From Ronald Reagan:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

To Rick Santorum:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. ... This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

MSNBC's First Read acknowledges the truth...

The left-wing blogosphere is MUCH more powerful than what you see on the right this cycle and it reminds us of the advantage Bush had in '04. While we all know about that so-called right-wing voice machine, don’t forget that there is now a left-wing noise machine (on the internet) as well. And it has found its voice.

The Politico's Ben Smith points to the media bulldozing on the Left and says "It's just a small glimpse, I think, of the level of heat the media is going to take in the general election, and John McCain doesn't seem to have any equivalent." That's true. The Right has what might informally be called a "noise machine", but it is a product of the time in which it was created: the 70's, 80's and 90's. It has never really evolved. Meanwhile, the Left - in particular, the Progressives - have built a very powerful, very effective noise machine and they have built it both online and off. There are many cultivated (funded, strategic) elements to it, but the base - the underlying elements that make the cultivated, funded elements really effective - is basically organic.

The Right, I fear, is going to try to reproduce those organic elements through cultivation - or, worse, by funding the existing infrastructure to "do something online" - and they're going to fail. Miserably. I'd be glad to change my mind about this, but almost everything I've seen suggests that the Right just doesn't understand why the Left has been successful at this, so they're throwing their resources at misguided projects.

Meanwhile, the Leftosphere continues to have an impact, with the Leftroots effectively (and regularly) pressuring politicians and candidates to adopt the agenda they create and promote. So why - with very rare exceptions - can't the Rightosphere do that? Fundamentally, the Rightosphere can't do that (effectively) because the Right doesn't have the gravitational pull to draw candidates to its agenda. The Left has a well-organized blogosphere that can do three things for Progressive candidates:

1. Messaging - between Moveon.org, the blogs and the many issue-advocacy outfits, the Leftosphere has a very powerful communication mechanism for candidates and issues. They have messaging and distribution capacity and it is well-coordinated with advocacy and awareness elements of their coalition.
2. Money - the Presidential money is high-profile and not every candidate gets a lot of online money, but the Leftroots can move significant sums of money to the challengers that hit the right notes, make the right friends, and jump into the hot progressive issues. They have succeeded in tapping the long tail to move fundraising - and the financial incentive machine - outside of the establishment channels.
3. Mobilization - the Progressives are passionate, energized, over their ideas. They have a story they're excited about, they have effectively tied their stories together and they're tightly wedded to the (dangerous) tactic of populism. They're unified around that mission, so they can and do mobilize people. Again, that moves significant power outside the traditional channels.

The Leftroots can deliver messaging, money and mobilization, so Democratic candidates become path-dependent on them. They have sufficient power to move politicians to their ideas. The Right does not. Meanwhile, what is the Right passionate about right now? Not much.

To build an online infrastructure as effective as the Leftosphere, the Right must find its own story to tell - an organic story, relevant to current grievances, with politically viable solutions - about which people can be passionate, around which a coalition can rally. The Right can accomplish the same thing, but it cannot start on third base. The Right has to develop the gravitational pull before it tries to pull the political system into its orbit. That may be complicated, but I don't believe it is actually difficult to do.

However, it is not something that can be done simply by funding more of the same Old Guards. If the Right is to do something about the current long train of abuses and bad government, it must, to borrow from the Declaration of Independence, "provide new Guards".