Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

The Useless Technology vs. Message Debate

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 10:53
in

Over the last few days, our diaries here at TNR have been consumed by discussions of how to valuate technology versus message in rebuilding the GOP. Stephen Gordon has a good post on this here. And over at RedState, Leon Wolf chimes in with the following:

In the wake of Barack Obama’s astounding fundraising success in 2007-2008, which was largely fueled by an unprecedented web operation that collected millions of active donors and volunteers, many Republican strategists have begun to realize that the current state of web operations on the right is simply not acceptable if the GOP is going to be competitive in elections going forward. New websites are springing up left and right in an attempt to solve this problem, and established web sites and online activists have dedicated countless hours, posts, and emails in the last several weeks to navelgazing over this issue. I tend to think that much of this misses the point entirely.

Don’t get me wrong; our web operation is clearly and unacceptably behind the left’s, and these discussions need to be had or we risk perpetual minority status. However, I am sorry to say that our enfeebled efforts are not going to reach the needed levels just because our candidates master the use of Twitter. You see, an effective web operation only links people as they are; it does not change people into something they are not. And the bottom line is that, more than having been beaten by a superior operation, we were beaten by people who were more motivated and willing to get involved and donate than we were. Obama’s web operation was just a tool by which he took advantage of a pre-existing resource.

All of this is spot on and Leon's entire post is well worth appreciating in full. However, there is one nagging annoyance I've had since the election that I'm going to have to call out, and that is when people focused on ideas or message start devaluing and even belittling the importance of technology or infrastructure. As in, Sure that tech stuff is important. But it doesn't matter until we get our message straight / return to our principles / kick out the religious right / kick out the fiscal right.

The idea that what a party stands for is more important than the tools it uses is so blindlingly obvious that I wonder exactly why people feel compelled to throw it in our faces once we mention there we also face key infrastructure challenges, like Barack Obama's 13 million email addreses or half a billion raised online. I've been banging the technology drum for a while, and not even I disagree with the primacy of ideas. Not even guys like Eric Odom or Michael Patrick Leahy who have been leading the charge on conservative adoption of Web 2.0 would disagree. 

The notion that there are tons of people out there saying you can rebuild the party only with technology, infrastructure, and tactics is a straw man. No one is arguing this. Leon's metaphor about fertile ground is something I live everyday as a political consultant -- the same strategies applied to issues where there is already a kernel of motivation and enthusiasm always yield explosively more effective results. My advice to people who come to me where that enthusiast base may be elusive is always the same: try to find it first, before implementing a technology strategy.

There is no basic disagreement here, but conservatives are balkanizing into "ideas" or "tech" camps needlessly. Because of the magnitude of the GOP loss, there is an unfortunate sense that we don't know where to begin. Fixing any one thing would not have stemmed the tide. That's why we need to at least try to fix everything starting now. That means revamping our ideas and rebuilding our infrastructure. These are not mutually exclusive. Those arguing that we need to do one before we do the other, or at the expense of the other, are part of the problem.

The other day, I argued strongly for a purpose-driven use of technology in which everything is subordinate to political goals like gaining seats in Congress, or Tim Goddard's goal of flipping state legislatures, or finding good candidates. A lot of the noise lately has been around driving conservative adoption of tools like Twitter, and this may be what people like Leon are responding to, but that is not the message I have been delivering, nor is it the message of Rebuild the Party.

At the end of the day, however, I think the smartest, most efficient way to accomplish these goals is through technology. I have to lodge a disagreement with Stephen Gordon. Technology is just "one of many" tools. It is the primary tool in the 21st century. Sure, it may not be any one technology, like Twitter. It may not be out-of-the-box tools like Joomla implementations or Ning networks. It's going to require programmers who can build tools that don't already exist -- and not wasting time building stuff like the "conservative version" of Facebook or YouTube because Silicon Valley is largely liberal. The technology toolbox itself is as vast as the traditional campaign toolbox.

Attacking technology as a way to rebuild the party misses the point in another way. It assumes that technology is just a tool -- that it doesn't change the dynamics of the political process itself. And that it can't be an instrument in nudging along the kind of change we all want on the issues and ideas front.

Were MoveOn.org and the netroots primarily about technology or ideology? The answer is both. They were instruments for the ideological "reformation" of the party that just happened to use technology. They were both successful because they tied technology to sense of political purpose, direction, and action. I understand we won't "be like" the left, but this is a very useful lesson for the right.

Without technology, the Democrats' path to power would have looked very, very different. Their purpose-driven use of technology sped up the process of giving the grassroots an ownership stake within the party and feeling like they could safely get involved in official Democratic politics again. Right now, there is a poisonous divide between the official Republican Party and the grassroots. This is the inevitable consequence of the bailouts, spending, and Medicare Part D and probably couldn't be any other way after eight years in the White House. But over the next few years, it has to be a goal to get the grassroots looped back into the party and in fact get them in the drivers' seat shaping the ideas and priorities of the party. For an opposition to be effective, it must be united. This means breaking down or rendering irrelevant the elitist mindset of the political class that divides it from the grassroots, and working as one united Republican Party in the think tanks, on the ground, and online to be an effective foil to the Obama Administration.

Technology will play the critical role in this process. And this is where stuff like Twitter actually matters in a political sense. It was a Republican, John Culberson, who was the first member of Congress to use Twitter as it was meant to be used -- as a personal communications medium. More and more members of the RNC are joining Twitter. They aren't just using a cool tech toy -- they're getting plugged into an instantaneous feedback loop where the grassroots can share their concerns and priorities in real time. Imagine what would happen if a Congressman actually had to answer constituent phone calls on the bailout, and you get a sense of the environment politicians enter once they start using technology the right way. Except those "constituent phone calls" a/k/a e-mails or Twitter DMs are less likely to be argumentative because you know the target it actually listening.

As we point out at the end of the Rebuild the Party plan, technology can be a way to reinforce the party's core principles of trusting the people. If we build a system in which political power can projected up, and not just down, within the party, the party itself will become more responsive to the millions of Republicans clamoring for a return to conservative principles just as the Democratic Party became more responsive to its liberal base in the last few years because of technology.

Ideological reformation cannot happen in a vacuum. We can't just cloister ourselves in a room and come up with new principles and expect people to adopt them. To the extent we already know what the principles are, the most effective mechanism for change is to elect as our leaders people who value those principles. In that fight, new infrastructure matters and serves as a handmaiden to electing principled leaders. And not just infrastructure, but technology specifically. If our primary communications mediums are still about the few broadcasting to the many, that won't promote real bottom-up participation in the process, and entrenched interests will continue to win at the expense of the grassroots.

4.5
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Comments

still...

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:29.

I get what you are saying, but I think what others have noted is that no matter how effective your online efforts become, the (current) face of the party is McCain/Bush/Palin and the issues/policies they represent. You can have all the online discussions about new ideas you want, but until you have an exciting politician, or a politician that puts traditional Republican policies into place, it is not going to work.

I, for example, voted for several Republicans in the last election, but I am not going to donate/volunteer until the party as a whole gets its act together. I don't think Republican leaders are confused about the concerns of voters (less spending) they simply choose not to act on their ideals.

I do agree with you on one point...that the online tools can be used to identify strong candidates, and maybe those candidates can interact with the grassroots. But I think the GOP is in such bad shape that it will take a major shift to fix things. The problem isn't the Republican ideas, it is the Republicans themselves.

Totally agreed

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:36.

But there should be no need to point out that the GOP won't succeed until it has the right ideas / candidates. I'm not sure why people feel the need to restate this argument. It's baffling to me. No one is saying we shouldn't have good candidates or ideas.

What I am arguing for is working the technology track while working the ideas / candidates track at the same time. I'm personally focused on both, as evidenced by my recent post on the stimulus. But once we do have the right the candidate, we need to be prepared to exploit their popularity with the right tactics / tools / infrastructure. We will lose valuable time if we aren't allowed to work on that until we have the ideas locked down airtight.

Politics rarely works that way. You need to be ready for anything.

But . . .

Submitted by Sofie Inkpen on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:55.

what are the "right ideas / candidates"?  Do you mean "right" as in correct or as in conservative?  I'm waiting for the GOP to embrace the right (i.e., conservative) ideas and candidates, which clearly did not happen in the campaign last year.

I see no practical reason why both tracks can't be pursued at the same time, but the GOP needs to prove to conservatives that it is the best vehicle for advancing our ideas and values or it will leave even more of us.  If the party continues moving toward the center, it will have left me and others; we won't have left it.

I consider myself to be a conservative first and a Republican second.  I don't want to invest my time and knowledge of web 2.0 applications (or money) in supporting a party that doesn't represent my values.  I believe that's why some people think the discussion of ideas must come first.

The situation you describe is hopeless

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:15.

I discuss this in the post. Conservative activists feel alienated from the party. They don't want to invest in the party or its infrastructure until it returns to its core principles.

The analysis is correct, but this way of thinking is very damaging to the party long term. The mentality is I won't get involved in the party until it fixes itself. But why not, I will get involved to change the party and save it from itself?

Conservatives have become trapped in a very top-down mentality... they assume the party can just magically change itself from Washington, DC, and only then can grassroots embrace the party once again. They have become very passive, waiting for someone in DC to "show us a sign."

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS, FOLKS.

The way the party changes is if people outside the Beltway create pressure, and organize. The way they do that is with tools. If the existing tools aren't working, new tools are needed.

The Left did not wait for the party to change itself. It created a mechanism and an infrastructure to reward their people and hurt bad actors. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman were the victims of these new tools.

If we wait for someone in Washington DC to signal that we have finally changed and it's ok for conservatives to get involved again, we will be waiting a long, long time.

you're in the republican party

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:10.

it is how the republican party works.

there are relatively violent takeovers of the entire machine, and they happen with regularity.

in retrospect, the democrats appear to be more involved in coalition politics. yet, we hear less from you about how the republicans can more effectively work together. I believe this is because the current faction in charge doesn't work well with any other faction.

It's a somewhat knee-jerk reaction to a tool-centric argument

Submitted by bs on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:05.

I believe what you describe is a response to those who immediately go bottom-up - start with the tools and say "Hey, guys, we have Twitter and Facebook and [name your tool]" - let's use 'em!

As I have posted several times on Redstate, you do not solve a "business" problem (political problem, in this case) by starting with the solution and working up to the problem.  IF the problem was strictly technological, then - maybe.  But we all know that there's more to it than that.  When designing a solution to a problem, you start with the high-level design.  What are we trying to do?  How do we need to do it?  If the answer to "what are we trying to do" is technology-centric, then yeah, start with the technology and tools.  But the answer really should be something more like "communicate better" or "enable activists to engage on the ground more effectively" or something that's related to the core problem.

The "right ideas/right candidates" thing is taking "top down" too far.  Yeah, sure, we need those things - that's a given, but let's go down one more layer and start there.

It's all about architecture.

Ideas

Submitted by rickfisk on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:18.

It only baffles you Patrick that the ideas question needs to be restated because the bulk of the neoconservative pundits in the GOP continually mock people who espouse actual conservatism rather than the socialist pap that passes for conservatism.

Ron Paul beat his opponents in tech because his ideas and actions were truly conservative.

This entire debate is absurd. Nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room. Neocons were and are wrong about perpetual war and civil liberties Nobody finds that credible. The GOP hasn't been decimated because it isn't using technology. The GOP has been decimated because it openly mocks the constitution in action and deed.

If you people don't start taking what Ron Paul has accomplished seriously, then you will just become more irrelevant. The Patriot act is flat out wrong. "Enemy combattant" definitions - that Reagan refused to endorse in 1986 - are gross violations of moral decency and the constitution.

The Iraq war is immoral and unconstitutional. So is Afghanistan, Korea, Somalia, Kosovo and Viet Nam.

The federal reserve is responsible for our declining dollar and bad economy.

The gold standard is in the constitution yet mocked by most so-called conservatives.

You don't need any new ideas. "New Ideas" is code for "how do we re-package perpetual war and beligerence toward the constitution and still get elected?"

 

Embrace the Ron Paul

Submitted by Undertoad on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 10:20.

Embrace the Ron Paul uber-Constitutional approach as the base party philosophy?

 

YES WE CAN break 6% in uncontested primaries!

 

Typical

Submitted by rickfisk on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 14:14.

This is exactly why you people are doomed to failure. You imply that adhering to the constitution strictly is Nazi-like. You PREFER socialism and military interventionism and mock the constitution. Nobody wants what you're selling except for the neoconservative leftists who took over the party anbd ruined it. The only candidate who brought new blood into the GOP was Ron Paul. So continue to mock him at your own peril.

I agree with you, Patrick,

Submitted by Lightfinger on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:59.

I agree with you, Patrick, but we I think we should separate the what tools debate from the policy debate in a bit clearer terms for everyone. Otherwise, you get exactly what you are describing - the tech vs policy fight.

Right now, we are getting the tech sites up and going so they are going to be focused upon, but it is what all those tech sites do that is really important for the long term. Like I've said here and on my blog, having all the RNC members have Twitter accounts is one thing, getting them to use them as a means of real communication is something else that goes beyond the 'what tool do we use' base. I think that's what you are pointing out here, so correct me if I am mistaken.

Same here

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 14:38.

The tech vs policy debate is a bit overblown on both sides.

The infrastructure has to be there.  The policy will come along in time.

Some issues will never be settled.  With others, there will be workable solutions to be found.

The real change has yet to come, but it's already started. 

Great post, Pat.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:00.

 But even if every word was taken as gospel, it wouldn't be enough to compete with the Left's advantage in its utilization of the Internet over that of the Right, not by a long shot.

Now, true, we could be talking apples and oranges here, you talking about the generic "right", and I am talking about the Republican Party, but as far as I can see, either way, it won't be enough for the three reasons I have enumerated in "The-Rightroots-Needs-Less-Meta-and-More-Purpose" post, namely: The Left can do everything you are suggesting the Rebuild the Party do. They are doing it now, and they can do it better. The Left is more Internet savvy because it is demographically younger than the Right and is more experienced in the application of the Internet. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Republican Party is presently out of power and is therefore in the right position to make these kinds of large structural changes whereas the Democratic Party cannot.

Please note, I am not suggesting that anyone not use Twitter or any other SNS, but taken alone, without a new party structure designed to take full advantage of the communicative power of the Internet, will not be enough to compete with the Left to make a significant difference in the upcoming 2010 Congressional elections.

The way I see it, the major flaw with the suggestions made in Rebuilding the Party is that it assumes the Left is standing still and is not cyberly growing as well.

ex animo


 

davidfarrar

good point

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:11.

I don't think the fact that the left is younger gets enough attention as it should... that is going to be a major obstacle going forward. One, it will be harder for the right to recruit people to work on internet and tech projects because they have a smaller pool to draw from, and two, you have to contend with the older GOP traditionalists that are very wary of change.

third: it is mostly the young who have money to donate

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:11.

and free time.

combine that with Republican areas tending to have more children, and you get much more of a burden per volunteer.

the young dont have more money

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:37.

compared to older people. i would say (pre-obama) republicans had more donors, and the dems had fewer, wealthier donors. with obama, younger people were willing to give $25 or $50, but it will be a while before you get another candidate on either side that can find millions of people willing to donate to a politician.

overall i wonder about the outreach to young people from republicans...these are people that have seen one president (Bush) and a corrupt congress (both parties) and whatever goodwill the republicans had built up with Reagan and in the 90s is gone. time to start from scratch and lose the "just trust us" strategies.

umm... that's not what our free market says

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:38.

the 18-25 age braket is golden for retailers. it's because they've got more free money to spend, per capita.

so

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 15:44.

you are comparing iPods and clothes to houses and vacation homes? My comment was more of an "older people make more money" so they have more to donate. I guess you are saying younger people have more disposable income (no houses, car payments) so they can donate, which makes sense. i don't see many politicians relying on that group in the future though.

it's the only way to win.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 15:48.

volunteers and more money? can't be beat!

everyone's going to dissect Obama's strategy, and then we'll get to see who can win next Congressional. I'm betting the democrats, they've got the better strategists (rumsfeld v.s. clark -- who do you want on your side?)

You are totally wrong on the money front

Submitted by bs on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 21:36.

Look here .  In no income bracket is the under 25 crowd the largest population.  Highest disposable income skews towards the middle of the age range (approx. 35-55).

Time?  You do have a point on that one.

It's about neither money nor time

Submitted by Plumb Bob on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 12:31.

It's about cultural mindspace.

The problem faced by the conservative movement is demographic. The next wave of voters will be the nation's third generation of students educated in classrooms slanted toward the left, entertained by music, movies, and TV owned by the left, informed by news sources driven by the left. These sources have leached out of the culture all the principles underlying liberty's foundation. Today as never before, when a young voters hears "we," he/she thinks "the government." When he hears "helping the poor," he thinks "affirmative action." When he hears "business," he thinks "Nazis," "evil corportaions," and "destroying the planet." And so on.

Not only conservatism, but the very notions of individual liberty and true self-government, are doomed unless the mindspace of the young is invaded and inverted -- and that means capturing education and media.

The left has been targeting education for a century, and media for almost 5 decades. If we somehow managed to institute vouchers nationwide tomorrow, the education dynamic would change quickly but the effect would not be felt for at least 20 years.

IPods and Twitter are just tools. The issue is not the tools, but who's using them, and what they think. If anybody thinks that a short-term, successful conversion of conservatism to good tools and a consistent message will overturn the current wave for anything but a short time, they're whistling Dixie. Those things may have a helpful short-term effect, but the real problem is a lot more fundamental, and has to be addressed long-term, in a strategy that will last past any one person's lifetime.

Certainly the problem with brain-damaged youth...

Submitted by bs on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 15:54.

 ...is due to the leftist education system to which you refer.  I've made that point in other venues frequently.  Unfortunately, that is a problem that (as you plainly state) will not be solved any time soon.  Fixing the political skew of the education system is a nut that will be difficult to crack.

I don't view the GOP's more effective use of technology as a way to win back scores of youth votes.  It may help to some small degree, but not massively.  It's my belief that there will always be a core percentage of the youth vote that the GOP will get - I personally think the Left's share peaked out this year.  Frankly, what I find interesting is how the vote moves right with age, and my question (and I have seen no research on this) is whether that is a dynamic that has always been true, or if it's simply a point-in-time situation that reflects the politics over the last 50-75 years.

The use of technology is to recapture the vote overall, and not just for youth, even though that aspect has been the focus of much media attention.

because GE, which owns most of the major networks

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/05/2009 - 10:30.

is JUST SO FUCKING happy to tell us all about the radiation and heavy metal poisoning that occurred over the last month.

Git along now, you conspiracy theorist. Towns are dying, and you're concerned about the LIBERAL media?

I Disagree

Submitted by mondaymorningclacker on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:19.

Patrick writes:

All of this is spot on and Leon's entire post is well worth appreciating in full. However, there is one nagging annoyance I've had since the election that I'm going to have to call out, and that is when people focused on ideas or message start devaluing and even belittling the importance of technology or infrastructure. As in, Sure that tech stuff is important. But it doesn't matter until we get our message straight / return to our principles / kick out the religious right / kick out the fiscal right.

The idea that what a party stands for is more important than the tools it uses is so blindlingly obvious that I wonder exactly why people feel compelled to throw it in our faces once we mention there we also face key infrastructure challenges, like Barack Obama's 13 million email addreses or half a billion raised online. I've been banging the technology drum for a while, and not even I disagree with the primacy of ideas. Not even guys like Eric Odom or Michael Patrick Leahy who have been leading the charge on conservative adoption of Web 2.0 would disagree. 

The notion that there are tons of people out there saying you can rebuild the party only with technology, infrastructure, and tactics is a straw man. No one is arguing this (emphasis mine).

I am one of the people proudly jumping up and down screaming "New ideas first! New ideas first! New ideas first!"

But "New ideas first!" is not blindingly obvious and there ARE tons of people out there saying that you can rebuild the party ONLY with technology, infrasctrucute and tactics.

How else can anyone explain how the GOP leadership that helped take us over the public relations cliff - Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, the guys and girls at NRO, all the wannabe campaign operatives and William Kristol (to name but a few) have all KEPT their perches of power and influence in the Republican Party after the DISASTER of the last two election cycles?

These people (and their handlers and hangers-on) are all now arguing, "It wasn't our fault. It wasn't us and our 20th century ideas. Of course we can be a angry white man's party and survive. All we need is new technology, infrastructure and tactics to sell our message better!"

People at the Next Right might understand that "New Ideas First" is the right way to go, but the people who STILL make the decisions in the Republican Party (aka who cut the checks) don't. They simply can't. And never will.

And until the grassroots and the young agents of change in the Republican Party are willing to stand up, name names and organize, the current entrenched Republican leadership never will.

My two cents.

Don't forget the culture

Submitted by ebohnet on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:20.

I'd like to suggest another, longer term use of technology for conservative grassroots: influencing the culture. Right now the Left controls nearly all of the institutions that influence the national culture: public schools, universities, Hollywood, "mainstream" news media, zoos, museums, etc. All these promote the agenda that free market capitalism oppresses the poor and destroys the environment, that religious beliefs are backwards and bigoted relics of the past that shouldn't be taken seriously, that America is a racist society with a domineering foreign policy, etc. Conservative information is available, but you have to affirmatively seek it out: talk radio, churches, conservative blogs, a few religious schools and colleges, and other explicitly conservative or Christian organizations. Talk radio provided a big boost in the 1990's because it finally provided conservatives with a convenient way to get news from a conservative perspective. Conservative blogs have added another great source of news. But someone who is not overtly political or conservative isn't going to start listening to Rush Limbaugh or reading National Review.

One big problem has been economies of scale - the left became dominant by taking over longstanding institutions, and it is a daunting task to take back control of a major university, newspaper, TV network, etc. Particularly when the sources of new employees are heavily influenced by liberal university programs. Conservatives by nature are far less "political" than liberals, and are unlikely to suddenly swarm into the journalism or education professions. But the Internet and other new technologies should provide means for a relatively small number of conservatives to get conservative values back into the popular culture.

Improving our campaign tactics and message are important in the short term, but in the long run conservatism is dead if it doesn't re-assert itself in the culture.

wow

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 13:28.

so now zoos are liberal?

You are right....no one that is not conservative is going to listen to rush limbaugh. only people that want to be assured of their rigid beliefs listen to him, and that will never change. Your point is self-defeating...conservatism (as you describe it) cannot reassert itself in the culture because the "conservative" culture is anti-mainstream media, anti-hollywood (values!), anti-education (those darn elitists with their MBAs and PHds), and now, apparantly, anti-zoo. Unfortunately, the fervor of the far right has given true conservatism a bad name, but being the most vocal wing of the party, it might stay that way for a long time.

yes, zoos are liberal (or at least mine is)

Submitted by ebohnet on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:12.

Perhaps I'm being too general since I have not been to a large sample of zoos. But I do know that our local zoo is heavily polluted by left-wing environmentalist messages about how humans generally and Americans particularly are destroying the environment, using too many resources, driving cuddly animals to extinction, etc. We love going to watch the animals, but find it much more enjoyable to ignore most of the accompanying displays, videos, "interactive" games, narrations, etc. 

this extinction period promises to prove most interesting

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:14.

I wonder if mankind shall survive?

Would you cry if we killed all the cows on the planet? [serious question due to methane emissions and overall wastefulness of their meat]

yes, i would cry

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:42.

i love steak.

i dont think information about pollution and exctinction is "liberal"...if you don't agree with it that is fine and it shouldnt be shoved down your throat. but in the context of a zoo (preservation, using the funds to save rare animals and wildlife preserves) it seems to make sense and some people are just overly offended when confronted with differing opinions.

truedat.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:53.

I love steak, though I never seem to be able to afford it... (steak a month, not steak a supper person here)

sales!

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 15:40.

you have to go to the grocery every day and wait until something is on sale. then, stock up! although we don't freeze meat very often (elitist husband doesnt like to freeze steak)

 

not worth my time.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 15:44.

I buy from costco, once a month, and get what the grocery store charges $66.00 for $25.00. And it's superhigh quality too.

besides, with a car only once a month, i only get a grill then, too. so it's all good. ;-)

French fries for supper tonight! Yum! (one of these days, lomo saltado)

Same here

Submitted by bs on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 15:57.

The "Living World" exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo is a wall-to-wall liberal paradise of environmentalist crapola.  The signage throughout the zoo trends that way, but not as explicitly as that one building's contents. 

Dead on

Submitted by Plumb Bob on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 12:40.

We must win the mindspace of the culture.

The left targeted education a century ago, news 70 years ago, and entertainment 50 years ago. They own the mindspace of the culture; the next generation of voters will be the third generation raised entirely awash in leftist "ideas." The fact that these ideas are vapid and insupportable means nothing to a populace so poorly educated that it thinks a 10-second sound bite constitutes a telling argument.

We must be prepared for a battle that extends beyond our lifetimes. Even if by miracle vouchered education including religious schools were instituted nationwide tomorrow, the effect would not be felt on the culture for at least 20 years, and maybe more like 40. We need absolute revolutions in education, news, entertainment, and law. Without them, we can kiss self-government goodbye forever. Even with them, we probably need to be prepared to kiss it goodbye temporarily.

Technology and a consistent message may win us a few elections in the near term, but a sound strategy that has a chance of resuscitating Western civilization must focus on winning the culture in the long term.

Time for action

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:26.

I have added a link (with a quoation) to your post from: Why Conservatives are losing ground - Call to Dunkirk While primary a religous right movement; given some though it relates directly to all people with conservative values.

The free press is critical to a free society, what we have on TV today does not do justice to conservative issues. The internet can pick up on the MSM failings. That being said, words alone will not provide a revial. We need people who will take action. Prop 8 did pass in California but it took efforts of many different groups who were willing to canvas.

I guess my point is in less than a week confirmation hearing begin; We need to use the technology we have now, Letters, Blogs, Phones, Shoes ... Twitter.

Looking past this week, we need to teach our children! They are the future.

 

 

 

Bingo.

Submitted by Seth on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:44.

Instantaneous feedback loops.

I still think the party can change.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 10:53.

Perhaps I am wrong. But all we have to do is get 168 RNC members to understand why it is so vital to select a leadership that will change the party structure that has been around for a -- well, since its beginning.

But if not and we do find ourselves in a position much like Pat has described, where we have to re-invent the wheel; I would strongly suggest you use your Twitters, diggcons, TOCT, whatever, to consolidate the jurisdiction to your own local Executive Committee seat to your own local Republican Party first, and then grow outward to bigger elections.

Secondly, find out if your seat on your local Executive Committee is vacant. Most have just been recently filled during this past general election, but not all local parties use general elections to fill their seats. If it is filled, go and fill the alternate seat, but start attending your local party meetiings. I am sure once they understand you want to help, they will allow you to upgrade their local party website, or maybe even post one. After that, the sky is the limit, push for change, Twitter for change, do whatever you have to do to bring the party into the Age of the Internet -- just make sure you do while you are sitting in your seat on the Executive Committee of your local county Republican Party.  Offer to hold 30-minite classes before and after every local monthly EXC meeting is a great way to get involved.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Where is the divide again?

Submitted by skyewriter on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 13:30.

"Right now, there is a poisonous divide between the official Republican Party and the grassroots."

 

I guess I wouldn't describe the party divided so much as scattered. Using the word "official" to describe the "right" parts (read that as correct-thinking) of the Republican Party is telling.  Failed ideology cannot be repaired by purpose-driven technology. Many of the people the party relied on (it's base) last year repesent a HUGE discrepancy in income and education between your so-called "official" Republicans and those same working class families. It's fine to all appear to be in the same boat, until the boat hits an iceberg and begins to sink. Only the first class pasengers will get spots in the lifeboats, just as it has always been.

Until you can figure out how to get Nascar fans, NRA members, and "general" Republicans who are unemployed, underpaid and probably can't afford a computer or internet access online, you're just throwing money out the window.

you are correct

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:45.

Essentially the only people that voted for McCain were people that have voted republican all their lives or that earn more than 100k. After losing, women, minorites and young people, the GOP has a small base to build on, one that is increasingly at odds with each other.

the "bigger taxes" people voted for Obama

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 14:53.

250k and up, fwiw.

it was a narrow margin

Submitted by xc1148 on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 15:36.

but my main point was that aside from life-long republicans, rich people worried about their taxes is the only group republicans have left.

Why was Obama's web site effective?

Submitted by lgm on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 16:14.

I think Ruffini has it backwards.  Obama collected more web contributions than McCain because Obama's supporters were people more likely to donate on the web.  McCain supporters were largely older and less educated.  A nicer McCain web site would not have changed that.

Ruffini also is off base saying it's "obvious" that he's interested in ideas first and technology second.  Not this post, and none of the others I've read over the past weeks, have had anything to say about "ideas" except to say Republican ideas are good and Liberal ideas bad.  Oh, and we have to do something about RINOs.

Which brings up (IMHO) one of the things Ruffini really needs to rethink (as opposed to rebrand): the idea of party orthodoxy.  That's not how America used to work.  The best thing that could happen to Republicans is a PUMA type movement that, say, supports radical fiscal conservatism (abolish welfare and social security and the large standing military) but supports abortion righrts and gay marriage (the exact opposite of Tim Ridge).

Culture, message and technology

Submitted by Stand Firm on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 17:07.

I am an older man that lifelong has been a Biblical Christian first, social conservative second, general conservative third and Republican fourth. I never vote for Democrats but sometimes have voted for conservative third party candidates or left certain races blank than to vote blindly Republican. I have made my modest financial donations to specified candidates or interest groups that share my values and general viewpoints rather than to Republican party entities.

I think that ebohnet in the post "Don't forget the Culture" on Jan. 2, 2009 at 12:20 makes the most pertinent comment on this particular blog thread. When I became active in the Right to Life Movement in 1972, six months prior to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, I commented to right-to-life friends that we had two great challenges: (1) Firmly establishing a viable organization, (2) changing the general culture through both spiritual/moral and political efforts. The second point has never been successfully accomplished. Not only does this failure haunt the right-to-life movement, but it haunts both the social conservative movement in general and the wider goals of the conservative political movement and a successful conservative Republican party.

I am glad that there are traditional conservative persons with technological abilities and dedication to advance the overall general traditional and conservative philosophy of life and politics into the national debate. The battle consists of both a principled message and a variety of outlets, including new technologies, to allow that message to gain traction in the national debate and national blood stream.

Okay, can we clear this issue up?

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 20:50.

Assume for the moment the party will have a burning political issue for 2012: no more taxing individual wages as income, only profits. Assume also for the sake of the argument, the party has just nominated a young, energetic presidential candidate who has been championing the cause of jump-starting the economy by keeping more money in the pockets of million and million of ordinary American citizens by not taxing individual wages, while also reducing government spending by reducing taxable income. What can the party do now, in 2009, to best insure victory in 2012 for the cause and for the party's presidential nominee?

ex animo

davidfarrar

Reducing taxable income does not reduce spending...

Submitted by johnson springs on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 22:38.

Can we recognize after 30 years that

...reducing government spending by reducing taxable income.

does not work? It only creates ever larger deficits as spending continues without revenues.

If we are going to reduce the size of the Federal government, we will have to make the case to the voters of the benefits of doing so. It will only be by getting elected to do reduce the size of the government that we will have the mandate to do so.

Starve the beast is a dead letter.

No such thing

Submitted by Progressive Tra... on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 23:29.

There is no such thing as a tax cut without a cut in spending.  What you have there is a tax deferment plan.

---Pete Peterson. 

Wait a minute. Since when has getting elected...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 10:35.

...stopped government spending? You are absolutely correct, reducing income only results in a greater deficit,  but that is a problem that can only be solved through the collectivization (strengthening) of the voice of the electorate through the efficient structural use of the Internet.

One of the lessons we have learned with the Wall Street bailout is that regardless of party affilication or political ideology, Congress will always act to protect its own political interests first rather than the country's. Look at what just happened. Congress virtually destroyed this county's economy and yet in order to limit its own political exposure, it socialized the country's financial institutions and created enormous deficits, all the while not one head has rolled, not one program cancelled, not one political ideology exposed. Our political system has frankly become unassailable at the ballot box through its manipulation by the political class. Without strengthening the voter's voice, our electoral process will become even more meaningless in the future. 

It is also important to point out here that the political elite of both parties will vigorously oppose the strengthening of their own members voices within their own parties through the structural use of the Internet. To do so would cause the membership of both parties to seek the common good for all, a prospect the political class can not afford and still remain in power.

We, the People, have the tool to right this imbalance. All we have to do is overcome the political forces that would oppose the voice of the People from playing its rightful part in our democracy.

 ex animo

 

 

 

 

 davidfarrar

Ruffini wants 2 Internets?

Submitted by artigiano on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 11:44.

It seems Pat wants all our government and party officials plugged into the latest Internet based technology. And for the people at the bottom to express their opinions freely, quickly, and openly on all issues. Then I suppose the people at the top should respond to the expessed will of those at the bottom.

What happens when there are millions more tech savy people on the left of an issue? Seems like Ruffini's prescription would be poll driven politics with no principles. If I am a GOP Congressman I can't change my Twitter and Facebook settings to "Right wing only". I represent everyone who lives in my district not just those who voted for me. What happens when 90% of my feedback is pro-choice, pro-expanded government, pro-amnesty, etc.?

The problem with getting everyone at the top plugged in is that hardly anyone at the bottom is plugged in now. The Web is 90% liberal. GOP pollster Frank Luntz said, "The right controls AM radio, the left controls the Internet. I'd much rather have the Internet."

Easy - just say that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 12:01.

Just dimsiss the people who make inconvenient suggestions as trolls. Or pull a Moe Lane and ban them from further participation, thereby insuring that what you get is just another echo chamber/sandbox, like Redstate.

What Are You Using The Internet For?

Submitted by Allen on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 17:14.

Patrick and much of the tech vanguard have failed to learn one central lesson from the Left. They understood and understand that the Democrat Party was NOT the vehicle to launch a successful political movement. Move ON, Obama, and their community went out of their way to avoid being associated with the Democrat Party because they knew (as conservatives of another generation knew) that generally people do not trust politics, political parties, or politicans.

After his 1964 defeat Barry Goldwater turned don an offer to keep his man in as head of the RNC. More important than keeping control of the Party, he said, was winning elections on conservative principles. The following year, Bill Buckley entered  a no win race for Mayor of New York to test the power of conservative ideas -- the rest is history.

In a recent interview with one of Obama's internet gurus, the guru said the most important outcome of the internet campaign was the ability to talk to millions by e-mail. E-Mail, the old daddy of the internet world. In short we need a message, a cause that millions will join by handing over their e-mails. And ten the movement can communicate and put this online army to work.

One of the members of McCain's online team said that nothing worked as well as Palin's Convention address. Suddenly, online contributions soared and people signed up. Palin gave people a reason to get involved.

We need to concentrate on building a movement. That means using the available technology to help spread a movement. A movement that is not centered on any political party. A movement that represents shared principles and a path to success.

Best comment I've seen

Submitted by Mytheos_Holt on Sat, 01/03/2009 - 17:31.

We are building a movement, not a vote-getting machine. We need to get ideas first and then work on selling them, and doing it through whichever party is more receptive. No further commentary required.