Cult Co.

As a high school, or even college student, did you ever see these flyers all around campus:

Need a Summer job?
Earn up to $500 a week!

Well a friend of mine picked up one of these flyers, called the number on it and started working for them the next week.

The company name was called Vector. They were a sales firm that sold knives door to door. Because when I think about buying knives, I think "I wish someone would show up to my door with sharp instruments and not leave unless I buy something."

The Knives they sold were from a company called Cut Co.

After my friend signed up....we never saw her again.

OK, well maybe not never but for about a year everything she did and said revolved around Cut Co....which we affectionately referred to as Cult Co. for the somewhat obsessive and "unique" people who actually went door to door to sell kitchen cutlery.

This is multilevel marketing at it's best...well at it's most interesting at least.

It is not much different than the brand little old Betty Kitchen partook in to try to recruit 653, not 652, not 651 (a little known fact, Betty Kitchen recruited 647 people, 6 less than her goal...she now has only 4 fingers...capiche?)in order to help re-elect W.

If all companies were run like cut co and all campaigns were run around that model well....I'd never answer my door again.

Argh! See this is what I mean.

Narrowcasting.

Let's disect the word.

Narrow = limited, barely successful

Cast = to mold, or choose actors in a play.

If this is the new wave of the future of political campaigns, then I am afraid for what that future holds. By definition narrowcasting seeks to target very specific people.

What does this do for bringing citizens into the political process? What benefit does this have towards increasing a positive political discourse?

Absolutely none.

This is why our nation is so falsely polarized. The culture gap appears to be much bigger than it is because successful narrowcasting seeks to do just that.

Evil v. Incompetence

James Verini's piece on Salon.com demonstrates yet again the value of organization and synergy within a campaign.

The fact that Bush took the time to learn from his former opponent Al Gore, and structure his groundcampaign in a similar effective fashion, shows the divide between the Bush and Kerry camps.

While Kerry focused almost all of his attention on gathering the best (and most expensive) strategists and raising the most money, he neglected to organize these well paid staffers in an effecient and effective manner.

Have you ever gone out to a resturante? It looks really nice on the outside, you walk in and the tables are all dolled up and the waiters are well dressed. You sit down expecting steller service and remarkable food, what with the amount of time in effort that has obviously gone into the design and presentation.

45 minutes later, your meal still hasn't arrived and finally when it does you are greatly disappointed.

So later that evening, completely unfullfilled, you stop at a 5 guys burger chain. Place your order, step to the left, pay the cashier and get your number. The order taker passes your order down. One person makes your burger to order, the other is managing the fry station, while another ensures all your delectable toppings are exactly where they should be.

From start to finish, you have received the most delicious hamburger you have ever tasted, all in about 10 minutes.

That was the Bush campaign in 2004.

Organized, effecient, and gosh darn, delicious!

I'll take a side of environmental devestation, hold the hypocracy please...oh, make that to go.

So, when do I get my Pink Catillac?

Is the Presidential election now becoming the worlds largest pyramid scheme?

The victory of WWW.Bush in the 2004 election is any indication the answer may be yes.

Move over Mary Kay. Georgie boy wants his pink caddy now.

The GOP's "revolutionary" groundlevel campaign to reelect w in 2004 focused on precincts in Ohio to mobilize a grassroots effort. But it is not grassroots in the sense that it is coming from the people up, it is more top down...like a pyramid marketing scheme used successfully by companies like Amway and Mary Kay.

It is somewhat similar to the pyromarketing strategies we have seen in the recent past with the difference being that in a pyromarketing scheme there is less top down control. The seeds are planted with important influentials and then once the spark is ignited, it takes on almost a life of it's own. With this pyramid model, it is top down so folks in their communities actually have little say in what is going on, while the National Party more or less dictates the message and the tactics.

As Herb Asher, a political science professor from Ohio State noted prior to the election, "if Bush carries Ohio by a slim margin, this type of campaining may be seen as the wave of the future."

As we all know, that is exactly what happened.

But does that necessarily mean that this top down system is any more effective than the decentralized version of grassroots organization that the Dean campaign tapped into?

Without getting into politics, there is something to be said for the following:

1) John Kerry was a weak nominee who had an inconsistant message and an often disorganized campaign
2) Bush was an incumbant president during war time
3) Republicans controlled the Congress
4) In the wake of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, Americans are fearful of change
5) Bush very nearly lost.

The point being, that a weak candidate like Kerry, with an inconsistant message has no business even being that close to beating an incumbat president during war time.

Had this type of tactic worked overwhelmingly in democratic areas against a prominant candidate, perhaps there is something to be said for it then... but to harold something as the "wave of the future" when it has only been mildly successful on one occassion may be a bit of an overstatement.

Take out the middle man

Over and over I hear that the problem with the center is that they lack any motivation. Not in the sense that people in the center are lazy, but more that we lack fervor or any kind of spark to ignite interest.

Despite the fact that most Americans consider themselves to be "moderate."

So how is it that the majority of people associate with a common interest but lack any motivation to express it.

Lack of conflict. The media love conflict, and quite frankly us poor saps who watch it do too.

Our readings about e.newletters and some of the statistics that Jakob Neilson points out, demonstrates the potential such a medium has for a cause, such as the center, who cannot gain the attention of the masses.

Cut out the middle man.

e.newsletters sent directly to your target audience do just that. They say what you want to say directly to who you want it said.

There is no need to rely on the media, or trying to create conflict where none exists merely to get a sound bite.

e.newsletters allow a cause, an interest group, or even a candidate, to go directly to the people and create that spark that can ignite motivation and interest without having to use a middleman.

It is the essence of a pyromarketing campaign and one of the ways the true potential of the Internet can begin to be unlocked.

Great, What am I supposed to do with 40 Subscriptions to Vibe?

The Jakob Neilson article discusses the 127 point critique for an email newsletter.

One extremely vital aspect that perhaps many campaigns overlook is the unsubscribe button.

Never underestimate the vengence of an email reader scorned.

Having a prominantly displayed unsubscribe button allows readers to quickly choose whether or not they want to receive any further communications from the campaign. It also lends an element of credibility, especially if it coincides with a well articulated privacy policy.

Granted, the people who unsubscribe may be people who were not going to vote for you to begin with, but that is not a chance you should be willing to take.

Extra! Extra!

Jakob Nielsen's analysis of The Kerry / Bush Email Newsletters yet again points out how political campaigns fail to truly understand how to use the internet medium properly.

On a smaller level, Todd Caliguire, an unknown candidate for the New Jersey Republican Gubernatorial nomination, used the Email newsletter with a certain effectiveness.

Based on voter input and feedback, the newsletters and press releases sent out by Todd's campaign convinced many on the fence to support his effort.

Nielson mentions a vital point, one that I also believe the Caliguire example demonstrates as well, namely that one of the main points of Internet campaigns is to "energize the party faithful."

In a primary, the rules change a little and your Internet campaign must adapt accordingly. Simply energizing the party faithful does nothing when your opponent(s) are members of the same exact party.

Thus, an effective Email newsletter garners even more importance in primary races. The goal in a primary is not to just energize party voters, but to convince them to vote for you. It is much more about persuasion in the primary than it is mobilization. The Email newsletter is an effective means of accomplishing this.

Todd Caliguire finished 7th out of a field of 7. But he accomplished one of his primary goals. His targeted Email newsletters were sent constantly to Newspaper editors and other members of the local media. As a result, he earned endorsements from two major newspapers over the frontrunners in the race and garnered some ringing quotes from several other papers throughout the campaign. By the end, he was being touted as a "Future Star" within the party and will be set up nicely when and if he decides to run for another office.

I missed it!

Today I celebrated my birthday.

It was a Crazy Game of Poker.

So after learning about this "pyroMarketing" technique, I have now come to realize just how many other products/services this is applicable to and has been applied to already.

Sideways a small film that found it's way into the hearts of critics worldwide, won an Academy Award for screenplay, and racked in over $70 million at the box office.

But perhaps the largest and most successful example of pyromarketing is the online poker industry.

Chris Moneymaker perhaps provided the "spark" after joining a $40 online game and played his way into the 2003 World Poker Championship table, earning him $2.5 million and the title of World Poker Champion.

Using this rags to riches story, online poker soon became a growing industry sparking a popular television show, Celebrity Poker Showdown on Bravo. Now, it is everywhere. The World Series of Poker is on ESPN constantly, how to books are selling millions of copies, and the online poker business sees $151 billion, with a B, in action on any given night.

Burn Mother Burn!

Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is fire, there is heat, where there is heat there is... well, I think you get the picture.

Ideas are like fire. They need a spark to ignite them, and once they do they can spread like wildfire.
In the corporate world what drives an idea from spark phase to full blown inferno is called marketing.

Greg Steilstra's "pyroMarketing" strategy to promote the Christian book "Purpose Driven Life" is a unique example of this. Unique because apparently this book I have never heard of before (come on, be honest, neither did you) is the single most successfull non-fiction hardcover book ever sold in America with nearly 30 million units moved.

By creating an "interconnected social network" of people likely to purchase the book. These are people with similar common bonds.

The Internet has a similar effect as pyroMarketing. Viral emails and web tactics have a similar firestarting capability.

As Malcolm Gladwell discusses in The Tipping Point, this is also how innovative ideas are created. Through an interconnected web of social networking, people create a word of mouth campaign that when put in the hands of certain people, "connectors" and "mavens" can allow that idea to spread like a virus.

Mass media simply cannot produce this effect, it cannot target these people nor can it build such an interconnected network.

"Strategery"

As we discussed Internet strategy it became apparent that there is no real consensus on what is the be all end of an effective online campaign.

Truth be told, much of what one defines as "success" depends on what ones end goal is.

A candidate who has not one shot in hell of winning usually knows that. His goal may be to draw awareness to a specific issue or position himself for a future run at another office.

Mark Warner for instance, finds himself in a unique position. He is a sitting governor, possibly running for Senate in 2006 and simultaneously positioning himself for a run at the presidency in 2008. His ecampaign must be consistent with his current governor site, raise money for a senatorial race, all while positioning himself for his higher calling.

If he has what is viewed to be an "unsuccessful" ecampaign, namely proving he cannot raise the kind of money needed for a Southern Democrat to compete in the 2008 run for the White House, he will destroy his chances of courting the Democratic nomination. However, if he can produces an effective and innovative Internet strategy, he has the potential to increase his name recognition, build his stature, feed his war chest, position himself on issues, and greatly increase his chances for 2008.

A big, hairy, monstrous organism

The Power Of Us: Mass collaboration on the Internet is shaking up business is yet another in a long line of examples demonstrating how creative and innovative use of the Internet can actually have remarkable effects.

The same people that brought you Kazaa file sharing are now allowing their members to share their long distance phone lines via the Internet...saving them millions of dollars in long distance calls, and invoking the fury of the powerful telecommunication industry.

"The nearly 1 billion people online worldwide -- along with their shared knowledge, social contacts, online reputations, computing power, and more -- are rapidly becoming a collective force of unprecedented power. For the first time in human history, mass cooperation across time and space is suddenly economical. "There's a fundamental shift in power happening," says Pierre M. Omidyar, founder and chairman of the online marketplace eBay Inc. (EBAY ) "Everywhere, people are getting together and, using the Internet, disrupting whatever activities they're involved in."

Dr. Dennis Johnson has argued that politics is usually a good 10-15 years behind the rest of the world in terms of technology and innovation. The Internet has the potential to not only narrow that gap, but close it completely.

Creative and effective use of this medium can produce more of what most campaign lack: Time and money. Why many campaigns have been slow in realizing this is somewhat of an anomaly, but the sooner campaigns recognize how to create innovative ways to reach voters through the Internet the too can harness the power of us the way many corporations already have.

White Men Can Jump.

According to the Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet, while only around 2% of Americans donate to political campaigns online, around 24% of people who are considered “online political users” donate to campaigns via the Internet. For the most part these people are:

35-54 year old white males who are well educated and earn over $75,000 a year.

This to me is a disturbing finding.

These are exactly the people who are already invested in the political process. If the Internet is supposed to truly be “revolutionary” it will need to bring more people into the arena.

Part of the problem seems to be that many campaigns focus their fundraising measures on tapping into these existing donors rather than attempting to seek out new participants.

Obviously, this is a difficult trend to reverse because all campaigns have limited time and limited resources and quite frankly it is much easier to buy a list of past supporters and hit them up for more money.

Grassroots and traditional fundraising efforts allow campaigns to cultivate relationships with existing donors and supporters…But, the Internet strategies of these campaigns should then focus on branching out, if they are to truly tap into the full potential of the medium.

If campaigns took more time to develop their Internet strategies, they may find that this will not only allow them to spread the word and gain supporters, but it will bring more people into the process and with that the potential for more donors to hit up for money.

I told you not to get me started

A response to a comment on redistricting

1. First of all, it's Abramowitz.

2. The article You Can't Compete With Voters' Feet fails to mention examples of Independent redistricting commissions, like Arizona. It is tunnel visioned in it's focus only on the party affiliation of the voters within the districts. In other words, it only discussed one aspect of redistricting and it only provided one side of that argument.

3. The main argument for redistricting given by this article is that those who are in favor of it believe it to be "the route to resurrecting competitive elections and resuscitating democracy." This is only one aspect of what redistricting can hope to achieve.

Even if an independent bipartisan redistricting commission proves to do absolutely nothing about increasing the competitiveness of elections it can have a plethora of other positive effects.

1) The commissions, like the one in Arizona, are open, transparent, bipartisan bodies that hold meetings on a regular basis that are open to the public. They encourage citizen participation and promote discourse. On the other end, the way in which redistricting occurs now is closed off from the public, conducted behind the scenes in a completely partisan manner. There is no dialogue created, there is no transparency, and there is little room for compromise or public participation.

2) It will decrease the amount of money spent on some elections. Case in point, the Colorado state legislature races of 2002.
Pollster Jim Laeur discussed at length the effects a 527 group had on a state legislature campaign in Colorado. The 527 group was siphoning money into legislature races in an attempt to buy power. Since it is the legislature that undertakes the task of redrawing districts the party that controls the legislature controls the redistricting process and ultimately wields the power to gerrymander districts favorable to their party. Hence, as Mr. Laeur demonstrated, these tiny little state legislature campaigns in square states I’ve never been to, and other states all around the country, are quickly becoming major political pawns. And with powerful 527 groups popping up, absurd amounts of money are now pouring into them.

It is extremely tunnel visioned to say that just because one article argues that districts are competitive that this means there is no problem with the current system of redistricting.

Even Tony Coelho, former head of the DCCC argued for a new way to undertake redistricting. This is somewhat odd considering you don't get much more "establishment" than an insider like Mr. Coelho and the current system of redistricting benefits the status quo.

His point was very similar to the one Mr. Laeur made, namely:

“If there was a different way to achieve redistricting, one that was completely bipartisan or better yet non-partisan, then we could have not only fair districts, but limit the 527’s desire to target these state legislatures races, and therefore help to take the money and partisanship out of those local races and ultimately the redistricting process.”

Fixing redistricting would have a viral effect that would spread to campaign finance by limited the 527’s, and possibly even the nature of political discourse by taking some of the bitter partisan fighting out of the process.

Sunday Brunch

Food for thought:

After all this talk about goup-think, the varying opinions on the actual import of the Internet, how do you view the Internet?
Is it a place for like minded people to come together? Does it encourage creativity or does this heard mentality stiffle it instead? Some bands have truly taken advantage of Myspace.com and use it as a cheap forum to spread their music.

Can you see a time where local candidates use a similar technique to raise their name ID?

As we have seen, Internet fundraising for political campaigns is becoming the hottest use of the Internet in politics.
Is this actually a positive trend for democracy?

Enjoy your brunch!

now I'm hungry...

The Political Consultant's Online Fundraising Primer 2004
Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet

"According to Zephyr Teachout, Director of Organizing and Outreach at Dean for
America, when campaigns use the Internet to amplify a candidate’s issues, individuals
can receive the particular messages that mean the most to them. And many of
them will respond through contributions.
Speaking at a panel discussion by the Campaign Finance Institute on Money and
Politics in the 2004 Primaries, she said, “As supporters begin to feel engaged in a
campaign, and as donors begin to feel that they own a stake in an organization
or an issue, they are likely to give more frequently and in greater amounts.” She
called the Internet an “intimate medium” that allows campaigns to develop
“paced” relationships with potential donors and supporters."

While it is still a relatively "new" form of bringing in donations, politicians have quickly harnessed the power of the Internet for fundraising purposes.

As the above quote mentions however, it is important to realize the delicate interplay needed to include voters in the process, and not simply probe them for money.

The Internet is a way to engage voters. A campaign or issue website can prosource sourse of information on issues and policies, as well as position papers and press releases for voters to view if desired. In conjunction with a permission based ecampaign, candidates can send emails to voters explaining their position on issues and encouengagementgagment in the process. Once this is established, then the same process can be used to ask for money.

If used properly, it can result in increased donations along with increased awareness.

Yes, E.J. is in fact a Genius!

A response to an earlier post...

His book Why Americans Hate Politics became the playbook for the Clinton campaign in 1992.

It is unfortunate that Kerry did not follow suite and read Stand Up, Fight Back (then again if the Democrats read that book Kerry would never have been close to being our nominee, but I digress).

E.J. (we are on an initial basis, he calls me Big D) is not only brilliant, but he has demonstrated that it is possible to be progressive and be a centrist at the same time.

I do disagree with you slightly however. I started leaning too left during the Iraq war and was frustrated with the way this administration squandered the good will and hope that poured in from around the world after 9/11.

I wished the liberals and Democrats would have all been stronger and taken it to the administration then...but they didn't.

They couldn't. As our fellow classmate and blogger brooks has noted...it is too late...the conservatives have won the battle of semantics...they own the language.

It took them 40 years to do it, but they have it now and we as centrists, or even liberals, cannot and should not expect to be able to retake it overnight.

This is not to say it is hopeless, or that we have lost to the extreme right or anything...it only means that they have control over the language...

...meaning, Freedom and Patriotism = Conservative
obstructionism and cynicism = Liberal

They have redefined the terms and the more liberals clamor "am not am not" the easier it is for the conservatives to simply point and say, "see, there they go being all whinny and cynical again."

The second Kerry made his entire campaign about the War it was over.

He tried to reverse the course of 40 years of history that the conservatives have built to change the language, and he tried to do it in one moment.

So how do you do change these terms?

It starts by playing by their rules, then you beat them at their own game and then you have the power to change the rules again.

It cannot be done over night. This is where the ideals and philosophy of the center comes into play a huge role because as E.J. shows, it is possible to be a progressive centrist and I am beginning to believe that this is in fact the only way to redefine not only the language, but the nature of political discourse in this country.

Old Yet Interesting

Post on Donkey Rising of an April article by my boy E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Revolt of the Middle?.

"The center is there for the taking. When these voters lean Democratic to begin with and are edging close to outright revolt against the way Republicans are currently running the country, Democrats would be foolish to ignore this opportunity. Mobilization is great, but without the center it's defeatable. With the center, it's not. Need I say more?"

Don't EVEN get me started...

...on redistricting.

A recent comment posted on this blog brought up an issue very near and dear to my heart.

We can talk about the decentralizing power of the Internet until the flying pigs bring the blue in the face cows home from a frozen over hell... and it won't make a lick of difference until we change the way in which our districts are proportioned.

If we really want to tap into this powerful tool known as the Internet, we need to utilize it not only to mobilize political parties, or candidates for elections, but for issues as well.

Redistricting is an issue that is in dire need of being addressed.

Arizona has an independent commission of bipartisan panelists who hold open sessions, LISTEN to public input, and attempt to draw fair and proportionate districts following the precepts of the United States Constitution.

They do not have such a commission because they are simply nice people.

It took a coordinated grassroots effort by highly motivated individuals in conjunction with a national voter rights group to gather enough concerned citizens together in order to bring attention to the issue and call for a statewide initiative.

The power of the Internet can be harnessed to launch a nationwide version of what they accomplished in Arizona.

By nationwide however, I mean on a state by state basis, not one sweeping national reform. It is incumbent upon each state to change their own redistricting process. A single nationwide reform would take an act of Congress and possible changes to the Constitution.

This is far more unlikely than igniting the flame of reform with in one state and watching it spread like wildwire by fanning the flames with the furnace of the Internet.

I told you not to get me started on this one :)

Decentralized Organization

Jonah Seiger, a prominent Internet strategist and member of the New Democrat Network discussed the importance of Internet strategy in energizing and mobilizing political and issue based campaigns.

While the Dean camp and Joe Trippi gained a lot of notoriety for it's "effective" Internet campaign, Mr. Seiger argued it was ultimately Bush and Chuck Defeo who truly ran the more effective one.

The proof?

Bush is President.

Dean won just one state in the primary...his own.

Why?

Well, Mr. Seiger claims that, "dealing with the progressive left is not easy because they tend not to plan as well [as conservatives]."

DeFeo and the Bush team began planning their internet strategy in May of 2003 and built an infrastructure which allowed them to create the decentralized organization necessary to launch an effective internet campaign. They understood the importance of creating a decentralized organization that could be used to unite communities using peer-to-peer managing. One area they focused their strategy on as early as May..... Southern Ohio.

Sieger,

"The Internet is the most important thing that has happened to us as humans since the printing press...You are attempting to build a constituency, it is about building that energy and momentum...the more you build and the more people you bring into the process, the more power you have. There is tremendous opportunity for greater engagement in our democracy because of the Internet."

Post-ABC Poll: Bush Ignoring Public Concerns

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 12:03 PM

"A clear majority of Americans say President Bush is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 58 percent of those interviewed said Bush is mainly concentrating in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these respondents said were unimportant to them.

Very interesting... so it would appear that there are more Americans in the middle than at the extreme ends? Get out of town...never would have guessed (he says knowingly).

Yet, these people continue to be overlooked.

It will be interesting to see how those of us in the middle will take advantage of new technologies and mediums to gain attention.

For example, protesters in Cairo used IM and text message to organize anti-war rallies and then were able to report on the event instantly with digital cameras and cell phones.

Such technology allows citizen activists to cut out the middle man.

The Americans in the middle are overlooked because there is no conflict in consensus and where there is no conflict there is no "news."

The rise of blogging, IM, digital cameras, ect., are allowing the people themselves to not only decide what is or isn't news, but to make the news themselves.

Symbioticerized

Ok, not a word I know...

BUT

It should be.

Because then maybe more campaigns would remember to provide BALANCE in all of their activities!!!

Por Ejemplo: Rather than debating which is better, TV advertising or Internet... you should perhaps, I don't know, maybe try to use both to reinforce each other.

Media consultants need to stop being dinosaurs and start embracing new technology.

Mail, TV, Print, Radio, AND Internet all working together can be a remarkably efficient way to ensure message unity.

This was partially the main point
Henry Jenkins had in his response to Cass Sunstein's post apocalyptic interpretation of the rise of the machines (Internet).

"Yet, ultimately, he simplifies a much more complex media environment, exaggerating the degree to which "new media" will displace—rather than operate alongside—old media...These two media systems—one broadcast and commercial, the other narrowcast and grassroots—will interact in complex ways. "

Consultants need to blend theory with praxis. Currently it is way too praxis based...this is why many campaigns slip into the same old cycle. "Well we did this in a governors race in 1988 and it worked then, and with the McGovern campaign in 1972 they did this and..."

ITS NOT 1972 anymore! Move on!

Sunday Brunch

Salt: I went to a wedding last night, and at the ceremony the priest gave this analogy of salt and marriage. Salt is so versatile and can be used to spice things up, put out fires, melt ice....the list went on and on....he lost me though when he compared marriage to curing ham....and for some reason I was dying of thirst by the end of it.


Modern Mobilization: Winning Campaigns Online takes a look back at the 2000 campaign cycle and how uneven the use of database solutions and integrated systems were. There is still much debate 5 years later as to the future of such software and solutions for political campaigns. This is one area where perhaps we can learn from our fiscally conservative market driven friends the Republicans. If more campaigns used such solutions, the increased demand would create a larger market for such services and perhaps set a trend for greater competition which equals a lower cost for product and TADA! You have more campaigns with the ability to afford sophisticated database collection the use of the internet for political purposes will begin to be legitimized.

Centrist Standard Weekly Post: There has been much discussion over on Centerfield about the need for a moderate centrist voice in academia and publishing. The neoconservatives built their foundations on the Weekly Standard, using intellectual thought in publication as the breeding ground for developing and then in turn spreading it's ideology.

Do you think there is a market for a centrist minded publication? Could such a journal/paper/magazine be used to mobilize and energize voters and thinkers towards the center? How could such a publication get off the ground, if at all?

Modern Mobilization

Winning Campaigns Online discusses how many candidates still underestimate the vitality of running an effective emobilization campaign.

State and local candidates, who lack resources, tend to cut corners when it comes to operating websites or launching any sort of voter contact email strategy. By using volunteers and amateur web designers, the content and usability of many of these sites suffer greatly.

Web solutions that do not link content to databases or provide accurate email capture are also short cuts that even many larger campaigns take.

From where we sit, I think it is of the utmost importance that centrist candidates on all levels take advantage of the internet and all it offers. If we are to gain the momentum many feel we lack, we need to harness the energy of the internet through individual candidate sites, organization sites like the Centrist Coalition, and the major centrist blogs, like Centerfield.

I have stated previously that I believe the center needs its own MoveOn.org to mobilize and energize its supporters, but even more important is getting like minded candidates on all levels of government to understand the opportunity the internet allows them to collect email addresses, build databases and donor lists, and help to energize centrists from the local level and up.

Conservatives have a leg up in understanding the big picture... conservative candidates on all levels of government, from state and local, county and national, all play a major role in defining, shaping, and spreading their ideology and web activity is one facet of that strategy.

The left is catching up and has quickly made up ground.

The center needs to react in kind.

It starts on the local level and it starts with having an effective web strategy working in unison with grassroots organization.

WOW!! An ideological shift towards moderate thought, fiscal responsibility, social justice, and balanced discourse!

Eviscerate the Proletariat it is not... BUT...

How about that for a bumper sticker?


As mentioned in some previous posts, and brought up by numerous comments from colleagues, what centrism lacks is...well...panache.

For one, it is not so much a movement as it is an awakening. Centrism doesn't so much attempt to convert people to it's point of view, or energize the passions of the already fervorous members (it's been pointed out to me that we also lack "fervor" in addition to "panache")... it simply tries to demonstrate to the majority of Americans who don't associate with the extremes that there is another option.

But perhaps we should become more fervorous and panachie.

The Internet is an outlet that could allow a Centrist movement to develop such "fervor."

As Bruce Bimber notes in "Campaigning Online,"

The Internet affords a unique chance to observe carefully a new medium at its inception... it is time to form a clearer understanding of what its future may hold.

"

Indeed, the future may bring a more unified sense of community among groups that previously had no outlet, no real way of organizing, and this "new medium" continues to demonstrate how it can make that possible.

One way to do this is through a solid internet strategy similar to that of MoveOn. It is a chicken or egg type of question. Do centrists not have a MoveOn style of activism because they lack excitement? Or do we lack excitement because we do not have a MoveOn style of activism.

Another question that arises is such: given the lack of envangicalism within centrist ideology, is activism inherently counter-intuitive to our nature?

Oh the fun to be had with that loaded question.... on your marks, get set, GO!

Huggable lovable Websites

Rebuilding a consensus ideology is less a movement and more of an expansion: it seeks to enlarge the center, engulfing with it people from both sides of the spectrum like an emerging supernova.

The internet has provided us with a way to do just that.

There are numerous websites, some listed on my sidebar, that are devoted to consensus thought and centrist ideology.

However, these sites tend not to get the same exposure as ones on the other sides.

More liberal sites such as MoveOn.org receive much more attention.

There are usually two facets to designing a website, 1) Content and, 2) Usability.

The problem with most political websites, in fact many websites at an level in general, is that they may focus on only one of those facets and overlook the other. The facet that tends to be overlooked the most is usability because quite frankly, it isn't as sexy as content.

Case and point George W. Bush's website for President in 2004. Chalk full of content, interactive games, photos, ect. but good luck trying to navigate the site. It had more layers on it than a Buffalonian shoveling snow in December.

While it is important to have interaction, and valuable content, it also must be presented in a USABLE and easy to navigate manner.

admittedly, the sites about Centrism and Consensus thought are fairly usable in terms of layout, but for the most part, the content does very little to promote usability.

Ok, in other words, most of them are boring.

MoveOn is successful not because there are more liberals in this country than moderates. It is successful because they have fun, interesting and interactive content that is presented in an easy to use format.

The article by Henry Jenkins is a retort on some claims that the Internet leads to a breakdown of community rather than a stronger tie to it.

Centrist sites and blogs such as Centerfield are examples that prove Mr. Jenkins' point.

Most consensus sites are devoted to discussion...discussion that would only interest someone who is already in that frame of mind and therefore does little to achieve what should be our goal, and that is EXPANDING that center.

But this discussion creates a community...certainly they are like minded in some sense, but aren't all communities? Don't people who move to the Suburbs all share a like mindedness?

The truth is that the Internet, unlike the Suburbs, at least has the potential to reach across barriers and bring people together, like minded or not, towards a common bond.

Internet Democracy

Movements

They are often only associated with the extreme sides of an ideology. The liberal movement, the conservative movement, ect.
It is rare, as one recent comment so astutely pointed out, that moderates can excite people in such a way as to spark a movement.

The main reason for this is the fact that most Americans BEGIN at or around the center and the movements mentioned are designed to swing them to one side or the other.

However, technology and the internet have provided a sounding board for centrists and moderates, one that if they use effectively has the potential to spark a movement of their own.

One of the primary facets of this site will be to discuss the ways in which the internet can be utilized in a strategic way to further a political agenda or expand an ideology.

From time to time this means you will see postings on such things as usability, RSS feeders, HTML codes, and other minutiae that may seem inconsequential and boring, but is in essence the tools of modern movements.