The GOP Online: Some Friendly Advice
by Patrick Ruffini :: April 18th, 2007 9:55 pmThe debate over the Republican Party online has taken on new life thanks to David All’s column in the Politico. Mike Turk weighs in here.
Both Mike and David tackle the question of how to convince senior leadership in the party to “get” the Web. David’s answer, as expressed in numerous blog posts, is to spontaneously embrace Web 2.0 technology, to Twitter and MySpace away. Mike’s answer is summed up in the close to his latest post on the subject:
As the Democrats have shown, this will need to be organized by those in the party who get it. We will have to drag the party apparatus, kicking and screaming, to the dance.
I’m tempted to agree here, but in both approaches there’s an undercurrent of shaming the party leadership into “getting it.” I don’t think that’s productive. I’m sorry, but a message of “I get it and you don’t” has a tint of arrogance to it. No one, especially not political operatives who pride themselves on “getting it” in their own right, is going to listen to a consultant tell them how much smarter they are than them. They’ll shut down immediately and won’t listen to a word you’re saying.
If you want convince people that you’re right and the medium is important, don’t just talk. Build something big. Build it outside any organized party structure. And build it so huge that the parties eventually come to you for volunteers and to get their message out. I think that’s the spirit of what Mike is saying.
But my fundamental difference here is this: This debate, no matter how enjoyable it is to write about, represents what’s wrong with how decisions are made in the Party and in the blogosphere. The first is the ongoing rap on the righty blogosphere: we talk a lot but don’t act. The second is the idea that for something to be kosher in the right-of-center world, it needs to have the RNC’s stamp of approval or some other massive organizational sponsorship. Contrary to the spirit of this discussion, lots of people on the right seem to sit around waiting for top-down direction to do something when the reality is: This is the Internet — you have the tools — just build it!
As much as David and Mike have been hankering for the party apparatus to relinquish control, what I tend to hear more from activists is that there’s no coordination on the right, there’s no central place to get our talking points. We imagine that the Left as a model for top-down message discipline (a notion Stoller would probably start laughing at uncontrollably) and seek to copy it. That’s what was expressed to me in dozens of emails when I announced I was leaving to go the RNC. In other words, the grassroots wants there to be more control, not less.
Now, that’s an assessment I fundamentally disagree with — but it’s what I hear most often. And I do believe in message discipline and framing. I probably disagree with Mike on this, but I do think the Right’s advantage in driving message online is tremendously important, something the RNC has effectively used to its advantage. The fact is that if people didn’t want centralized (and interesting) messaging, no one would visit Drudge and no one would listen to Rush.
But just because a lot of people go to one source for news and opinion, that doesn’t mean the message shouldn’t be market-driven. That means that everyone’s ideas get hashed out on the blogs. And the cream rises as it will tend to do on the Web. We don’t need the digital version of Grover’s Wednesday Meeting to get our talking points and coordinate our message. Our day-to-day message is the story that gets the most Diggs (figuratively speaking) — because that’s what people respond to naturally. How we distribute that message can be a mix of top-down and lateral. How we generate it can be bottom-up.
Even many of the folks sympathetic to a Web 2.0 approach to things seem to want to go about implementing it in a very 1.0 way. They want our “leaders” to “get it” and “take us there.” But the very essence of Web 2.0 is that you can do this yourself. It’s empowering the grassroots. It’s the party in the laptop. Few of the pillars of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy existed until a bunch of nobodies created them, usually around 2000-2002. I say this as someone who’s still sympathetic to the RNC, having served two tours there and recognizing its value. But the fact is there is nothing stopping someone on the Right from building an organization that’s many times more powerful than the RNC online. All they need is some killer code and eye for spotting good opportunities and jumping on them.
If you want to make an impression, that’s how you do it. People who work at political parties don’t respond to things in beta with a few thousand hardcore users; they respond to things that are proven and big. And this disintermediated age we live in means that anyone can create big things fast.
So, if you’re not satisfied with how things are going online — well, guess what, this isn’t TV where you need a few million bucks to get your message out. You don’t even need $100,000 to hire some corporate Web developer to build your big community/fundraising/activism site. Build it yourself. Do some rapid prototyping, get a beta out there, build an audience, and then go in for the political equivalent of secondary financing (ask your list for money).
What I’m describing isn’t some leftist communal pipedream. It’s how Web 2.0 startups in Silicon Valley work right now. If you want to realize the benefits of 2.0 you’ve got to play by the rules of 2.0.
Tagged: david all 
mike turk online politics web2.0
Comments (5) 
Trackbacks (5) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
This is right on the money and, you’re right, is right in the spirit of what I was saying. When Krempasky and I started talking about the Republican counter to ActBlue, I said as much then. We need to stop looking to the RNC or others to build these things and need to start organizing around ideas, rather than complaints.
I’m also in agreement that we need a coordinated message. As you know, my issue has never been with message, my issue has been the suppression of supporters simply because they use the wrong semantics.
The trouble is where centralized message and decentralized management come into conflict with each other. You saw this last year. The grassroots was way out in front on immigration and felt that the party leadership had abandoned them. If the party believes a pro-amnesty position is politically advantageous, and pursues that message, and the party regulars are opposed to that, how do you reconcile the disconnect?
… “The trouble is where centralized message and decentralized management come into conflict with each other.”…
Isn’t this the entire point? One of the more frequent points you bring up is that there needs to be more freedom for discussion and dissent within the party, especially online. I agree. But part of that is going to be that the official party apparatus and the online grassroots supporters will disagree. If the online grassroots operation (which I fully agree with Patrick on how this needs to come about) is strong enough, it will force the party to take a second look at a position which may be at odds with their base.
MoveOn and the DNC surely aren’t always in lockstep, but I don’t think theres an argument that can be made that the Dems aren’t better off because of MoveOn’s existence.
The Lord Helps Those Who Help Themselves.
After watching the Internet - and particularly a Mass. site called Blue Mass. Group - elect an untried and unknown black man named Deval Patrick to the Governorship, we did two things.
First, we BEGAN an Internet Committee at the Mass GOP, which videotaped and webcast the first ever debates for Chairman, so SC members weren’t buying a pig in a poke.
Second, we bagan www.redmassgroup.com, a shameless rip-off of the successful BMG site, to give GOP activists a message board to talk to each other. It’s new, but it’s a start.
On Al Bore’s Internet, WE are the Leaders. WE are City Hall. We can even become the Borg, with a little work!
Stop kvetching, and get to work!
You said it best, Patrick, with this:
“But the very essence of Web 2.0 is that you can do this yourself. It’s empowering the grassroots. It’s the party in the laptop. Few of the pillars of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy existed until a bunch of nobodies created them, usually around 2000-2002….But the fact is there is nothing stopping someone on the Right from building an organization that’s many times more powerful than the RNC online. All they need is some killer code and eye for spotting good opportunities and jumping on them.”
That is the bottonline fact in this whole discussion.
[…] The “Are Republicans Behind Online?” conversation produced another handful of posts today. David All started things back up with a column in the Politico. Mike Turk weighed in and then weighed in again with the thinking behind shutting down the RNC’s Team Leader program (which I helped build). Patrick Ruffini put in his two cents as did James Joyner (who coincidentally I watched on a panel today in LA.) […]
[…] UPDATE April 19; 8:02 AM: More responses floating in worth a read: Turk jumps back in with further thoughts. Todd Zeigler has some thoughts. Patrick Ruffini’s advice: if you want Web 2.0 - start acting like a Web 2.0 company - build it, grow it, prove it. Only then will the Party listen. […]
[…] Patrick Ruffini has inspired me to do something - to take action - because I care. Because I want to see the Republican Party bridge the divide. But I need your help. […]
[…] David All, Michael Turk, and Patrick Ruffini, have all weighed in in the latest round on technology and the GOP. David is a web 2.0 proponent. Michael has a different take: […]
[…] David All, Michael Turk, and Patrick Ruffini, have all weighed in in the latest round on technology and the GOP. David is a web 2.0 proponent. Michael has a different take: […]