Change the Incentives
by Patrick Ruffini :: August 1st, 2007 11:55 pmThe New York Times explores the emergence of the new pro-online engagement wing of the Republican Party in the wake of the near-collapse of first Internet-driven GOP debate. I’m quoted in it.
If we succeed in doing anything, I hope it’s to permanently change the incentives for our candidates to engage online. Republican political types tend to harbor the belief that the Web is somehow riskier than other forms of media. That’s only true if you disrespect it. Engaging the medium immunizes you. Why? Because it’s a lot harder to take down a large and active community than it is a fledgling, tightly controlled one. Big communities know how to defend themselves (that’s what this week was and is). Our nominee will be better off with the coat of armor that is a huge self-organizing online community that gives money and repels attacks.
In the last week, we’ve shown that there is a big online constituency that’s just waiting to hear from the GOP candidates if they’re just willing to sit down and talk to it. We’ve shown that online influentials care about the level of online activity from our candidates, and can effectively lobby for more. We’ve shown that the incentives are all on the side of a forward-leaning approach to the medium.
This is also about spying the danger down the road and working to prevent the train wreck many of us see coming. Of course Jon Henke is right when he says,
“Politics in America are very cyclical, and the left is on the upswing,” he said. “Elect President Hillary Clinton and you’ll see a much stronger Rightosphere as the right gradually finds leadership and develops the tools to deal with their grievances.”
For all my harping on this, I’d still rather see a Republican President than a dominant Republican online movement. I don’t want to be like Kos — angry and powerless. But is it a pipedream to suggest we can’t have both? That Republicans can’t recognize the extreme danger we are in, and turn to the online community in a bold attempt to accomplish the impossible in 2008?
I also think that Jon and others who make this argument underestimate the huge store of knowledge and manpower that has been built up on the Left; it won’t go away just because a Democrat is President. (Our Conservative friends to the north in Canada are still well ahead online and have been in power for nearly two years.) As Colin Delany writes,
Thinking ahead past 2008, this staffing inequity could have serious long-term effects. When you look at the progressive/Dem online politics world, veterans of the 2004 Dean and Kerry campaigns are hard to miss. Joe Trippi, of course, but also Zephyr Teachout, Zack Exley and the Blue State Digital folks. Ditto for EchoDitto, and I’m sure for quite a few others. These people are helping campaigns NOW and also training a whole new cohort of online activists for 2010, 2012 and beyond. Each skilled web person has a potential multiplier effect, as he or she moves on to other campaigns or into the advocacy world. (emphasis added)
In other words, we can’t risk waiting until Hillary is President. We need to get started now, training people and putting them in the field for 2008. In any event, I am glad we are having this conversation now, and not next April 15, the first post-primary FEC filing deadline, when it may become painfully apparent what these top-down strategies have wrought.
Tagged: announcements 
debate fundraising online politics youtube
Comments (3) 
Trackbacks (2) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
For the record, I don’t underestimate the capital that has been built up by the Left. They’ve been very smart about creating energy, resources, institutions and narratives that will have a long-term cumulative effect. They’re not just building things for a cycle, or for a specific issue - they’ve got a much longer-term strategic vision for their movement.
Meanwhile, on the Right, we’re still spending too much time thinking about short-term ROI, rather than investing in the capital needed to develop a vision and change the landscape over the long term.
This morning I posted a blog that urges Republicans to embrace the successes of the Bush administration rather than run from it. This I believe is part of a long-term strategy. How can we win in ‘08 if we don’t have something to build on. Simply saying we’re leading the war on terror and we’re better at it than you are isn’t enough. We must move forward online and offline in a creative AND informed manner and simply don’t allow Americans to be fooled into thinking this administration has abandoned them.
Hello, Patrick-
To introduce myself-
My new-media site is focused on Senator McCain’s candidacy, and I understand that you were previously affiliated with the campaign of Mayor Giuliani.
Per your quote in the NYT article linked above:
“ ‘The YouTube debate snub is the symptom, not the disease, ‘ ”…
“The ‘disease,’ Mr. Ruffini said in an interview, is the Republicans’ failure to convey that ‘the online community matters to them,’ even if they have active Web sites and are using them to raise money. He has helped start an online petition to urge the candidates to participate in the YouTube debate.”
I have followed the YouTube debate controversy with avid interest. I remain bewildered as to why so many Republican candidates are averse to it. The main site- www.campaignia.org - has a section on 21st-century campaigning, and I am very interested in innovations - of which the YouTube debate is an outstanding example. I thought that it was a great idea for Democrats, and a great idea for Republicans.
Obviously, I was pleased that Senator McCain immediately agreed to participate in the YouTube debate, when the invitation was issued. (Ironically, looking at it from purely the interests of the Senator, it would be best for him if he and Paul are the only ones who eventually show up, as it would result in far more free-media coverage for the two of them. In addition, the YouTube debate is very well-suited to McCain’s strengths as a candidate.)
Accordingly, I was - and remain - fully prepared to join your campaign to “Save the Debate”, as you had asked last week. I think that this is an issue that transcends partisan politics, or which candidate(s) one happens to like. This debate is about democracy in action and providing an innovative way for Americans to communicate with candidates.
Likewise, I was pleased to read, that apparently the YouTube debate will be revived in December (at least that’s my understanding, please correct me if I’m wrong.)
To return to your quote, above-
I was wondering, if you would be able to go into more detail as to the root causes of the “disease” - to continue with your metaphor - the disease being the GOP candidates’ reluctance to make full use of the Internet and online resources.
Thanks…
Republicans need YouTube…
A couple of weeks ago, the Democratic presidential candidates held a groundbreaking debate during which questions came not from something as unpredictable as a prescreened, vetted live audience but straight from Internet videos. Specifically, via YouTu…
[…] Fred’s critics are scapegoating his use of the Internet, and making the Republican Party look technophobic in the process. As we showed recently, that kind of message is no longer appreciated, and all the incentives are now on the side of an aggressive Internet strategy. I mean, does anyone seriously think someone is going to vote against a guy in 2008 because he makes aggressive use of the Internet? […]