Mike Stark wrote a diary called
Screaming into the ether. One line really struck me:
But so far, and this sucks, we are terrible at influencing real-space.
I made a couple of comments in Mike's diary because his question catalyzed a thought process in terms of my general political outlook and also my dissertation research. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the progressive Net-based activists? I'm mostly an outsider to this world. I've made a few comments, posted a few diaries, donated to a few candidates. But I'm not immersed in it, and so I think there's a fair amount that I miss. On the other hand, maybe an outsider's perspective might be helpful with the question. I have some ideas, some of which I'm committed to more than others. This is not a "Here I am to tell you what you're doing wrong and what you should change" diary. This is a "Here's how I think we're doing - please tell me where you think I'm on to something or way off base" diary.
So anyway, here are some areas I think about:
Information Gathering: At times, I think this is a real strength. There are a lot of folks out here using Google, Lexis, other Net sources, and their own personal phone calls and letters to gather information on specific topics. The Gannon/Guckert story is a good example of this. I'd argue that what Josh Marshall is doing with Social Security at Talking Points Memo is another good one - individual readers reporting in on their contacts with Congress, while Josh highlights significant statements in the local and national press. What's interesting to me is that TPM's work on Social Security utilizes the eyes and ears of his readership, but does so within the structure of a single-author blog that allows Josh to organize and concentrate the info in a way that free-form community blogs like dKos and myDD might not be able to do because there is so much info flying around. (If I recall correctly, this was something of a complaint during the height of the G/G story on dKos.) The front page of a dKos or Eschaton or myDD can also be a very effective way of highlighting particular stories or information published in other locations - although that's less a matter of generating or gathering new info and more a matter of spreading info that someone else generated or gathered.
Information Analysis: I'm less sure about this. I think I have a bias here that runs counter to the general attitude at community blogs. I look at TPM or Donkey Rising, where there's a single main author with a defined area of expertise, as having a strength in analysis over community blogs where things can fly back and forth and it's harder to pin down why I should accept a particular analysis. Then again, a community blog is, in a way, an amalgam of single-author blogs, so someone like me is able to configure my reading experience in such a way that I focus on the people who demonstrate an expertise on a topic.
Political Analysis: I'm breaking this out as a different area just because it's such a focus. Frankly, I don't think this is an area where Net activists excel. I include myself in the following statement: We're amateurs, and it shows. Look at the 2004 cattle calls. Look at the leadup to the election. (I supported Clark in the presidential primaries, I thought Kerry would win, I thought we'd pick up Senate seats, I didn't think there was that untapped bloc of evangelicals or conservatives for the Republicans to tap . . . I am definitely including myself in this assessment.) Look at how the candidates the net got behind did. Atrios supported Hoeffel; Hoeffel got the MoveOn endorsement. Didn't matter. None of the dKos Dozen (or So) won; I know that not all of them were supposed to be winners, but certainly the idea was to find at least some candidates that Net support could push over the edge. Now, this picture could change in 2006 if some of the folks like Richard Morrison in Texas or Jeff Seemann in Ohio or Cegelis in Illinois use their 2004 runs as springboards to success. But best case, it's gonna be another year or two before we have something to point to.
Message Framing/Delivery: I've seen a fair amount of talk about "This is how we have to frame Issue X" in various diaries and blog entries. My concern is that we're taking a little bit of knowledge, such as the frames concept, and running with it in the wrong way. Look at stuff like the Luntz playbook. Is it terribly cynical and manipulative? Yes, I believe it is. But look at the way that system works - you have people like Luntz doing focus groups and other research to actually figure out how people respond to different positions. You have institutions putting a veneer of scientific objectivity on positions, and getting them into op-ed pages and press coverage. And you have the conservative pundits hammer the message home. Those of us posting on blogs can have our thoughts about what'll play in Peoria, but we don't have the skills or resources to test and refine the message. We need pros to do that. (Clearly, we need better pros, since the ones we've been relying on aren't doing too well at the moment.) (And check out this thought-provoking dKos diary by Hunter with some other good thoughts on framing.)
Building from the Ground Up: This is something where community blogs in particular are pretty strong, I think, and where they can be stronger. When local activists want to get involved with their local and state parties and committees, or consider running for local offices, community blogs can provide reinforcement and encouragement as well as useful tactical advice. This is a long term project, so the payoffs aren't going to be seen right away. But I think this is a bright spot. (Campaign finance issues may or may not affect how candidates and would-be candidates can use this resource, but I think no matter what it can be a strong resource for behind the scenes activists.)
Raising Money: You'd think this would be a clear success point, but I'm not so sure. In one of Christine Cegelis's dKos diaries, citygirl posted a list of the dKos Dozen races and several other high-priority contested races which showed that a lot of Net-favored candidates were still outraised. We talk about the power of the Net to leverage small contributions. Thing is, the other side has small contributors too. The two sides may not be equal. I'm not even sure who has the advantage, if anyone does. But the two can cancel each other out to the extent that big donors and interest groups still become important. I'm not sure it can be an Either-Or scenario.
Putting Feet to the Fire: Which brings up this point. If a Net activist imprimatur isn't pushing a lot of candidates over the edge to success, it becomes a lot harder to be a constituency that can truly make demands on representatives and expect them to care a whole lot. (I'm not talking about appeals to principles here. Those should work even if one lone person makes them. But there are practical political realities at work here, and those are what I'm focusing on in this point.) I think this is one of the things Mike was talking about in his diary. In whose victory have Net activists been essential? In whose defeat has the disapproval of Net activists been a key factor? What tangible result can we point to as evidence of our power and importance? I don't have answers to those questions. (I'll re-emphasize this point: If you have `em and I'm just missing it, please, add your thoughts to this diary.)
Converting Others: I wouldn't rank this very highly. There's a very high preach-to-the-choir factor in a lot of the Net. Take the inevitable insularity that any Net community develops, like specific abbreviations and slang. Add in the very palpable passion that many posters and readers bring to the table, and the very different starting points that many members of the progressive coalition are coming from. The result is a lot of heated conversation that I don't think is hugely welcoming to outsiders. Not necessarily a bad thing, because there's a clear value in finding reinforcement in a community of like-minded people. But it does raise the question of exactly how Net activists can contribute to the vital mission of growing the base.
Deliberating: Again, I'm not sure the structure of Net conversation lends itself well to this. Heck, I'm not sure the structure of human thinking lends itself well to this, which is something I'm having some trouble coming to terms with right now. Regardless, once a disagreement pops up, even an intramural one, sides tend to get drawn and sometimes a shooting match ensues. I think it's pretty rare that Net activists take up a question that's kind of open-ended and try to work together to reach a consensus position. And again, that's probably not the mandate.
I'll reiterate one more time - I want to be optimistic. If I'm unfairly negative, please correct me. What do you think progressive Net activists are good at? What are specific incidents that showcase those strengths?