Repugs "Losing the Web" to Dems...But Will It Last?

Republicans can try to game the system and pretend that they're doing better than they are, but George W. Bush's 2004 internet strategy director, Michael Turk, acknowledges the fact of the matter: Republicans are "losing the Web right now."  Another top Republican blogger, David All, adds that "For the most part Republicans are stuck in Internet circa 2000."  And K. Daniel Glover, editor of the National Journal's Technology Daily, says:

...look at the short history of online politics. For Republicans, the Internet is where bad things happen. Take [former U.S. senator] George Allen and his 'macaca' moment. . . . You can kind of understand why Republicans have this almost instinctive fear of the Internet, where the mob rules.

I love it: Republicans have an "instinctive fear of the Internet," a place that's not rigidly top-down or disciplined, where the atomsophere is "often chaotic, bottom-up, user-generated."  Instead, Republicans appear - as I've been saying for a long time - to like the more passive, directed, "dittohead" style of Limbaugh-style talk radio. 

In contrast, Democrats appear to be kind of into this quaint thing known as "democracy" - "talking and discussing and fighting."  Fortunately for Democrats, there's something to that Democacy thang; according to Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, it "energizes everyone, involves everyone, and gets people totally into it."  In other words, Democracy and dissent are forms of strength, not weakeness - as many on the right would have us believe.  And it's also a heck of a lot more interesting than the echo chamber and coordinated "noise machine" messaging of the right.  Yawn.

Of course, not all is perfect on the Democratic blogosphere.  For instance, in Virginia - land of Mark Warner, Tim Kaine and Jim Webb - we've got a state party in which at least several top leaders simply don't get it at all, still "stuck in Internet circa 2000" or maybe even further back in the '70s or '80s.  For some of these people, it's almost like the internet boom of the 1990s never happened, that the netroots revolution - the one that helped bring about the phenomena of Howard Dean, Wes Clark, Paul Hackett, Ned Lamont, Jon Tester, and of course Jim Webb - is some passing phenomenon that can and should be ignored.  Big mistake. 

So, one big mistake by certain Democratic Party leaders is the assumption that if you just build a new website with fancy technology, people will come.  Well, no.  The fact is, the success of Democratic and progressive activists on the internet is not first and foremost about technology at all. It's about people, culture, attitude, engagement, and empowerment.  The question is whether or not Party "powers that be" are willing to adapt to this new culture or not. To date, it seems that Democrats have adapted faster than Republicans, but there's still resistance, indifference, or even hostility among the Luddite faction.  Still, Democrats are outpacking Republicans, and it's not about how much money they have or their access to technology.

Look, Republicans and Democrats both have a lot of money and they both have access to the same technology.  Yet Republicans are generally "losing the Web" to the Democrats, even Republican activists and experts acknowledge.  Why is this?  Because Democrats are much more adapted to the flatter, "bottom up," participatory/non-passive, rought-and-tumble citizen activist-driven culture of the internet.

The key now is not resting on our laurels, but taking this to the next level.   In Virginia, for instance, several netroots/Webb activists, led by my good friend Josh Chernila (co-founder of "Draft James Webb" and grassroots coordinator on the Webb for Senate campaign), spent months - along with a team of top Virginia grassroots/netroots people - conceptualizing and attempting to sell a political version of the "killer ap," what came to be called "YouRoots."  In addition, Josh and Co. conceived an entire new concept of netroots and grassroots integration with the Democratic Party in his brilliant "DEMPAC" concept. 

Unfortunately, right now DEMPAC and YouRoots are on life support, as many top Democrats have expressed interest but very few have provided the resources (translation: $$$) to actually make it happen.  Thus, Josh's vision of "creating an enduring Democratic majority in Virginia" remains no more than a vision.  And the sad thing is that Josh and Company only needed a miniscule amount of money in the grand scheme of things to get YouRoots up and running.  We're talking perhaps $30,000, a pittance that would not even have been a rounding error in Tim Kaine's or Jerry Kilgore's 2005 (or Hillary Clinton's 2007/2008) expenditures. 

All of which raises the question: why are Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) so willing to give money to campaigns that come and go, but not towards building long-term grassroots/netroots infrastructure that could provide FAR GREATER "bang for the buck" in both the short and long runs?  Is it because many Democrats continue to operate on the traditional, "top-down" worldview that you give money to political candidates or to the Party, not to "grassroots" groups.  Is it a failure of imagination?  Is it that, as Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong describe in "Crashing the Gate," traditional party elites feel threatened by the "Netroots Rising" (the title of my upcoming book with fellow netroots activists Nate Wilcox)?

The point of this rambling semi-rant is that Republicans may CURRENTLY be "losing the Web" to Democrats now, but if the "blue team" isn't proactive it could lose that edge - FAST!  True, Democrats are protected by the fact that Republican top-down, dittohead culture simply isn't naturally conducive to the blogosphere (despite silly, transparent, and heavy-handed efforts to game the system).  However, if we don't keep moving forward, we will die just like a shark.  Or, we can keep moving and become "Jaws," a creature that all fear for its unstoppable killing power. 

The question is, are Democratic "insiders" willing to seize their natural advantages and "go for the jugular?"  Are they willing to cough up the resources needed to extend our netroots advantage over Republicans even further?  Or, are they content to sit back and watch the grassroots do their thing, thriled (albeit baffled in many cases) that it seems to be working, while occasionally getting discombobulated and agitated when it inevitably goes "off message?" 

To put it another way, will Democrats seize the new moment, or will they keep their heads stuck in the sand, throwing increasing amounts of money to chase an ever-fragmenting (and decreasingly receptive) TV advertising audience?  Will they stick with the "proven" (actually, they're not proven) old methods of direct mail and top-down media advertising, or will they wrap their brains around this new world, the power equivalent - or greater - as the birth of radio and television?  In the end, it comes down to this: how badly do Democrats want to win, and how willing are they to adapt - rapidly, continuously, aggressively - to make that happen?  We'll see in coming months and years, but for the sake of everything we care about, I sure hope my fellow Democrats make the right choice.

•  If we want to "Crash the Gate"

  and keep the "Netroots Rising," we've got to invest in success.  If not, we may win in the long run, but it will be a lot longer run than it needs to be.  Or, we may allow the Republicans to get back in the ballgame, in spite of all our natural advantages in the blogosphere.  Obviously, we can't and shouldn't allow that to happen, but does the party "get it?"  What about major donors?  So far, what I've seen is that hey kinda sorta maybe get it (kinda), but probably not.  Instead, it's more like "oooh, that internet thing is pretty cool, we can raise money on it!"  Well, sorry, but that's not where the greatest potential of the netroots lies, in money that will simply be poured into more advertising on...yeah, you guessed it...TV.   No, this is a whole new paradigm, and the prize goes to whichever party "gets it" first and implements it fastest.  We'll see...

  by lowkell on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:57:31 AM PDT

•  The Republic Party...

  ...is still trying to figure out which internet to use & how to get the info through the tubes.

  by madame defarge on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:03:41 AM PDT

  •  Repugs still declaring earth is flat.

    so keeping up with NET technology strains thier little pea-brains.  

    by drmah on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:17:22 AM PDT

    •  Republicans have brains? Who knew... n/t

      by madame defarge on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:56:28 AM PDT

      •  Yes, Reptilian brains.

        As in T-Rex.  Democrats are more like small, furry mammals, seemingly less powerful than T-Rex but ultimately coming to rule the earth (well, actually, the insects and bacteria rule the earth, but whatever...ha.). :)

        by lowkell on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:12:28 AM PDT

•  Patrick Henry College is just 30 miles

  or so from me in VA. It's a fundie college for home schooled kids. It's currently unaccredited, but..
  Their main curriculum surrounds religion, journalism and debate. I believe the republican concentration on debate really whips our Dem Butts. All this is background to my suggestion that the fundies will take advantage of their widespread advantages in schools, etc and start teaching internet 2007. I'm sure debate doesn't come all that easily either. So we better teach those Dem VA leaders or get new ones. You're right, Lowkell, they will catch up if we don't keep moving forward.

  by madgranny on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:08:38 AM PDT

•  Yes, simply compare content and management

  Progressive sites such as this allow people to sign up and post. Posts are NOT removed simply because they contest or dispute the positions advocated by the majority, instead, they are debated, discussed, analyzed, and confronted with facts.

  No go to a reichwing freeper site, and try to sign up and get a conversation going. What is the half life of such an account before the 'moderators' pull the plug on the account, because stating the simple facts or asking hard questions refute the majority positions of the sites.

  That is the fundamental difference in how use of the web by citizens has evolved in the past few years.

  And it will remain the difference, as the approach is rooted in the psychology and belief systems of those supporting the sites. Free, open, and fact based vs. ideology, dogma, and ignorance fantasy based.

  Now if the Democratic candidates for Congress will have the common sense (echoes of Thomas Paine) to understand this simple dynmaic, and LEVERAGE IT FOR ALL IT IS WORTH, then they will win.

  If instead the insist on the control freak implementation characterizing the right wing and the Republicans, then they will not be taking advantage of the medium as those of us out here on the tubes have done to date.

  by HeartlandLiberal on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:09:19 AM PDT

•  Repugs "Losing the Web" to Dems?

  The lost it to "democrats" almost from the start. The web can be a forum for all of us on the ground, the disillusioned, the disenfranchised to make our voices heard and our feelings known, regardless of our political persuasion. Whether the Democratic Party manages to make use of it or they go down the road of the 94 republican party remains to be seen. If the Web remains a viable forum for public discourse it is beyond the control of any political party.

  by irate on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:13:04 AM PDT

•  That party will cease to exist...

  ...within the next 50 years.  Why?  Because they only represent two types of people:  Those that have no sense of accurate history (reality based knowledge) and the other 5% that rely on that first group remaining ignorant for their own personal gain.  

  BTW, I am white, a male and a U.S. Marine.  

  by flipflopper on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:21:53 AM PDT

•  Those of us in Virginia

  are fighting a morbund party at all levels.  Stuck in the racial politics of the 60's, the economic policies of the 80's, and the longing for an aristocracy that never existed.  It is very frustrating to be a Democrat in Virginia.

  by Granny Doc on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:48:25 AM PDT

•  GOP fears the Internets

  No surprise really, not with all those news stories about the Web being used for pr0n or for pedophiles to find your children. To the less-informed, naive, and easily-led conservative voter archetype, the Internets, with its disinformation, is a scary place.

  Well, not for all of them, of course. Some of them still venture out into it, only to find a little too much truth especially these days, so they create websites like conservapedia and qubetube with information tailor-made for them, just as Fox News does for their televisions.

  by PanzerMensch on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:05:57 AM PDT

•  Maybe the insiders need a long-term task force

  One of the biggest problems to get Washington Democratic insiders to think long-term is that they are judge by their short-term results. Naturally, the money gets poured on an election-to-election cycle.

  So, maybe we need a team that will do nothing but work on long-term projects and has a budget to invest on them.

  by Hugo Estrada on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:07:55 AM PDT

  •  That is a GREAT idea.

    Also, we need to change the incentive structure so that people get rewarded for winning, NOT for spending more money on TV, and also for building the Party and progressive movement, NOT just short-term gains.

    by lowkell on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:11:07 AM PDT

•  The "blue" internet phenom

  that took root during the Clinton presidency, with the birth of MoveOn.org, has been heartening to watch.

  The internet is the reason I'm involved in politics today.

  by karmsy on Mon May 21, 2007 at 06:34:25 AM PDT

•  Just a bit of devil's advocate

  But I think it might be hard to control the Internet in any meaningful way. There is a lot you can do to try and set up things like a permanant majority, but as the recent user revolt over at digg.com has shown us, these things are really beyond control. Which I think it good, but it also means the best laid plans of mice and political consultants can often backfire.

  by fatbyjhnsn on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:50:04 AM PDT

•  the answer to your ? about the Dem insiders

  is contained within your own post.

  The energy of the netroots IS viewed as a threat, even by the Dems. The fact that it is uncontrollable and might hold politicians accountable strikes bipartisan fear in DC. And, this is a good thing, IMO.

  And, I would argue, as long as the netroots IS NOT controlled or influenced by the Inside the Beltway Top Down bureaucracy it will remain a vibrant force in the political dialogue. Once it becomes another marketing tool controlled by the forces within, it will become corrupted and viewed by the American public as yet another slick, out of touch component of the political marketing machine.

  My advice would be to NOT ask the Dem party and candidates for the seed money to build a lasting netroots infrastructure, but to raise $$ from the blogosphere. It will result in more autonomy - and remain true to the source of its power.

  by Chrispy67 on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:57:48 PM PDT