Top netroots bloggers are making a key mistake right now, one which could cost them this election.
It has to do with the nature of our revolution.
The Internet Thesis is, at heart, a process revolution. What is changing, more than our policy preference, is the means we use to choose that policy.
It’s a lot like the 1896 Crisis which produced the Progressive era. While that earlier process revolution was about mass production, mass markets and mass media, this one is about custom production, micro-markets and the Internet medium, which enables — not mere immediacy — but immediacy in infinite depth.
So what’s the mistake and how do we fix it?
The mistake is to confuse this macro-change — one which will define
us for a century — with the micro-change — the issues and struggles
of the day.
As a result we’re letting TV dictate both our agenda and
how it’s addressed.
All the stories which have depressed people in recent weeks —
Jeremiah Wright, the "bitter" comment — as well as Hillary Clinton’s
own gaffes — have the same thing in common. They’re driven by TV, by
soundbites or video clips, by instances in time with no depth or real
meaning, by symbols rather than substance. Even the people pushing this nonsense know it’s nonsense. Yet they push it anyway.
Rather than focusing on the real prize, the Internet values of
consensus, of transparency, and of access — Netroots bloggers have
responded by either complaining about "the refs" or responding in-kind (as above).
Both tactics are
defensive in nature, and when you’re playing defense you can’t be on
offense.
Partly as a result the Netroots’ favored candidate — Barack Obama — has
been taken off-message, and has been forced into a defensive crouch.
This is a sharp contrast to what happened when the Wright flap first
appeared. His address on race was kept soundbite free, it was layered
and in-depth, and it drew a strong response from voters.
This is not an elitist view. This is not just Dana playing
above-the-fray intellectual. You can see it in the polls. Not just the
horserace polls, but when people are asked about the tone of the
campaign, and whether it’s relevant to them.
Because it’s not any more.
This needs to change. Bloggers at Kos, and Digby, and those at
the Huffpo, can lead that change, but only if there is discipline exerted on them from the top. Focus on what we want, and how to get
it, what we need, and how to get it. Stop focusing solely on defending
yourself, your candidate, or your medium.
Get back on offense, and push these key values in relation to our search for solutions:
- Consensus, not winning by a little but gaining general agreement, a mandate.
- Transparency, demanding more information and more immediate access to it.
- Access, paying more attention to issues regarding the Internet itself, expanding its reach and our knowledge of using it.
I know there are bloggers who will insist this can’t be done. Those
people misunderstand both their medium and the underlying trend of our
time.
The Internet is not about immediacy. TV is immediate. The Internet
is about depth. The Internet offers its own tools to add immense depth
to any examination of any issue. These tools are hyperlinks.
There are people who have become experts at a variety of subjects.
Iraq. Economics. Education. Health. If you don’t know what you’re
talking about, link to experts. Gather them together and use them to make your
points.
Focus on solutions. Focus on the process of change, of how policy
can be remade, of how the world can be remade. Look toward tomorrow, not yesterday, and offer hope. Stop worrying about what
they’re going to do to you. Get them worried about what you’re going to
do to them.
Then do it.
