Barack Obama's unprecedented use of online advocacy tools left the GOP in the dust this last campaign cycle. Not only was his campaign more "plugged-in" than any other, but Obama also managed to turn many, many of his online supporters into offline activists. No major campaign will be able to get by after this without learning how to replicate Obama's success. (Politically inclined tech geeks the world over should be rejoicing now...)
The GOP - and, for that matter, the Conservative movement as a whole - is going to have to get its technological act together if it wants to win any future elections. Conservatives do well in talk radio, but the Left owns the internet. It's time for the Right to stop treating the internet like just another communications medium and to start using it to spark real-world action.
Fortunately there are a number of young activists who recognize this and are hard at work finding ways to bring Conservatives up to speed. Check out sites like The Next Right, the #dontgo Revolution, and Rebuild The Party to see what I mean. Keep an eye on what strategists like Patrick Ruffini and Matt Lewis are saying. You'll get the idea.
In addition, a growing number of Conservatives have begun to band together on Twitter just over the past couple of days. Take a look at the Top Conservatives on Twitter list if you're ready to join in the brainstorming, strategizing and general hubbub there.
Those of you who are following the RNC Chair election will be interested in this chart tracking RNC Chair candidates' tech activity. Why bother to track this? I'll let the chart's author explain:
The RNC Candidates Tech Chart exists because this past election cycle our opponents used the tools of technology to defeat us decisively at the polls. We sat back and watched while they did. We can't let this kind of defeat happen next time around. That's why groups like this and this were created. Excellent first steps, but these groups will not be sufficient to secure electoral victory if the new leadership of the party is not receptive to change. This is why it is imperative to select a chairman willing to embrace the internet, and use it as fully and completely as possible to advance our cause. This index is designed to help members of the RNC decide which candidate is willing and able to do what we need, when we need it, to return the grand old party to electoral success.
What do you think? Is technological know-how a good reason to choose one RNC candidate over another? Are there any other Conservative activism groups online that I should look for?
The GOP's problems this cycle were not an inadequate use of "digital activism", it was that just did a lousy job. The GOP "brand", if you will, is one of strong national defense, law and order, and smaller government, but for the past 8 years, we have been the party of larger government, open borders, and corruption and mismanagement. That is not the way to win elections, no matter how effective your "digital activism" skills. With any message, medium is important, but not as important as content, and that is where we have been lacking.
Digital wizardry or not, the voters will swiftly retreat back to the GOP as soon as one of the following inevitable events occurs:
1. Obama tries to actually enact one of his wacko socialist ideas like crippling taxes or nationalized healthcare.
2. Obama's inaction results in a devastating terrorist attack on US soil, followed by him expressing "grave condemnation", and telling the FBI to look into it.
ucfengr,
You're right, content has also been a big problem. And you're right, the 'brand' needs some re-working. I think the re-branding process is going to have to involve - in part - a major update of our digital strategy, especially after Obama's recent online triumphs.
No matter how solid our content, we aren't going to be able to get away from the 'backwards party' stereotype until we stop being, well, backwards, online.
I'm curious - what content do you think the Right needs to especially focus on right now?
Rachel, the reason the GOP lost the last election was not because of Obama's "unprecedented use of digital advocacy", but because John McCain was not a very good candidate and because the current perception is that George Bush, whose party he shares, was not a very good president. Any candidate the GOP put up this year would have had a hard time.
As to what the Right needs to work on, I think they need to get back to their original "brand"; that smaller, less intrusive government thing. I think that is a message that still has impact, but the problem is the current crop of "conservatives" have very little credibility on the issue. Right now we are like the sports team that traded all its draft picks for established players a couple years ago. Now, all those young players we passed on are the new stars and the players we picked up have passed their prime. The Right needs to go through a re-building season or two to get competitive again.
I agree with the overall point of the post as well as the comments made above. I would add that if we are more successful than the left in raising money and votes through digital activism, we are still left with the kinds of failure we've had for the last years. That is, the kinds of failure that the left would ordinarily applaud: more and more spending, more bailouts, more nanny-statism, less personal responsibility, etc. etc. etc.
In other words, digital activism might win elections, but what good is it if we advance big government leftism?
ucfengr
The Right needs to go through a re-building season or two to get competitive again.
Just one question. Remember when we cleaned house in 1994, when there were 75 freshman Republicans elected? What the H*** happened to those guys? How did we get to a position where we spend like Democrats? what good will it do to rebuild if have no restraint once we get there?
Just one question. Remember when we cleaned house in 1994, when there were 75 freshman Republicans elected? What the H*** happened to those guys? How did we get to a position where we spend like Democrats? what good will it do to rebuild if have no restraint once we get there?
I do remember something about that. I am not sure what the answer is, but I will point out that 75 is significantly less than a majority in the House. Clearly, not much will get done with the lot we have now.
There are two issues, as noted among the comments. Yes, conservatives may be missing the boat in some ways on mediums of communication. But the bottom line is that you have to have a simple, logical message to communicate. All the methodologies and mediums in the world won't make up for a shoddy message.
I'm curious - what content do you think the Right needs to especially focus on right now?
Clearly the mass murder of human embryos and the state-sanctioned murder of vegetables like Terry Schiavo must be stopped immediately. This is the defining issue of our time, along with fighting the gay agenda and the spread of radical Muslims and atheist doctrines like evolution into our neighborhoods and schools.
Just one question. Remember when we cleaned house in 1994, when there were 75 freshman Republicans elected? What the H*** happened to those guys? How did we get to a position where we spend like Democrats?
The problem is the War on Iraq was a great idea (and still is) in principal but President Bush was misled by his staff and made it into an expensive occupation when it should have been a lot more Shock and Awe. The entire country should be a US base (and oil field) and not some misguided attempt to teach democracy to Arabs who are culturally incapable of understanding civilization as we know it. That could have been achieved by more use of Righteousness and The Sword of Truth, and less liberal hang-wringing about Saddam's "rights."
I agree that the Republicans got creamed because of the message, not the medium.
It's not enough to say "limited government, strong defense, and social conservatism" you need to be specific. I suggest that Republicans adopt the following planks to get started explaining exactly what they mean:
1. Don't privatize Social Security, abolish it.
2. Abolish Medicare and Medicaid.
3. End all regulation of Wall Street and banks and other businesses. Just end regulation, period.
4. Abolish the FDA, the FCC, the SEC, the EPA, the FDIC, the FHA, PBS, the FAA, OSHA, NAFTA, RCA and anything else with initials (except the CIA and FBI).
5. Repeal the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. Institute a national poll tax and literacy test for all voters.
6. Abolish the interstate highway system.
7. Sell off the national parks system.
8. End all students loans and grants.
9. Abolish the Veterans Administration.
10. Repeal all taxes (except the aforementioned poll tax and a new and very high tariff).
11. Triple the size of the military.
12. Promise to invade at least three countries.
13. Pass a constitutional amendment making abortion a federal crime. Institute the death penalty for any woman who has an abortion. Be sure to also criminalize use of the birth control pill.
14. Reinstitute prohibition.
15. Make homosexual sex a federal crime. Institute the death penalty for violaters.
16. Make conservative Christianity the semi-official religion.
17. End all immigration.
18. Pull out of the UN.
19. Get rid of the Post Office.
20. Republicans running for state and local offices will promise to abolish such socialistic programs as welfare, public supported hospitals, public schools, police departments, fire departments, public utilities (like water, sewage, garbage collection), public roads, public libraries, public parks and swimnming pools, zoning laws, fire codes and building codes.
21. Outlaw divorce and "living together."
The basic idea is to go back to the good old days of about 1880 before we had the nanny state.
Penny writes:
Clearly the mass murder of human embryos and the state-sanctioned murder of vegetables like Terry Schiavo must be stopped immediately. This is the defining issue of our time, along with fighting the gay agenda and the spread of radical Muslims and atheist doctrines like evolution into our neighborhoods and schools.
============================================
Keep thinking that way. Republicans like you keep people like me from voting Republican. I like the fiscal restraint you guys used to have, but I'll have none of the imposed morality. I left your side for the libertarians when the Moral Majority came along. I went to the Democrats when I realized the Libertarians were not in the game.
I don't know why you think voting for those reasons is working for you. Your leaders don't give you what you want even when they hold the reigns. Even if your leaders succeed in packing the SCOTUS to the point of overturning Roe v. Wade, abortions will still be easily availablt to those with money to travel and those in blue states. Women's groups will collect money for poor women to go to the abortion doctors.
Vote your conscience, but you will never get what you want.
Rob, I think you got punked.
Heh-heh. That's entirely possible, Mike. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference around here. Who, for instance, would think that a rational adult would equate letting children know that homosexuals exist with child abuse? Yet a regular commenter here believes that very thing. The line between satire and earnestness is often thin and crooked.
I'm still not sure Penny isn't for real. I've seen much worse than her at Fox Forums.
Gee, ex you forgot platform plank 21:
"Mandate the dumping of toxic waste at nursery schools."
I mean, really, if you want to paint your opponents as pure evil, why not go whole hog? Because, there's no good or rational reason a person could disagree with you, right?
Rob, I think you got punked.
Mark this date down; ucfengr and Mike Toreno actually agreed on something. This is one of those things you will be able to tell your grandchildren about.
I don't know what "punk'd" means but if it has anything to do with that Ashley Kutcher reality show I am surprised that anyone here would watch that. I found out about this blog from a friend who works for Hugh Hewitt. She told me that this is one of Mr. Hewitt's favorite blogs.
If there is an evangelical Christian out there who opposes the Iraq War, who supports the murder of human embryos, who supports the murder of vegetables who are waiting for a miracle from God, or who supports homosesexuals and evolutionists teaching young children, then I have some bad news for that evangelical: he or she really isn't an evangelical Christian and likely isn't a Christian at all.
I'm surprised that we are even debating this here.
Rachel
You're right, content has also been a big problem. And you're right, the 'brand' needs some re-working. I think the re-branding process is going to have to involve - in part - a major update of our digital strategy, especially after Obama's recent online triumphs.
I don't usually side with ucfengr. He remains a member in good standing of this blogs Trinity of Stupidity. Yet it's interesting to see how you totally missed the point. You say he's right but then immediately revert back to marketing-speak.
It's interesting that Democrats did this just after Reagan got elected. Ohhh it's only because he's an actor or it's because he's a great public speaker that he won (sound familiar?). He's all style but no real substance...we got the substance it's just the style we are lacking. Ironically, this idea reinforces obsession with style at the expense of substance. In fact, you seem to not even understand what substance is anymore. 'Content.vs.Re-branding'? You're so far into the style world that you don't even seem to know there's life beyond it. Your idea of
Not surprisingly, we get John M with
Digital wizardry or not, the voters will swiftly retreat back to the GOP as soon as one of the following inevitable events occurs:....
Yes your 'substance' is to hope that Obama fails horribly. Kind of like Democrats who were 'sure' they'd win just as soon as Reagan got 90% of red-staters incinerated in a nuclear war....something's deeply wrong when the best you have to offer is hope..hope that the other guy's the antichrist and you're slighly less evil than Satan.
Penny
The entire country should be a US base (and oil field) and not some misguided attempt to teach democracy to Arabs who are culturally incapable of understanding civilization as we know it.
Yes, so I guess Arabs are culturally incapable of understanding civiliation but what's YOUR excuse? (I'm assuming you're real, if so my condolances).
Ucfengr
As to what the Right needs to work on, I think they need to get back to their original "brand"; that smaller, less intrusive government thing. I think that is a message that still has impact, but the problem is the current crop of "conservatives" have very little credibility on the issue.
Are you sure? McCain was as good as any other major Republican on gov't spending going back to Reagan. As for the whole libertarian chic thing, well "Joe the Plumber" was as good as any of Reagan's lines about gov't isn't the solution to the problem but is the problem. OK Bush was bad on spending but his credibility was just about as good as Bush I or Reagan. His push for social security privatization was more 'original brand' than anything Reagan ever tried.
While ucfengr deserves some gruding credit for articulating the problem he fails. Why? Look at what Jon Wymer says:
But the bottom line is that you have to have a simple, logical message to communicate
And you did. 'Joe the Plumber' is indeed a simple, logical message. So is free love, so is communism. The problem is that it has no practical connection to the real world. Did McCain lack credibility because despite embracing Joe he still accepted the progressive income tax as evidenced when a little girl asked why her father, a doctor, pays a higher rate on his income than someone who makes less? Probably but if McCain had added to his credibility by refusing to promise Social Security and Medicare patients that their benefits wouldn't be cut, telling the middle and working class that he would raise their income tax rates so he could lower the rates on richer people to establish a 'flat tax' he would have gone down to a bigger defeat. You're never going to get perfect credibility to an ideology in a political candidate but somehow I'm really, really doubtful that what you guys need is to find some way to fuse the genes of Ayn Rand to The Church Lady.
I mean, really, if you want to paint your opponents as pure evil, why not go whole hog? Because, there's no good or rational reason a person could disagree with you, right?
ucfengr's premise, appears to be:
1. His side is not pure evil.
2. The other side is not perfect.
It would be amusing to see him try to apply this silliness in real life.
Hospital head: Why should we hire you as chief of oncology?
ucfengr: Because I have simple and logical messages.
Head: Yea but you have no degree in medicine, no trail of respected publications like our current oncologist. If I put you in his place I'd be feeding our patients to the wolves!
ucfengr: Come now! Are you saying I want to see cancer patients die? Why not go all the way and call me pure evil! Look on Thursday I helped an old lady accross the street! And besides, your current oncologist is not perfect, right? You mean he never made a decision that could be rationally questioned!
ucfengr's premise, appears to be:....
No, I was attempting to ridicule the extremism of ex's position. For example, in number 15, essentially ex's position is you are either for gay marriage, or you want the death penalty for homosexuals. Kind of silly, isn't it? Or take number 3, if you think any government regulation might be excessive or counter productive, than you must want to end all regulation. Or 21, you think permissive divorce laws and/or "shacking up" might be a net negative to society and you want to outlaw divorce and "living together". I could go on, but if you haven't gotten the point by now, I'm afraid there is no hope for you.
It would be amusing to see him try to apply this silliness in real life.
So, in your vignette, people who disagree with you may only be stupid, not evil. Gee, thanks, how magnanimous of you.
Only three people here I would consider stupid (but I disagree with many more). As for evil, I don't know anyone here IRL so I can't comment but judging from just the comments I don't find anyone here exceptionally evil.
ftolzicgn livemyunh mdxi qdfiselzn raqkjtmh zyhtsdqp nidzl
ftolzicgn livemyunh mdxi qdfiselzn raqkjtmh zyhtsdqp nidzl