Political Gastronomica : September 2006

« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

Social networking in politics across the pond

Just surfing the blogosphere - and caught two posts: one at Simon Says discussing a new article talking about the Tories (the Conservatives) getting ready to launch a Social Networking Site to "allow users to engage with - and help develop -Tory policies on issues such as poverty, climate change and volunteering.". The second, by David Wilcox, talks about the potential for another "digital divide":

This does, of course, raise yet another form of the digital divide. If social networking is a sphere of influence those with networking skills may become disproportionately influential. Of course, it was always thus ... just the nature of the clubs is changing.

David brings up the need for the connection between offline and online - which is always the challenge about any networking or organizational development. Sticking in one medium will limit the pool of involvement - better to extend across the space and find involvement tactics that involve and incorporate in multiple ways.

Back when BBSes were the vogue thing - there was the Rising Sun where I used to socialize on a very small Apple II+ whih had an Apple Cat modem. The best thing about the community was not the 300 baud speed printing of the content on the screen, but the monthly breakfasts with other members of the BBS cemented the relationships between us. It is the reinforcement of the interactions that will help politics develop the online outreach beyond the assumed myopic view of online community members.

Funny thing, 100M+ MySpace members, close to 1M SecondLifers and the explosion of social networking sites is a ripe space to grow involvement. I think that the Tories action, while interesting, is again trying to create another space that they control. Better to go where the voters are (like, say, SoFlow or A Small World) and build from within, rather than from the outside. Use the community within and develop the community - and then grow the space for the community to be involved in. Do you need features that are not already available in the sites today? And if they are not there, could you find ways of meeting the needs without software development (like a forum or a mailing list)? Give it some thought and see what can happen.

Tags: English eCampaigning, political social networking, Tories

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 4:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What's The Party For.....now?

One of my business partners, Rana Sarkar, is the founder of the Progressive North Forum in Canada and is preparing a conference in Toronto on October 20th with a question - "What's the Party For?" It is an interesting question - in this age of "distributed democracy".

One of the challenges that European parties (I am leveraging my experiences from England, mainly) is that they have difficulty because of the structure of their party. These parties are primarily membership driven - similar to other membership organizations, you pay membership dues to become a card-carrying member. But in today's world, where many people revel in the freedom of choice and wish to express their independence, how does a party attract new members, and not simply churn the ever smaller group of people, over and over again?

IMHO, I do not think the party is a dead, I think that parties takes a lot longer to evolve into a mechanism that can support the fast-paced, fickle nature of the electorate today. Empowered with inexpensive technology, an ability to create content at a whim, and express themselves across a wide audience - individuals are finding their voice, without the need of the party. But, as human beings, we often require some form of organization to show our allegiance to - to share in our goals and values. This is one of the many reasons for parties.

So, let us consider that parties do today. From my experiences, parties:

• Act as institutional memory - which is both good (learning from previous mistakes) and bad (keepers of conventional wisdom). By being "king-makers" and having a formulaic process, they tend to assure that everything has the same flavour, and interesting entries are appreciated, entertaining but also eventually discarded from the main body before the final decision is made.
• Act as the gatekeeper for fundraising - in most state parties, the party seems to be the aggregator of the large donors and most networked individuals, providing learned guidance to the party faithful on whom to contribute to. It is here where the party wisdom often is seen to bestow the mantle of succession on the appropriate candidate.
• Act as an organizing body - where the steady supporters and new volunteers are often brought to become involved in campaigns, especially around the time of elections. They hold training programs, manage data, and generally considered the keeper of the wisdom on the local, county or state field organizing.
• Act as event planners - truly, where would a party be without the convention for the faithful to gather, commiserate, and make decisions on the direction of the party? Newbies are given a show and restricted access, where the faithful enjoy the benefits of connection and longevity.

But the question still beckons - what is a party for now? Are the tasks above all that is necessary, or can they evolve into something that engages the growing younger electorate and become part of the life of the community?

"But we need a real organization..."
When I was at Stanford, one of the books that came out while going to grad school was Jerry Porras and Jim Collins' book, "Built to Last". After serving on a couple of campaigns and interacting with various party committees, I think that the structure of parties make it hard for them to change efficiently or effectively. Take a look at some of the metrics Porras and Collins uses to determine if companies were "Built to Last":

• Be a Clock Builder, not a Time Teller
  In US politics, people give credit to the Republicans for being better at building the clock ("framing the message") than the Democrats, whom, in the paraphrased words of Joel Klein, often seem to be trying to say everything for all people. In 2006, This year, the Democrats came out with a "unified message", but if not for my personal interest in knowing it, I do not think I would even be aware of it. Similar to the transient nature of telling the time, the message has yet to resonate with the public. In politics, being a clock builder establishes a base for the base, time-telling tends to play directly to the hands of the perception of transience. While it might be good for the press, time-telling is not something that people can get ahold of.
• Have a set of 'Core Values'
  Again, the Republicans seem to have this in spades, where the Democrats seem to get lost in the discussion of all of the parties interests and coming up with (what is positioned by the Republicans as) an incomprehensible set of "values". One of the learnings of the Porras/Collins book is that "Core Values" are something that everyone in the "company" follows and upholds. These values are not just a touchy-feely group of statements, they are the core values that help the "company" make the hard decisions of what works and what doesn't. They are the constraints that help people make decisions and prioritize what matters. What does this sound like to you?
• Preserve Your 'Core Ideology'
  The "Core Ideology" is based on the Core Values, but is more malleable to the time and "market". Does the party actually preserve the core ideology? And what is the core ideology of this time and date?
• BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals)
  Now here is where both parties tend to fall down IMHO. The BHAGs are determined, not by grand design, but by short-term goals - especially for the next election cycle. Consider that corporations back in the 70s and 80s acted like this - always working to hit their next quarter's numbers - which the Japanese demonstrated the strength of long-term thinking. Then in the 90s, when hitting short-term numbers became vogue again, for their perceived value as a reflection of long-term value, how did that end up? What were the last great goals that people got around and worked toward? Sacrificed for? Aren't parties meant to maintain these BHAGs?
• Have a 'Cult-Like" Culture
  Another interesting metric - when was the last time that the masses felt like the party was something they were proud to be a part of? Where others feel proud to be a member of? Aside from the different extremes or the party elders, how do the rank-and-file feel? As you get closer to the middle, how strong does the party reflect across the spectrum?
• Don't be Afraid to Evolve: Try New Things and Use What Works
  Hmmmm - now this is an interesting one. How soon did the parties take to new mechanisms? Look at the local, state and national parties. Where was money spent? How did new ideas, new technologies, new engagement strategies take place/take hold?
• Look Inside for your Top Management
  Now, in this case, I think parties are very much hit his metric - but I think that they stick far too close to the blood-line, instead of cultivating hybrids to engage in change. Let's take the Republicans and the Democrats - how has the top management within the parties grown? Is there a "farm league"? How do people rise through the ranks?
• Constantly Innovate
  Again, where does this lie in the parties? How often do you see change within the party apparatus?

From this accounting of the Porras/Collins metrics, parties do not look like mechanisms for long term stability. But, they do have value. Earlier, I accounted for some of their tasks - but what could they do for the future?

The 21st Century Political Party
For one, I would not remove any of the tasks above - they have a major responsibility to the existing membership and the keepers of the flame. But, they also need to do two major things:

• BUILD THE BENCH
  All parties should have the responsibility for building their teams - like any good competitive sporting team or global company, the strength of your party is based on the strength of the benches. And, if the party is not out cultivating new recruits to be part of the process, then the party will eventually whither and die from neglect - or be eaten alive by the opposing parties. Think of the Whigs - and their plight over 100 years ago.
• BUILD THE PROCESS
  By building the bench, you have to build the process - for training, for relevance, for involvement. In today's society, where does civic duty come? Where are the programs for civic involvement that engage others on a regular basis? Where do the actions coincide with others philanthropic efforts (like Habitat for Humanity or the United Way)? How can National Service be brought into vogue without the need for war?
• BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE
  In four separate occasions, I have met with parties - state and federal types - and discussed the need for infrastructure. Not buildings and roads, but technological infrastructure to allow for parties to provide relevant services to the empowered masses. Instead of keeping all the power in the hands of a few, provide the tools and the capabilities to supporters that can empower them to act on the party's behalf - and to take ownership over their actions. And, rather than being fearful of the risk, ensure that processes are in place that individuals take responsibility for their actions and reduce the impact on the party. Offering empowerment can be a double-edged sword - the question is, are parties ready to experiment with the power of distributed democracy?

Tags: Political Parties, Distributed Democracy, Rana Sarkar, 21st Century Politics

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 12:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Third year anniversary in Dem Politics

On the evening of September 11th, 2003 - I boarded a flight out of Heathrow for Washington, DC and landed in Dulles, where a cabbie named Aces picked me up and drove me out of the airport.

I was nervous at the time, since I had just left my home I had known for years and had recently broken up with my girlfriend - who had just flown back to Brasil the morning before. As we drove to DC that Friday morning, I remember having a feeling of trepidation, of excitement and of wonder about getting involved in politics - finally. My business partner, Rana, had been a strong advocate for being involved and making a difference and my history of student activism in areas of minority student support and athletc affairs - supposedly prepped me for this adventure. But I was certain it did not.

Politics was never meant to become a profession for me - rather, I felt a duty to fight for what was right for the Democratic Party and give up my business and relationship for the important task of electing someone that was "other than Bush". After years of apologizing for our government in foreign countries, and watching an anemic online campaign form versus what seemed to be a powerhouse of Republican forces, I finally decided to step up and make a difference.

align="right">But, this was just for this action. I thought of this as a simple consulting gig - where the task was to solve the problem, and get out. I help start companies, I love to build products, I love teaching people. Politics has always been a world of well-dressed.....sharks. And on my ride with Aces, we chatted about what it was like to stay in DC and what kind of person would it take to stay.

Aces said, "You don't have the right disposition; you seem to care too much. People here are about the game, not about the results." And I said, "That's where I am different. I get results." And, for the most part, that is what I have done.

And for three years, while the game I have not completely mastered, I have begun to understand it better. And I still do not feel like I am part of the system - which I think is a good thing. I am called upon to help in numerous ways, and I continue my fight to make a difference - whether from within or out. But it is my feverant hope that we, as citizens, continue to try to make a difference in this country and continue this democracy going.

Someone asked, why do I have a stamp of Mount Rushmore on the site. The practical reason is because my designer found it - and I liked it. The real heart reason is that the one place where I felt the spirit of what those great men felt and stood for was on the viewing platform staring up at those faces. Below the platform are four of their most famous quotes - which continue to inspire me. That is why I am proud to be an American.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
July 4, 1776

"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

George Washington
First Inaugural Address
April 30, 1789

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Abraham Lincoln
Gettysburg Address
November 19, 1863

"We, here in America, hold in our hands the hopes of the worlds, the fate of the coming years; and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed, if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of men."

Theodore Roosevelt
Address at Carnegie Hall
March 30, 1912

Tags: Sanford Dickert, civic duty

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 2:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Smith concedes, Davis wins.

Wow - after a hotly contested race, Davis wins. That is amazing. With the low turnout in Broward and Dade Counties, I guess the perceived advantage Smith had in the northern part of Florida did not offset the advantage Davis had in the I-4 Corridor. It is funny, we had a very similar situation happen to us (on the Deutsch Campaign) where we spent most of our time in the South Florida area and little up in Tampa or along the I-4. I understand that the Smith campaign did better, but my assumption is that Davis was more effective. And, in addition, the low turnout in Broward did not help Smith. I look forward to the breakdown of the votes in the major media markets and see how effective the campaign truly was.

Rod - a good fight was fought, and now we have a Governors mansion to win in Tallahassee. Go Davis!

Tags: Rod Smith, Jim Davis, Florida Governor

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 5:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mark Warner in secondLife

Funny thing - eight days ago, after taking a couple of days to edit my social networks post, one of my thought exercises turned out to be (somewhat) prophetic. In the post, I suggested:

Now think about Senator Clinton, building a virtual campaign office in SecondLife, the 200K member community that allows for intellectual property ownership and currency exchanges. In this case, the campaign has a virtual store within the office where you can purchase "Hillary '08" paraphenalia with your Linden dollars (L$). To pay the "rent" in SecondLife, the campaign converts those Linden dollars used to buy the campaign gear into US currency through various online exchange sites. (Ooch - those pesky-little rules from McCain-Feingold could potentially problem for compliance issues - but it does help in those data collection needs).

Okay - so I did not have the candidate correctly, but on Thursday, former Governor Mark Warner made an "campaign stop" in secondLife and had a terrific Q&A session with about 30 visitors in the session. The following is a list of blogs discussing the event:

• Wagner James Au, the moderator, reports on his blog (New World Notes) with full transcript and photos. Additionally, he posts a post-interview wrapup of the impact of the event in the main-stream media.
• YesButNoButYes comments on the potential gimmickery of the event (not sure if this is a real blog or just one trying to generate clicks for their ads...)
• My friend, Dave Weinberger jots a note about the visit in JoHo
• Rik in secondLife provides video of the event at his blog, Click Heard Round the World with some his own reporting on what Warner said on Iraq and other topics on this post.
• And reported in Somewhat Frank, Warner might be doing more TownHall meetings over the course of the campaign.

I wonder - the event was sparsely attended (30 residents) and it was the first in the virtual world (as reported by MicroPersuasion). Will others follow? I would assume some might, since it only made a ripple in the main stream media.

Tags: Mark Warner, secondLife, Virtual Town Hall Meeting, Virtual Campaigning

Posted by Sanford Dickert at 1:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack