Reform Democrat Manifesto

This is looooong, but it is worth a look--Chris

I am a Reform Democrat has become the new rallying cry of the blogosphere. Kos started the meme, and the overwhelming response to yesterday's I am a Reform Democrat suggests we are serious about modernizing our Party.

If we were to start from scratch and strategize how a successful Democratic Party would operate we would come up with an entirely different apparatus than our current organization. Why? Because we understand that not only is our Party not able to compete currently, but it is inherently inadequate to deal with the future.

The extended entry is a version of the infamous Cluetrain Manifesto that has been modified for politics. Only by understanding the future can we build a modern Democratic Party with the vision necessary to succeed.

I've modified (with apologies) the Cluetrain Manifesto 95 theses to politics:

  1. Campaigns are conversations.

  2. Campaigns consist of human beings, not demographic sectors.

  3. Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.

  4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.

  5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice.

  6. The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media.

  7. Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.

  8. In both internetworked campaigns and among intranetworked supporters, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way.

  9. These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization and knowledge exchange to emerge.

  10. As a result, voters are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked campaign changes people fundamentally.

  11. Voters in networked campaigns have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from politicians. So much for consultant rhetoric about adding value to political message.

  12. There are no secrets. The blogosphere knows more than consultants do about their own candidates. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone.

  13. What's happening to political campaigns is also happening among supporters. A metaphysical construct called "The Candidate" is the only thing standing between the two.

  14. Politicians do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, politicians sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman.

  15. In just a few more years, the current homogenized "voice" of politics-the sound of policy statements and brochures-will seem as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th century French court.

  16. Already, politicians that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are no longer speaking to anyone.

  17. Consultants that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves.

  18. Politicians that don't realize their campaigns are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.

  19. Campaigns can now communicate with their voters directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance.

  20. Politicians need to realize their voters are often laughing. At them.

  21. Politicians need to lighten up and take themselves less seriously. They need to get a sense of humor.

  22. Getting a sense of humor does not mean putting some jokes on the campaign web site. Rather, it requires big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view.

  23. Politicians attempting to "position" themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their campaign actually cares about.

  24. Bombastic boasts do not constitute a position.

  25. Politicians need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.

  26. Public Relations does not relate to the public. Hacks are deeply afraid of the voters.

  27. By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep voters at bay.

  28. Most campaign programs are based on the fear that the voters might see what's really going on inside the campaign.

  29. Elvis said it best: "We can't go on together with suspicious minds."

  30. Party loyalty is the political version of going steady, but the breakup is inevitable-and coming fast. Because they are networked, smart politicians are able to renegotiate relationships with blinding speed.

  31. Networked voters can change politicians overnight. Networked knowledge voters can change sides over lunch. Your own "triangulation initiatives" taught us to ask the question: "Loyalty? What's that?"

  32. Smart voters will find politicians who speak their own language.

  33. Learning to speak with a human voice is not a parlor trick. It can't be "picked up" at some tony conference.

  34. To speak with a human voice, campaigns must share the concerns of their communities.

  35. But first, they must belong to a community.

  36. Campaigns must ask themselves where their political cultures end.

  37. If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no campaign.

  38. Human communities are based on discourse-on human speech about human concerns.

  39. The community of discourse is the campaign.

  40. Politicians that do not belong to a community of discourse will lose.

  41. Campaigns make a religion of security, but this is largely a red herring. Most are protecting less against competitors than against their own voters and workforce.

  42. As with networked campaigns, people are also talking to each other directly inside the company-and not just about rules and regulations, boardroom directives, bottom lines.

  43. Such conversations are taking place today on political intranets. But only when the conditions are right.

  44. Campaigns typically install intranets top-down to distribute corporate information that supporters are doing their best to ignore.

  45. Intranets naturally tend to route around boredom. The best are built bottom-up by engaged individuals cooperating to construct something far more valuable: an intranetworked political conversation.

  46. A healthy intranet organizes supporters in many meanings of the word. Its effect is more radical than the agenda of any union.

  47. While this scares politicians witless, they also depend heavily on open intranets to generate and share critical knowledge. They need to resist the urge to "improve" or control these networked conversations.

  48. When political intranets are not constrained by fear and legalistic rules, the type of conversation they encourage sounds remarkably like the conversation of the networked campaign.

  49. Org charts worked in an older campaigns where plans could be fully understood from atop steep management pyramids and detailed work orders could be handed down from on high.

  50. Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority.

  51. Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia.

  52. Paranoia kills conversation. That's its point. But lack of open conversation kills campaigns.

  53. There are two conversations going on. One inside the campaign. One with the voters.

  54. In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control.

  55. As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in internetworked campaigns.

  56. These two conversations want to talk to each other. They are speaking the same language. They recognize each other's voices.

  57. Smart campaigns will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner.

  58. If willingness to get out of the way is taken as a measure of IQ, then very few politicians have yet wised up.

  59. However subliminally at the moment, millions of people now online perceive political campaigns as little more than quaint legal fictions that are actively preventing these conversations from intersecting.

  60. This is suicidal. Voters want to talk to campaigns.

  61. Sadly, the part of the campaign a networked voter wants to talk to is usually hidden behind a smokescreen of hucksterism, of language that rings false-and often is.

  62. Voters do not want to talk to flacks and hucksters. They want to participate in the conversations going on behind the political firewall.

  63. De-cloaking, getting personal: We are those voters. We want to talk to you.

  64. We want access to your political information, to your plans and strategies, your best thinking, your genuine knowledge. We will not settle for the 4-color brochure, for web sites chock-a-block with eye candy but lacking any substance.

  65. We're also the supporters who make your campaigns go. We want to talk to voters directly in our own voices, not in platitudes written into a script.

  66. As voters, as supporters, both of us are sick to death of getting our information by remote control. Why do we need faceless polling and third-hand campaign news to introduce us to each other?

  67. As voters, as supporters, we wonder why you're not listening. You seem to be speaking a different language.

  68. The inflated self-important jargon you sling around-in the press, at your conferences-what's that got to do with us?

  69. Maybe you're impressing your contributors. Maybe you're impressing K Street. You're not impressing us.

  70. If you don't impress us, your contributors are going to take a bath. Don't they understand this? If they did, they wouldn't let you talk that way.

  71. Your tired notions of "the campaign" make our eyes glaze over. We don't recognize ourselves in your projections-perhaps because we know we're already elsewhere.

  72. We like this new political marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it.

  73. You're invited, but it's our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with us, get down off that camel!

  74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it.

  75. If you want us to talk to you, tell us something. Make it something interesting for a change.

  76. We've got some ideas for you too: some new tools we need, some better service. Stuff we'd be willing to vote for. Got a minute?

  77. You're too busy "doing our business" to answer our email? Oh gosh, sorry, gee, we'll come back later. Maybe.

  78. You want us to vote? We want you to pay attention.

  79. We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join our party.

  80. Don't worry, you can still win races. That is, as long as it's not the only thing on your mind.

  81. Have you noticed that, in itself, politics is kind of one-dimensional and boring? What else can we talk about?

  82. Your campaign lost. Why? We'd like to ask the guy who created it. Your political strategy makes no sense. We'd like to have a chat with your consultant. What do you mean she's not in?

  83. We want you to take 50 million of us as seriously as you take one reporter from The Hill.

  84. We know some people from your campaign. They're pretty cool online. Do you have any more like that you're hiding? Can they come out and play?

  85. When we have questions we turn to each other for answers. If you didn't have such a tight rein on "your people" maybe they'd be among the people we'd turn to.

  86. When we're not busy being your "target voters," many of us are your volunteers. We'd rather be talking to friends online than watching the clock. That would get your name around better than your entire million dollar web site. But you tell us speaking to the voters is candidates job.

  87. We'd like it if you got what's going on here. That'd be real nice. But it would be a big mistake to think we're holding our breath.

  88. We have better things to do than worry about whether you'll change in time to get our vote. Politics is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it: who needs whom?

  89. We have real power and we know it. If you don't quite see the light, some other outfit will come along that's more attentive, more interesting, more fun to play with.

  90. Even at its worst, our newfound conversation is more interesting than most rallies, more entertaining than any TV talk show, and certainly more true-to-life than the political web sites we've been seeing.

  91. Our allegiance is to ourselves-our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our sparring partners. Politicians that have no part in this world, also have no future.

  92. Politicians spent millions of dollars on self research. Why can't politicians hear this timebomb ticking? The stakes are even higher.

  93. We're both inside campaigns and outside them. The boundaries that separate our conversations look like the Berlin Wall today, but they're really just an annoyance. We know they're coming down. We're going to work from both sides to take them down.

  94. To traditional politicians, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down.

  95. We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

16 Comments

It's all about me
While this may define some part of the community, it isn't exactly an agenda or a definition except that "we ain't who you think we are so there"

Democrats need a direction, not a definition.

Reform what?  How?  When?  Who?

Otherwise we indulge int eh same navel gazing that we have done previously.

by Carol 2004-11-19 10:53AM | 0 recs
It's all about us
Yesterday I posted my 20 areas of reform for the Democratic Party which listed the steps I would like to see taken to modernize the party. This was posted not as a guide, but to prompt a look a modern paradigms through which we could evaluate reform.
by Bob Brigham 2004-11-19 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: It's all about us
OK, you are inching toward something.

I will critique both this weekend, because there are some serious weaknesses in this.  One that leaps out is the ageism.  Future oriented world views are not the purview of people under 30, and my generation (I am a baby boomer) made the mistake of thinking that everyone over 30 was somehow incapable of being a part of progress.  Some of the most progressive ideas come not from young people but from old coots like John Galbraith, Robert Heilbroner, James Galbraith, Howard Dean, and so on.  

If you want to alienate the majority of Americans and appeal to an increasingly smaller demographic, go for it.  Otherwise, you need to open your world view and find out how to talk to everyone.

by Carol 2004-11-19 11:08AM | 0 recs
ageism?
blarf.
by Teaser 2004-11-19 11:17AM | 0 recs
future is coming
The Cluetrain writers are baby-boomers, so don't pull the ageism crap when I'm quoting your generation. All I said was that young people should have a seat at the table. This year, young people were given a role in leading independent organizations and because of that we had a youth surge in 2004 like the one that was promised in 1972. If the baby boomers had been given a role in helping to lead the party during the 70s and early 80s, maybe the third of your generation has switched to the GOP since McGovern would still be with us.

I'm not looking for the "most progressive ideas" when what we need are the most successful ideas. I'm as concerned about the 2012 election as the 2006 cycle.

However, the far larger issue is how we can use the tools of tomorrow to win future elections. We can't invest in the pony express when the railroad is coming to town. Information is being exchanged in entirely new ways and this affects all generations.

We need to reform our Party, I'm just trying to kickstart the conversation. I look forward to reading your critique.

by Bob Brigham 2004-11-19 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: future is coming
I realized I was getting all bothered.  So,
piffle away, kids.
by Carol 2004-11-19 12:34PM | 0 recs
On understanding the future...
sure, that's necessary to build a successful Democratic party but, you had better understand the past too or else you're doomed to repeat failures and not capitalize on the successes
by LionelEHutz 2004-11-19 11:16AM | 0 recs
Remember
It is easy to make fun of people.  But it isn't easy to reclaim those you have alienated. Don't make the same mistakes we made.
by Carol 2004-11-19 12:05PM | 0 recs
Some good stuff there
and some really not so good stuff

This post presupposes that most voters are surfing around blogs and the like and are somehow all networked together engaged in politics. This i think it wishful thinking, if it were true, we wouldnt even be having this discussion, we would be planning what we are going to do with our huge majority under President Kerry.

This may be the roadmap for the party structure I guess, but also too we are no where near the kind of tech savvy membership needed ot make it 100% effective. Many dont even have computers (half our volunteer list this past election for our county could only be reached by phone)

by Pounder 2004-11-19 01:10PM | 0 recs
think two steps back
While many individuals are not yet online, culture is. Look at the fraud story: newscasters reading press releases that are cut and paste jobs from an email about a blog post.

People driving in pick-ups down dusty roads listening to AM radio are hearing Rush talk about stuff that came from the talking points he was faxed from people who lurk on the Free Republic.

When families sit down for Thanksgiving dinner and talk about what is going on in the world, many of the commentary will be stuff that started out online.

This is happening right now. Already more people are directly getting their political news from the internet than from radio. More and more, newspaper and TV stories are re-writes of stuff that starts out online.

Look at the trend and think how things will be four years from now. What about ten years from now.

by Bob Brigham 2004-11-19 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Some good stuff there
I agree with this poster.

Look you guys - let's try this thought experiment: what happens if you try to apply these principles to the BUSH campaign?  Were they less top down than the Kerry campaign?  More open to criticism?  Aside from the fact that they were probably better at talking to, not at, their people (if not ours), on the other 94 points, they were worse.  So why didn't they suffer defeat?

Nothing wrong with these principles, but I'm not sure that the candidate who follows them is going to be any closer to election than the one who doesn't.

by sTiVo 2004-11-19 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Some good stuff there
Blogswarm is saying is that neither candidate executed the 2-way conversation model.  Given this, it is inevitable that a 1-way candidate would win.  His inherent thesis (which is unproven so far) is that, in a contest between a 2-way candidate and a 1-way candidate, the 2-way candidate will have a huge advantage.
by EdSez 2004-11-19 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Some good stuff there
I suppose.

You are certainly right that the thesis is unproven.

Do you suppose there are any other reasons (other than that "they are dinosaurs, clinging to power by any means available to them") why they haven't adopted these methods?

I can think of a couple.

  1.  The number of voters you actually reach with internet politics is still small, although growing.

  2.  Getting too involved which such sites hurts such other supposed virtues as "message discipline".  A loose word spilt by a campaign official on an internet site could blow up into a negative media frenzy.

We need examples of how these may be overcome more than we need a cluetrain manifesto.  And I am more interested in how the Democratic party defines itself relative to issues than I am to how it defines itself relative to the Internet.
by sTiVo 2004-11-20 03:44AM | 0 recs
Cluetrain
I get your point here, and I appreciate the effort to start this conversation, but a hacked Cluetrain list of platitudes is a dead-end. It did nothing for marketing (for which it was originally written) and it will do nothing for politics either. I love Doc Searls like the hippy grandfather I never had, but the rest of them are dimwits and lightweights, and it shows in Cluetrain.

As for constructive criticism -- take the laundry list above and boil it down to an arbitrary small number -- say five points. State those points as concisely as possible. Then wad that up in a little ball, stick it in your pocket and go join your town Democratic Party Comittee.

This is not personal -- I intend that advice for anyone contemplating manifesto writing.

by rusty 2004-11-19 04:37PM | 0 recs
a long long road
conversations are fine for reassuring people that you share their worries but what gets you elected is a clear progressive message.
We vacinate all kids against the communicable dieases because its common sense. We pay for high grade public schools because from those schools will come the country. We support fair wages and work place protection because in the new economy that is the only way to earn trust and profits. We enforce polution laws because we can`t import the water we need. We ensure that the government provides the infrastructure needed to win in the "new" economy. etc etc
All of this is known but care is needed to  ensure that the people know  that the Democrats are both caring and careful. Remember Regan`s false line about the welfare queen? A hell of a lot of damage had already been done the Dem`s reputation to let that story stick. Shuting down the NEA is an excellent first step. If Rush did take unemployment benefits then the story should have hounded him off the stage. Ah, we are better people than that? But the readers of this blog are not the public. And it`s the public that votes.
by wisedup 2004-11-20 02:04AM | 0 recs
GW did not win by exploiting the internet better.
He won by holding together a diverse coalition of people, most of whom agreed with him strongly on only a few issues, while managing not to alienate too many of the same voters on the issues where they disagreed. That had everything to do with message discipline, effective use of the Bully Pulpit, shameless lying when necessary, and swift punishment for anyone wiythin the organization who got out of line. It had almost NOTHING to do with harnessing the power of that Vast Herd of Cats that is the Blogosphere. As far as I can tell, the only real effect that the Internet is having on people's political perceptions is that it removes the requirement for any kind of arbiter of what is true or fair. This allows people to spin more and more into their own manufactured realities. There seems to be a broad implication to these Lutherian Theses (feces?) posted above, that networked voters are somehow better-informed than disconnected ones. I'm really doubtful of that. The input stream is certainly larger for the networked, but as programmers have said since the dawn of the Information Era: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

And furthermore, all this sanctimonious stuff about how all these savvy, networked voters want the Straight Dope and none of the double talk, THAT'S a poisoned chalice if ever I've seen one. Did George Bush win with the Straight Dope?? Piffle! He won by managing to make all his lies and doubletalk SOUND like the Straight Dope! PuuuuuhLEAse! You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!! Closer to the mark, The Truth Shall Give Your Opponents Ammunition. Politicians do not engage in doubletalk because they don't understand the electorate. They do it because they DO understand the electorate, and the truth about the electorate ain't pretty. PT Barnum is as right today as he was many years ago, and they know it. If this savvy, wired elctorate is so fucking smart, how come it voted for George Bush like everybody else? The sad fact is, if you voted for him, you are either a shill or a sucker. There really aren't that many shills out there, so I guess we have to look to old PT for the true composition of our electorate. Can there be so many suckers? Of Course! How many peole thoguht Saddam was behind 9-11? How many people think the Earth is 6,000 years old and that their all-loving Deity will sear them with everlasting hellfire if they don't accept His son(Whom he had tortured to death on a cross to satisfy his own pique over the sinfulness of his creations) as their personal saviors? PT was RIGHT, I tell you. MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT BIT THEM ON THE ASS! People who extol the virtues of the Straight Dope are smoking too much of it! If you are truly hip to reality, you either don't give a fuck about anybody else or you did not vote for George Bush, End Of Story.

At the end of the day, George Bush was able to come off as a Straight Talker becasue he used more lies and less doubletalk than John Kerry. He was able to get away from this because of the inexcusable, pussilanimous unwillingness of our Beloved Press Corpse to CALL HIM A LIAR when that's what he was. The way we fix that is by BUYING OUR OWN MASS-MEDIA OUTLETS, and putting more of our own spin into the mix. Air America is a good start. it is enjoying fantastically high ratings. Next, we need to get some kind of Anti-Fox cable news network together. George? Peter? Ted? Don't abandon us now that the campaign is over! Rome was not built in a day. A big, shiny, Left-Wing Noise Machine needs to be created, to compete with the Right-Wing counterpart that has been cleaning our clock over and over. THAT is how we start to win again, and not by trying to engage this mythical no-nonsense Hyperwired, PTP-connected, Netlectorate. Their advantage is lots and lots of money. Ours is that the TRUTH IS ON OUR SIDE. If we can get ourselves a big enough megaphone with which to call them liars, over and over and over again, the playing field will start to tilt back in our favor, and all those Kool Kidz on the Web will tilt right along with it.

by blerb 2004-11-20 07:32AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------