All the technology in the world is useless unless it is used correctly.
While Republicans and Conservatives are now running to their computers to become linked through “Rebuild the Party.com,” Twitter or Facebook, one has to wonder exactly how effective this whole parade to technological linkage will be. It reminds me of something I encountered back during the 1990’s when every business wanted a website because of a popular theory making the rounds; if you had an Internet presence you could not fail. No how, no way; a website was the ticket to instant success. Of course, it wasn’t a ticket anywhere for a whole lot of businesses, which, unfortunately, failed as the dot-com bubble burst.
There are many people who are crediting the Democrat victories in 2008 to a superior use of the Internet, and related technology, which may have some validity. Still, the lesson of the dot-com bubble should be studied closely here. Having web sites and communication networks is a great thing, but what matters more is what you do with them. That’s the problem that I foresee; if the people participating don’t follow up communication with the necessary action. It will all be for naught, and the partly leadership will be left scratching its collective head, wondering what went wrong.
The most important issue facing conservatives in techno-connectivity is not the technology. It is handling the information flow while making sure that it flows in the right directions and to the right people. This is critical, because if the information does not get to the right places and to the right people” then the improved connectivity will be of no use. Likewise, if the information gets to the right people, but they don’t act on it, the information is equally useless. This is precisely why the use of technology, rather than the technology, itself becomes the critical factor. If information does not reach the correct people, or does so without having any effect, then all the Twitter accounts in the world will make no difference.
One fact that made a significant difference in the 2008 campaign appears to be that John McCain paid very little attention to the core constituency when it counted. He focused at what he believed were key points on issues that the public did not resonate with, or disliked. One of these was taxing employer paid health care benefits. When the public gave him opportunities to demonstrate that he was different from his opponent, he frequently backed down. He refused to confront Senator Obama sufficiently. After asking the convention audience to “fight with me” he backed down from the fight. Information that might have helped his campaign avoid these mistakes was available from the Internet but it is unknown whether he was aware of it or whether he would have acted, if he was aware. We may never know the answer to this.
While technology is important, in the end, all the technology in the world cannot substitute for people; for “boots on the ground” who support a candidate and will work for him or her. Thus, the Republican Party needs to understand how to use technology to energize support from its base, and from swing voters. Technology used for communication in the field between volunteers or from headquarters to keep field volunteers up to date on events can help immeasurably with this, but before such a system can be effective, the Party needs to understand what sells, and whom they are selling to.
Politics is, at bottom line, marketing. Trying to sell the wrong product, or selling a “me too” product for all practical purposes never works. Brands must be distinctive, differentiated, and attractive. In the end, John McCain was the wrong product and in many respects, he tried to present himself as a “me too.” The strategy failed. Marketing firms spend millions to determine what will sell to the public. Political parties can find this out for a lot less by monitoring public discourse and of particular importance to the Republican Party should be second tier web publications. These are sites where commercial interests are secondary to getting a point across, and passion for promoting the author’s beliefs. Public opinion is not generally going to be found in the major media including talk radio where the hosts frequently fail to rock the boat sufficiently. Grass roots information is found by going to the grass roots.
Democrats have been masters of following the maxim of using their grass roots connections as “useful idiots”. This does not work with Conservatives because they are driven more by logic than by emotion. When the Republican Party leadership comes to realize this again, the will become more effective and will be better able to counter and defeat the opposition. Being a “me to” party, interested in big government, big spending, and failure to live up to standards and principles will not work. It failed the Party in 2006 and 2008. If technology will enable us to turn this around, then go for it. If technology is just a slogan used for nothing other than to make the Party look modern, then it will serve no useful purpose, and may as well have been left on the shelf.
I agree. We can’t focus on the “whiz-bang” of the technology, without recognizing that it’s the face-to-face activities that make it useful.
Technology is just a tool. Like any tool, it’s most useful in the hands of someone who has a clear sense of what the finished product should look like.
An example: flash mobs were all the rage when Kerry was running for Prez. His people hoped to use that technology to get voters. What happened when they tried?
They bombed, big. The mobs were not meant to coalesce for extended periods of time. They were after a short-term effect.
I’m for testing out the tech with small things. Gather the techie types together, and hand them some tech toys. Ask them to test out ways to use them to bring like-minded people together, and, ultimately, work for a cause.
Then let ‘em loose. The toys that deliver, take to the next step of testing. Those that don’t, put aside. Don’t junk them, they may be useful later.
Last step, bring the techies together with the pols, and let them brainstorm how to use tech to do useful things.
Question: What do Republicans have in common with a wide receiver for the New York Giants?
I saw John McCain on the David Letterman show a few days ago and what did he talk about? Global F…ing Warming!
Then I read that even Joe the Plumber is appalled by what he saw on the campaign bus.
It’s time for Republicans to tell the loser “Here’s your rocking chair!”
>Democrats have been masters of following the maxim of using their grass roots connections as “useful idiots”.
That’s because their only challenge has been to focus on the “useful” side of the equation. The other half is already covered.
Near my home is the Platte River. Famous for being “a mile wide and an inch deep”.
Reminds me of Twitter. Great tool, but the discourse is about as deep as that river.
I found myself discussing the problem of technology for conservatives with a friend recently, which brought me to check out Twitter. Conservatives don’t think like Leftists, so the “herd” mentality catered to by Twitter is less likely to benefit us.
I think what we need is intelligent message routing. Send me content and comments that actually matter to me, not mountains of crap. The way things are now, you have to wade through tons of garbage to find any useful thought or link.
Working on this…
I think conservatives have always had a harder time selling our message than liberals have selling theirs; and will always been the case. After all, how hard is it selling freebies and safety-nets. In Reagan and the ‘Contract-with-America’ Congress, we had a rare convergence of a party energized, on message, and able to articulate that message. Selling truth should be easier than selling distortions and distillations, but isn’t. First, you have to know what the truth is (or, at least, the relevant parts). Second, you have to have people articulating that truth who are electable and have the right opening to get elected. Third, you have to avoid being tripped up by liars out to prove you’re a liar (and a stomach of fights). And, fourth, you have to make the truth more appealing than the ever pliable lies and platitudes told for the sole purpose of winning.
McCain fell off the truth wagon more than once, but that was not his only undoing. His main failure (in getting elected) was trying to compete with liberals for votes on their turf rather than on his own. Rather than aiming for the far left-of-center, he should have first solidified his base and near right-of-center.
Reagan appealed to the center (and even some liberals) not because he was an uncompromising conservative (he was), but because he could articulate ideas across the ideological divide and despite labels. He did not defend ‘conservative principles’, he argued principled positions. He declared forthrightly his conservativism, yet did not make that a sticking point keeping him from talking directly to liberals; and convincing them his program was less a threat than an opportunity (who isn’t for paying fewer taxes, reducing debt, jobs, personal freedom, security). And, he spoke in clear, simple language no one could later manipulate as having a hidden or partisan agenda. McCain, besides having ideals compromised by expedience, is a poor communicator who never managed the art of simple truths, preferring instead the tortured and misleading logic favored by liberals. That would still have been okay had he been speaking to his audience and not to the media and opposition.
The final flaw I see in McCain is one of delegation. One of the things I learned is, if you want to leverage effort, you have to be willing to delegate that effort and some of your control. In playing the maverick speaking to both sides of every issue, McCain is forced to micro-manage his message. He does not have the luxury of an Obama, who had the old-media stage-managing message for him. These, in turn, forced him to muzzle his running mate, Palin. Had he followed a more principled, less ‘nuanced’ script, he would not felt threatened by every utterance coming from his more principled and outspoken partner. Nor, was Palin the only McCain operative muzzled by McCain; just the most obvious.
Though McCain told the truth more often than his opponent, he failed to make the truth more appealing than the liberal ‘something-for-everyone’. Though he sometimes satisfied his base, his obsession with mass-appeal and maverick-status failed of its object and turned some of that base off. He spoke to the media and against opposition, but, too often, right past voters. He failed to delegate message propagation to those best positioned to carry that message to voters. And, his nuanced arguments and his muzzling behaviors only served to demonstrate how feint-hearted are his positions. In fairness to McCain, he had one liability Reagan never suffered – he ran in the shadow of a stunningly successful conservative icon. Reagan set the bar very high, perhaps so high that men of lesser caliber lose heart and let it show though to their detriment at the polls.