"Hypothesis: The Right has flocked to Twitter because they want a community, but have very little to say." - Jon Henke in a Twitter message on 2/24/09*For those of you that don't know him, Jon Henke is a leading blogger in what he calls the "rightosphere." In 2006, Jon served as George Allen's netroots coordinator (I held the same position on Jim Webb's campaign). In 2007, he worked for Mitch McConnell as New Media Director in the U.S. Senate's Republican Communications Office. Jon is co-founder (with Soren Dayton and Patrick Ruffini) of The Next Right, "the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement."
In contrast to what Jon Henke believes about "The Right," that it has "very little to say," here is what he wrote in May 2008 about the "leftosphere":
Meanwhile, the Leftosphere continues to have an impact, with the Leftroots effectively (and regularly) pressuring politicians and candidates to adopt the agenda they create and promote. So why - with very rare exceptions - can't the Rightosphere do that? Fundamentally, the Rightosphere can't do that (effectively) because the Right doesn't have the gravitational pull to draw candidates to its agenda. The Left has a well-organized blogosphere that can do three things for Progressive candidates:
1. Messaging - between Moveon.org, the blogs and the many issue-advocacy outfits, the Leftosphere has a very powerful communication mechanism for candidates and issues. They have messaging and distribution capacity and it is well-coordinated with advocacy and awareness elements of their coalition.
2. Money - the Presidential money is high-profile and not every candidate gets a lot of online money, but the Leftroots can move significant sums of money to the challengers that hit the right notes, make the right friends, and jump into the hot progressive issues. They have succeeded in tapping the long tail to move fundraising - and the financial incentive machine - outside of the establishment channels.
3. Mobilization - the Progressives are passionate, energized, over their ideas. They have a story they're excited about, they have effectively tied their stories together and they're tightly wedded to the (dangerous) tactic of populism. They're unified around that mission, so they can and do mobilize people. Again, that moves significant power outside the traditional channels.
The Leftroots can deliver messaging, money and mobilization, so Democratic candidates become path-dependent on them. They have sufficient power to move politicians to their ideas. The Right does not. Meanwhile, what is the Right passionate about right now? Not much.
No argument here. Nor do I disagree with Jon that, as he writes, to "build an online infrastructure as effective as the Leftosphere, the Right must find its own story to tell - an organic story, relevant to current grievances, with politically viable solutions - about which people can be passionate, around which a coalition can rally." Can the Right do this? Perhaps, Jon Henke believes, but only if "Republicans make real progress" on reforming themselves ("We abused the power we were given, and we should not be trusted with the majority again until we have taken steps to reform ourselves.")
Personally, I do not believe that Republicans - or its netroots activists, aka "the rightosphere" - will be able to compete in the battle of ideas until they do three things: 1) engage in a serious "after action report" of how their party (and, more broadly, their conservative ideology in just about every area) went astray the past 8 years (or possibly even since the "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994); 2) undertake the intellectual heavy lifting necessary to create a New Republican Party platform/ideology for the globalized, complex world of the early 21st century -- a platform/ideology that is relevant, serious, positive (as opposed to mindlessly reactionary on everything from health care to the environment), and appealing to broad swaths of America (e.g., not just in one particular region of the country); and 3) find appealing candidates - and writers, bloggers, intellectuals (where's William F. Buckley when they need him?) - to articulate the platform/ideolgoy of that New Republican Party. Until then, barring the complete collapse of the Democratic Party, it's not likely the Republican Party, or the "rightosphere," will see a significant resurgence.
By the way, the LAST thing Democrats, progressives, or liberals should conclude from this analysis - or any similar analysis - is that they can rest on their laurels and simply count on the Republican Party to continue self-immolating. To the contrary, Democrats must continually define and hone their own belief system, then put it into practice. My personal preference is for a strongly Progressive (not "liberal") Democratic Party that fights hard for working Americans; that works tirelessly to promote the common good ("the general welfare" as the Founding Fathers would say); that exemplifies effective, lean, and forward-thinking (broadly "Progressive") government; that acts as a counterweight to corporate power (Teddy Roosevelt's trust busting springs to mind); that strives to expand rights and opportunities ("establish justice," "secure the blessings of liberty"); and that acts strongly to correct market failures, of which there are many (e.g., environmental "externalities" like climate change). If Democrats do these things, and Republicans continue having "very little to say," we could see a long era of Progressivism in this country. If not, we could squander a historic opportunity to build a greater, "more perfect" America. Let's not squander that opportunity.
