Yesterday I explained why I believe we need a group dedicated to promoting liberalism to voters and the Democratic party alike. A quick recap:
—Liberal ideas are already extremely popular. Overwhelmingly, Americans want environmental reform, health care coverage for all, and transparent governance.
—The language of liberalism gives voters a shorthand way to describe a unified platform of those issues to politicians.
—Unfortunately, identifying with “liberalism” has been criminalized. Most people shrink from the word.
—Any politician who attempts to address those popular issues will be tagged with the unpopular liberal label.
—Thus, if we want politicians to address the issues that matter to us, we must make liberal a good word and not a bad one.
—If they want to achieve long-term political success, Democratic politicians must stop embracing the conservative talking points of security and terrorism and create their own agenda.
—The surest bet of all would be to adopt strong positions on the popular issues above: environmental reform, health care coverage for all, and transparent governance.
—To do so, Democrats will have to reclaim the word liberal, both to express to voters what they stand for and to prevent that label from crippling their initiatives.
Americans need help understanding that liberalism represents the things they care most about. Democratic officeholders need help understanding that popular liberal ideas are the key to long-term elective success. But to make these things happen, we have to take back liberalism as an idea from the conservatives who’ve sullied it for so long.
Great. This sounds fine and all, but how are we going to do it?
The short answer is together. But it isn’t going to be easy, and it’s going to take some time. The group I’m starting is intended to give us a framework to accomplish this goal. We won’t be able to get any legislation passed anytime soon, but we might be able to nudge the American consciousness just enough to help elect in 2008 the kinds of people who can pass that legislation.
Today I’m going to lay out every detail I have so far on this new project. I look forward to your feedback.
The Name
This will have to change, actually. I knew “Liberal Democrats” was a political party in England, but I didn’t realize it was also a party in Japan. That’s enough for me to want to occupy a different namespace; I don’t want the idea to seem like a 3rd party. I’m still mulling ideas on the name, but we’ll get there. For now, Liberal Democrats can be considered a placeholder. It still expresses the idea that we want to reconnect “Liberal” and “Democrat” in this country.
The concept
If we aren’t careful, this could dissolve into another all-talk-little-action email list. That’s why we need a concept that encompasses much more than information dissemination and pleas for action.
I’m not the only person who’s felt frustrated and powerless watching the Democrats stray from what matters to me. We all feel that way, so we should _all_ be able to participate meaningfully in doing something to fix it. That’s why this organization will follow an open source philosophy.
Open source means more than opening the guts of something to the public. It also means those who are interested can make meaningful additions, contributions, and improvements to the open source project themselves. Open source ideas are currently being applied to cinema, and I think they can also be applied to marketing and lobbying. All of us are better than some of us at everything.
So, to sum it up: This group is an open source marketing and lobbying effort representing liberalism to an audience of the American public and the Democratic Party.
The strategy
Quite simply, we need to think up and execute clever ways to communicate to the public and the party about liberalism. This can involve the use of standard media like magazines or radio, our own variation of successful PR projects (think our own liberalism version of the Chevy Tahoe make-your-own-ad campaign, for example), or totally new ways to reach people. Our client is liberalism, and we have to sell it as best as we can if we want people to adopt it as an identity and/or act on its platform. Liberals are often clever and creative, and I believe we should tap into this natural strength.
The structure
How will an open source marketing/lobbying firm operate? Who will decide what and when?
Well, if I really want to be open source about it, I probably shouldn’t draw up all the plans by myself. It makes more sense to include others in creating the organization. So, I’m adopting a brilliant idea suggested by Quin: the creation of the organization will be modeled on the creation of the government we’re trying to affect.
You’ve seen the gist of it spilled out across several posts (including this one), but I’m going to summarize the mission of the organization in a Declaration of Principles. That way, people will know onto what they are signing. Then I’m going to hold a Constitutional Convention. Several delegates will craft the particulars of how the group will execute its mission in accordance with its principles.
An open source lobbying/marketing effort for an idea like liberalism is a whole new form of grass-roots political communication. I think it will benefit tremendously from input from several sources, particularly at its inception.
Getting started
After crafting the Declaration of Principles, I’ll organize the Convention. This will be the tricky part.
Unlike the ol’ US of A, I don’t have a handy state structure into which I can tap. There’s also no real way to have an election that extends beyond the blogosphere at this point, and I really want to include people outside of our sphere. So I have some work to do to figure out the process of selecting the Convention participants, but I think I can find an interested, talented group of people from a number of arenas (including marketing and lobbying) to participate.
After we lay out our operating principles, then I’ll work to get as many people as I can interested in joining the group and maketing/lobbying for liberalism.
Being involved
While we don’t know exactly what the structure will be, I think I can imagine some of what participating in Liberal Democrats will be like. Members will be contributing time, resources, or skills to marketing/lobbying projects that excite them. They will also be organizing, leading, and recruiting for projects they want to run. By unifying under a name, identity, set of principles, and operating procedure, we have a chance to work cooperatively to change the way America thinks about liberalism. We also get in the political game via fun, creative projects. And maybe, just maybe, we help get this country on track.
Future details
News of all major developments will be posted here at PAB, but once we find the new name for the group, I’ll create its own space with lots more info. In the meantime, be thinking about what you would do if you could market liberalism. With any luck, you’ll have a chance to execute that idea in the near future as part of [kickass new name].
This is a fantastic idea. I’ve been whining about the wingnut hijacking of American political discourse for six years and would welcome the opportunity to do something about it. I’m in the marketing communications business and would be happy to contribute copywriting and proofreading skills to such a worthy cause.
RE: the name — as you said, it shouldn’t sound like a third party. But reclaiming the word “liberal” is a powerful idea. Maybe something like “Liberal Democrat Council”? Adding the noun defines it as a sub-group — kinda like “Democratic Leadership Council,” only not evil! ;^)
I also like “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party,” mainly because it invokes Paul Wellstone. But it doesn’t include the word “liberal,” and it’s a bit insulting to the DLC types, which, though justified, could be counter-productive.
Looking forward to hearing what others think and details on how this group can work together!
I second the idea of the word “council”, especially since it will be a slap in the face to the DLC, who is hardly a council in the democratic sense.
Earlier in Part I, Amanda wrote:
A lot of other bloggers are moving into political consulting, but it’s the same old game, because they’re sticking to the old model of hoarding knowledge and being an “expert”.
This is exactly right. It’s human nature to believe that we have it all figured out. Trouble is, even our best and brightest have blind spots.
I’ve always felt that at their core, the philosophies of democracy and open-source are really similar. They’re both ways for groups of people to watch each other’s backs to keep each other from doing absolutely idiotic things, and keep each other heading in the best direction possible. Both are systems for improvement founded on continual re-assessment. Both thrive under conditions of transparency, and wither when shackled by secrecy. Both are powerful tools for giving power to the many in a milieu traditionally ruled by the few.
If anything, “For the people, by the people” sounds to me like it could be the motto of the open source movement.
In this age of voter disenfranchisement, closed door lawmaking, and executive branch power grabs, all wrapped in a flag-waving “patriotic” package, the American Democracy Experiment is in real danger of failing. I’m excited by the open-source movement in general, and one reason is because I see it as a much-needed spiritual return to the wonderful Enlightenment ideals that this country founded on.
So, that’s why I’m so excited about this plan, early in the process though it might be. No, strike that– especially so early in the process.
Open-source and politics– two great tastes that taste great together! Thanks Marc, I can’t wait to see what kind of beast gets unleashed by this.
How about the Liberal Democrats/Democratic Association?
Still too old-school?
Since the word “Progressive” is no where near as toxic as the word “Liberal” has been made over the last 30-years, why not a name using Progressive, like “Progressive Democrat Alliance”?…
Or “Progressive Democratic Alliance” to avoid the Reichwing bastardization of “Democrat”…?
Okay, “Liberal Democratic Alliance”…?
“The Liberal Roots Project”…?
“Liberal-ize America”
“Freedom is Liberal”
…
The word “progressive” is an attempt to stay one step ahead. It won’t work, because if “progressive” takes over, then that’s the word they’ll demonize. Feminists learned this long ago. Own your word.
Anyway, progressives are different things. In historical terms, we’re liberals.
[...] …maybe now you do. [This is Liberal Democrats] [...]
[...] Marc at Punkass Blog has a plan for making 2007 the Year of the Liberal, and I couldn’t agree more. I’m going to chip in as well, and make my case for a Democratic agenda, one which combines already-popular positions with wise use of political capital: [...]
PunkAss Marc is right: we must reclaim the word LIBERAL. Personally I know a few FORMER Liberals who started to call themselves “Independents” because the word became too socially toxic. (Not me! I have the perverse style of personality where, as Liberal became more and more toxic, I became a PINKO LIBERAL YELLOW DOG DEMOCRAT FEMINAZI. But most are shyer than myself, especially around employers and the like.)
I think the open-source idea is REVOLUTIONARY and the BEST IDEA E*V*E*R!!!!!
With this idea we can take over the WORLD!!
It has always been a source of great frustration to me and many I know that we have NO WAY to get in touch with, say, the guys at MoveOn, or the Democratic Leadership, not directly. WHen we have an idea or an improvement that could REALLY HELP. Open source would allow input, and GOD KNOWS the Dems need it….(with 80% of AMericans favoring Healthcare reform, why wasn’t it run on? Getting rid of Perry: would have been easy if Bell had run on defeating the Trans-Texas Corridor or the fucking TOLL ROADS that NO ONE wants, (that will be owned by OTHER COUNTRIES, made out of FOREIGNERS!) A simple commercial that said “Do we want OUR TEXAS Roads to BELONG to FOREIGNERS? Foreigners that we will have to Pay Money to for the Privilege of Driving on them? VVote for Bell!” would have ACED the Governorship!!)
The word “progressive” is an attempt to stay one step ahead.
Actually there’s a distinct difference between progressives and liberals (it’s not a huge difference, but there is a difference), but the centrists have been flogging the word as though it is synonymous with liberal for so long that it doesn’t really matter whether there is technically a difference, though I’d do unspeakably natural acts to anyone who could get Kos to retake the label “centrist”, him calling himself either progressive or liberal makes me feel dirty and want to shun both terms.
And strictly speaking progressive is a word for radicals who are afraid to use such an explosive label as “radical”, so it’s not perfect no matter how you look at it, though it is accurate, while being inaccurate.
Broomstick Fucking Communist Witches of America Party? No?
[insert jokes about "block" and "house" parties here]
So many thoughts…
(1) “Liberal Democrats” is just fine. No need to get bogged down in hyperfine details of marketing.
(2) Open Source is an idea that’s very poorly understood. Open Source is not democratic, it’s meritocratic – the project needs a leader or at most a small leadership team, and the leadership team needs to deliver. Eric Raymond (a bog-standard netlibertarian wackjob) wrote the seminal book on the practicalities of OS – The Cathedral and the Bazaar, which is a must-read for anyone interested in this topic (available for free at the link).
(3) There is something which is at base fundamentally anti-OS about organizing people. The organization of successful OS projects emerges naturally through the relative skill and interest of the participants.
(4) OS translates poorly to non-software enterprises. It’s possible, but hard. I have worked on an OS hardware project (no details b/c it’d blow the pseudonym). Things went swimmingly as long as I was pushing things forward by doing things, reporting them to the rest of the interested group and getting feedback. Other people pitched in to a greater or lesser degree, but the project died when I had to stop working actively on it for a year or so. This project was in part a conscious exploration of the application of OS principles to hardware design. I’m aware of three other hardware OS projects, all of which came to naught for the same reason as mine did – the principals ran out of time/money and nobody was there to pick up the slack.
(5) OS can probably be made to work OK in purely information based collaborations similar to software, so a manifesto or declaration of principles might be successful. How do you measure success, though?
(6) Politics is about money and access. Success (IMO) consists of getting good legislation passed and bad legislation killed. In order to do this you need the ear of an elected representative or even better, the rep’s senior legislative aide(s). This means either the ability to make significant campaign contributions or the ability to turn out voters in the rep’s home district, ideally both. I’ve lobbied congress (again, no details due to psudonym) with some success in the past, and the thing that opens doors is the ability to tell the staffer you’re talking to exactly how the desired legislation positively impacts the rep’s district. Without this, at best you get a polite few minutes of bored attention.
(7) NetLibs have already shown that they can raise money.
(8) Can netlibs improve the access of fellow-travelers to potentially sympathetic representatives? I think mybe they can by using information technology to match up constituents with representatives and providing them with the kind of information needed to open doors. It’s one thing to contact your rep and get a hearing based on simply being a constituent, but it’s much better and more effective if the constituent is armed with information about how the proposed legislation affects the rep’s home district and pet projects.
(9) The same use of distributed information collection and processing that helps with getting access to representatives can also be deployed to alert affected people in the rep’s district about the concrete effects of proposed legislation. This has the potential to leverage lobbying efforts by getting constituents to call their representative, and to do so armed with relevant and effective talking points.