Freedom to Shaddup! And California "Rainbow Shirts"

Hardly a week…have we already come to whispers?

Here’s how it begins: An office cooler conversation turns to public affairs, and “the note” shows up that pronounces the conversation “distressed” one who was overhearing, that the distressed one “couldn’t believe” the things she was hearing, and how it remains unbelievable such conversation could even take place in this civil environment and that an official complaint will be made if such is ever heard again.

The note was a classic shutdown bomb thrown at an unleashed contrary thought threatening to invade the gray cells of a “tolerant” and “open minded” individual. The formula is pretty standard: Describe the speech or behavior as “inappropriate” or “distressing”; express dismay or shock that such could even occur; demand the speech or behavior stop; threaten “consequences” if it recurs. First one expressing offense always wins!

The freedom to speak was once an absolute American right: “I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it.” No more. A modern citizen might say: “As I do not agree with what you say, I take personal and social offense at your saying it. And I demand that such inappropriate utterances stop – or, there will be consequences.”

American society, which once celebrated its brashness and freedoms, is now self-censoring and fearful because the society has concurrently become censoring and fearsome. Hardly a day goes by without some reported speech transgression.

But that ain't all!

There is a significant attempt to shut up Americans occurring in California as radical homosexuals threaten to retaliate against contributors to efforts to pass Proposition 8. Prop 8 limits marriage to that of a man and a woman. Today U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. disagreed, ruling, "The court finds that the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure." The threat of goon tactics certainly creates a chilling effect that strikes at the heart of the American political tradition.

In this case, because of the involvement of the Catholic and Mormon churches, there are actually two "freedoms" at stake.

And where is the Obama Justice Department?

Hon. Phil Gingrey: Post-Partisan Republican Apologizes

The Hon. Phil Gingrey called Rush Limbaugh to apologize for the remarks that I remarked upon below that he made yesterday to Politico.

"I just wanted to tell you, Rush, and -- and all our conservative giants who help us so much to maintain our base and grow it and get back this majority that I regret those stupid comments."

So, why'd Doc Gingrey make them?

"I was trying to defend John Boehner, who basically is leading -- providing very good leadership on this issue."

Well, maybe Mr. Boehner is, but once the words are out and recorded - they'll pop up somewhere as "proof". A three-term Congressman should know when to put a sock in it.

Dr. Gingrey concluded with a flash of the obvious: "Rush, congressional Republicans and our leadership need you and other conservative giants to galvanize the millions of Americans who don't live in Washington. They may not even live in Republican districts."

Damn straight!

Hon. Phil Gingrey: Post-Partisan Republican

“It’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party.” - Hon. Phil Gingrey, R-GA(11D)

Dr. Gingery comes from a safe district (PVI=R+17) that includes Marietta. He took 68 percent of the vote in the past election against token opposition.

“You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing,” Dr. Gingery continued.

Dr. Gingery is an Obama tool, providing “social proof” for detractors. The whole thing is a set-up, Doc. You are contributing to the “Everyone agrees” the Dems are developing, the one where everyone agrees that Limbaugh and Hannity are partisan blowhards out to queer the post-partisan era that began last week. Doc, you are spiking your partisan artillery, and to what end? Surrendering early?

If the John McCain candidacy proved anything let me suggest this: Aimlessness doesn't “gin the base,” or anyone else. Admitting a knowledge hole in economics, then suspending a campaign to wander aimlessly around Washington – well, it was less than awe-inspiring. Politics is about forming a coalition with the middle to make a majority. McCain just had no clue how to connect with moderates, especially after the “September Shock” that included an incumbent Republican president trying to save our free markets in a panic-induced “sacrifice” that required passage "by Friday." The last gasp of “Compassionate Conservatism,” but not of aimless Republicanism.

Dr. Gingery is living proof of that.

Thanks, Canada!

After posting my blog, “Change Camp: A “New Media Model for Savvy Republicans,” yesterday, I received a number of comments that struck me as what political discourse should be and could become.

Mark Kuznicki wrote: “Thank you for your kind words about our ChangeCamp event in Toronto yesterday. I am the lead organizer and facilitator for the event, and we are really pleased with the outcomes and the important new conversations we began. Your post made me realize that I need to revisit and edit the ChangeCamp mission. ChangeCamp is strictly a nonpartisan open creative community and event framework.”

Other ChangeCampers posted, tweeted and emailed comments centered on my proponency of a version that featured partisan politics. A consensus emerged that is essentially this: The core of ChangeCamp is “to create connections, knowledge, tools and policies that drive transparency, civic engagement and democratic empowerment.” And out of respect for these goals and the builders of the format, I accept and embrace the principle.

Another camper, Michael Jones, said this: “I attended ChangeCamp yesterday. We actually did try to recruit a few conservatives, although given the attendees it was hard (Toronto's urban/technology community is very progressive as a whole...) It was a completely awesome experience though - the energy and enthusiasm among attendees was strong and remains as much today. As much as a fired up and ready to go GOP scares the bejeezus out of me, I'd highly recommend giving it a go. You'd have to be careful not to define too far in advance what "conservative" or "Republican" means - let that emerge from the grassroots.”

After an exchange of comments, Twitter tweets and DMs, Mark and I came to understand each other's views. He noted, “I'm encouraged by your efforts to open the process of party renewal and to engage young people in an authentically participatory and open conversation. Your challenge will be to engage new voices to whom the 'Republican' and even 'conservative' brands have been poisoned by recent experience.” Well, I dunno about poisoned, but his recognizing the challenge of engaging new voices is exactly right.

Others were kind enough to offer help getting a “camp” organized – and I'd like to take up the offer. If you're interested in the event, drop me a tweet.

And there will be more on this topic in the future.

Change Camp: A "New Media" Model for Savvy Republicans

Let's look at something actionable by our tech-savvy young and new Republicans: A GOP “Change Camp.”

The idea came after I visited the ChangeCamp website. It is classic Millennial civic activism, and I think a brilliant concept.

It asks a question many ask themselves, but I'll twist it a bit: "How do we re-imagine government, citizenship and conservatism in the age of participation?"

In the next days the National Republican Committee will select a new National Chairman. Many of us have paid at least cursory attention to all the politicking involved. While none has offered a chicken for every pot, none have struck me as particularly new media savvy. That's hardly encouraging for a political party mired in second...in a two party system. So why not build “participatory production” with a participatory event as its foundation?

Event organizers described the event as a “free participatory web-enabled face-to-face event” - STOP! FREE?! You mean we'll hit folks up for donations, right? NOOO! Paradigm shift required!! Time to find event sponsors or pony up directly to support this event, and not pass on the costs nor fundraise. This is an investment in both the near and long-term viability of Republicanism, if not conservatism. They called it “a solutions playground open to anyone, where admission and ideas are free.”

The Toronto event brought “together citizens, technologists, designers, academics, policy wonks, political players, change-makers and government employees to addresses the demand for a renewed relationship among citizens and government.” Interesting...it's called coalition building. What failed in the last election cycle for Republicans?

The event sought “to create connections, knowledge, tools and policies that drive transparency, civic engagement and democratic empowerment.” In other words, an activated, “proofed” social network that could drive civic activities at various levels.

The organization's mission is “to innovate how Canadian governments engage with citizens in an age of mass participation on the internet. We hope to ignite a distributed and self-organizing movement in cities across the country.”

Is that different that the mission of the Republican Party, from local clubs to national committee?

Three things the GOP sorely needs now: “Social Proof” that the Republican bandwagon is the smart place to be. A Social Network that connects the membership in more ways than tech-y glitz. And the ability to transform the network into a “participatory production” machine, able to assign and deliver on tasks, from recruitment through resource management to “get out the vote” activities.

The GOP needs an event like this! Sounds like a way for young and new Republicans to make the changes necessary for victory in '10.

Texting and Movement Building

Think about these facts:

18-29 year old consumers use text messaging more often than voice to communicate.

On average 94% of text messages are read.

80% of consumers keep their mobile communicator with them all day.

When given a choice 39% of US consumers — 76 million people — prefer text messages to radio or TV advertising.


Text messaging is sometimes referred to as SMS, or short message service. Most cell phones are equipped to handle text messaging, able to receive brief messages that contain information from friends, clients, and even businesses marketing their products. Now text messaging is gaining popularity as a promotional medium because it is relatively inexpensive and allows contacting a highly targeted and qualified audience. It's also the cheapest effective way of contacting voters.

A 2006 study found text messages increased turnout by 3.1 percentage points. Researcher Aaron Strauss explained the simple reason why: "The most prevalent excuse for registered voters who don't cast a ballot is, 'I'm too busy' or 'I forgot.' Texting is a convenient, targeted, and noticeable reminder for voters to schedule their Election Day activities with a block of time set aside for going to the polling place." In a post-election survey, 59 percent of texted voters said they found the text messages helpful.

Throughout the past election the Obama campaign routinely blasted out messages, using area codes to target supporters, letting them know about upcoming local campaign events, voter registration tips, and other news. Obama's campaign was “reaching a generation that is trying to change the world in 160 characters or less,” according to David All, a GOP internet political consultant.

The mechanics of texting are simple. Print ads, fliers, banners and other signage instruct interested prospective members to obtain information by sending a text message to a certain short numerical code with the campaign's keyword included. In return, the campaign sends its return text messages, which will arrive in the recipient's cell phone inbox with its message. The text may give more general information about the movement, including a link to its Website. It may also invite recipients to text their e-mail addresses if they want to receive e-mails with more thorough information.

The beauty of text messaging lies in the “psychology” of text messages. They reach people wherever they are, at any time of day or night. That gives it a sense of an intimate communication—“the message is right here in my pocket”—which can be further enhanced with a targeted campaign that appeals directly to the consumer. And, due to its very nature, text messaging is viewed with a sense of urgency to which email can’t compare. Mobile phones are with most people almost 24 hours a day and thus the ability to deliver the message directly to the receiver is done with great confidence that the message will be received instantaneously.

More later...

The Power in your Pocket

The power of a $299 computer, a cell phone, and other inexpensive and common personal electronics is astounding – and largely overlooked as a political conduit until the '08 presidential race. These devices have more communications power than three broadcast television networks, over 500 newspapers, and two news magazines combined.

Today, for example, the social networking internet site Facebook has 36 million American users and an annual visitor growth rate of 153 percent. Half of Facebook's userbase is 18 to 25 years old, and each averages up to 45 minutes spent on the site daily. And the fastest growing demographic for this social networking site is now users 25 and older. Huge, eh? Well, MySpace is even larger – twice the size with 73 million American users.

Add to that 22.6 million American bloggers and 94.1 million American blog readers – and those numbers are growing!

Meanwhile, the three broadcast network evening news programs averaged a combined 23 million viewers nightly. Over the past 25 years viewership has collapsed to half what it was. The median age of viewers is 61 years, and rising.

Newspaper circulation was off nearly five percent in 2008. Average weekday circulation at 507 American newspapers was 38.2 million copies. The New York Times lost 3.6 percent of its daily sales; The Washington Post down 1.9 percent; The Boston Globe dropped 10 percent; and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is counting down its last 60 days as a printed newspaper!

Where should conservatives concentrate their resources and imaginations? It's obviously not broadcast network television or newspapers. The information paradigm has shifted to other media and a more intimate and interactive message.

Previous essays discussed the expansion of technology and social networking on political campaigns, the need for conservatives to adapt to the non-conflictive communications style used by young Americans, the adoption of “movement” behaviors over campaign tactics, the importance of “social proof”, and how to create “participatory production” to pyramid and outsource campaign tasks.

This is why.