|
Memorable conversation is the foundation of civilization. There’s a lot of tripe written and believed about blogs, but the plain truth is that they contain a huge body of thoughtful conversations, all of them memorized by the Googleplex and some memorable by any standard. Any conversation conducted long enough leads to consensus; any consensus shared long enough, to action. (The IETF‘s early rallying cry: “We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.”) Warlords and monarchies and the Industrial Age adopted more focused conversational modes to foment action: commands, demands, exaggerated urgency and authority. These modes are so compelling that they supplant conversation and consensus as the required stimuli for action, substituting a superficial ritual of listening and acquiescence for the miracle of minds meeting. (One of 3M’s many experts on meetings has seen the perfect business meeting: the Sioux council in Dances With Wolves: open discussion, deep thought, no conclusions jumped to before the data’s in). With P2P global conversations re-emerging alongside broadcast and top-down dictates, we are reclaiming rough consensus as a stimulus for action. Open source is the most obvious expression of the consensus-action dynamic, but they really are showing up in all sorts of places: communities forming around web sites that organize conversations so they are memorable and leave them in place while consensus forms out of the threads that gain the most traction.
Individual and small group actions spring from these consensus epicenters, but they don’t exhibit the focus and persistence that paycheck-based activities enjoy. How might consensus-based action rise to that level? I believe we’re getting closer, and I’d like to help Spirit of America take it to the next level. The reason SoA might lead the way to more effective consensus-based action is its natural appeal to every stakeholder in the problem-shrouded Iraqi opportunity. When people touch Spirit of America, they usually find something they’d like to get involved in. Many of us feel we have to get involved. Jim Hake, Marc Danziger and I agree that each SoA member should have the tools to engage at any level, involve their friends and social organizations and, depending on their political persuasion, reinforce or compensate for U.S. Iraqi policy. I’d also like to involve the small-pieces-loosely-joined consensus that is the blogosphere. If our shared values overwhelm our disparate politics we might even be susceptible to a call to action – even though our style is to rag on imperfections and disappointments. What’s wrong with that? Design is simply the flip side of disregard. Michelangelo reputedly said that sculpture is a matter of removing the parts of the marble that don’t look like a horse. The blogosphere’s values are transparency and openness; individual, authentic voices amplified by spontaneous feeds, supporting links and persistent reiteration. Imagine with me that we keep an eye on the bully Spirit of America laboratory where people overseas act as Requestors to bring to Donors’ attention the needs that seem worthy supplying. We can think of such suggestions as blog posts and our collective response to it as the means by which we support the request with links and buzz and dollars and volunteer logistics. Like any catchy idea any blogger puts out there, a school kit or a sewing machine or an irrigation pump is a candidate meme. We blog it into reality with the sincerity of our expression and the energy of our reinforcement. It’s all the same to me and, I hope, to you. Here’s a depiction of the SoA process to host the requests, comments, support and cash flow. Now all we have to do is implement it in web services and maybe we’ll find that what matters most in foreign aid is the web, not the spiders. Just like blogs.
|
Category: Uncategorized
Bill, Bill, Bill…
|
It’s an interesting moment in politics. On Wednesday, Fox News’ movie critic praised Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Yesterday, Jeff Jarvis waxed enthusiastically on Bill Clinton’s talk at the premier of The Hunting of the President, and last night Micah Sifry exposed the dark underbelly of the Clintons’ rise to power, the Whitewater scandal the Republicans never exposed because it was, well, so businesslike. (Thanks, Doc, for the pointer. Sorry we’ll miss each other.) Micah quotes Roger Morris’ Partners in Power:
Interesting. The right wing spent $80 million looking for something tawdry about the Clintons, and wouldn’t expose the real scandal because there’s nothing wrong with stealing money as long as you do it with a corporate charter and a lawyer. The well-documented conspiracy didn’t hound Bill Clinton for doing the hurtful things that they would have done, and probably had. Instead, they hounded him for doing the things they dreamed of doing. |
DUI Without Losing your License
|
It’s been a busy week here at the East 43rd Street Design Center. Ian Bogost was in town to teach at a conference called Serious Issues, Serious Games, and stayed to work on an evolving notion I like to call DUI[^]Dynamic User Interface. Ian is the designer of the Dean Iowa Game, which allowed people to understand the mechanics of canvassing in Iowa.
Whatever your view, the The Dean for Iowa game was a seminal event among those who know that people respond at a gut level to such games, and learn far more than they do from static information. The project received a lot of attention in the press, including these 10 mentions linked to from the Persuasive Games web site (NYTimes, Slate, Ad Age, CNN, Good Morning America, etc.). Back StoryLast November, Joi Ito told Ian that if he wanted to build a policy-oriented simulation for the Dean Campaign, he should contact me, since I was embedded with the campaign, spending a week each month in Burlington. The timing and the zeitgeist were propitious, and it took Ian and Nicco Mele and me about a week to spec, budget and commit to the project. By then it was Thanksgiving week, and we wanted the game by late December. Ian and his company produced the finished product in 3 week, over the holidays, no less. Ian tells a little of the history today, and a terrific treatise on Visualization as the new eBusiness. Ian created the first Presidential candidacy game, and now he’s creating the second, this time a policy game for a major political party group. He’s still in the stealth (coy) phase of development Doin’ the DUISerious work needs engaging graphics
SoA DUIIan and I also worked actively on DUI concepts for Spirit of America. Spirit of America “Full Throttle” will be a membership campaign that employs strawberry roots activism, by which supporters can directly recruit other supporters and build their own activities to support requests from people we want to demonstrate the awesome power of Americans’ generosity toward previously oppressed peoples. That’s where the DUI comes in. Ian will present a proposal to the SoA folks to depict each members’ activities dynamically, through various metaphors: a forest with trees, or a flower garden, that sprout branches and leaves and blossoms as a member’s recruits (and their activities) grow; or a bungalow that expands into a mansion as the member’s recruits and activities grow. Of course, we can still use the Solar System DUI that Ian mocked up for the mydeanpeople project, described previously:
This will be the first organized use of metadata about how members recruit others and empower them with the tools to act, essentially, as their own franchise of the Spirit of America enterprise. This is the “polymer” structure that I harp on until my friends’ eyes glaze over. We couldn’t get it done for the Dean campaign, but maybe the SoA experience will indicate if it would have worked as I envisioned it last October. Why 2004 Won’t be Like 1984 [^] CLI to GUI to DUI“Why 1984 won’t be like 1984” was the headline Ian is suggesting another interface revolution, where dynamic graphics depict a user’s motion through her flight plan of commitments, deadlines and opportunities. Perhaps, as the FD-109 did for the KC-135, it will also make our lives more manageable and enjoyable. |
Americans Doing SomethingSpirit of America is serving a communal need we’ve felt since 9/11/01. Do you remember that dark September when you wanted to do something–anything–to make a difference? Remember the tone-deaf response? Take a trip to Orlando; live your life as if nothing has happened. If We the People had been empowered to work through our rage and grief proactively, perhaps our foreign policy would not bankrupt our grandchildren. SoA is helping We the People do something significant to make the world a better and safer place. Except for the crazies, re-purposed cold warriors and pacifist Birkenstockers yearn similarly for pacification of the mid east–and the world. Steven Johnson sees something important in Spirit of America:
Bingo! That’s what I’m talkin’ about! And so is Jeff when he describes SoA as open-source nation-building. Is it possible that the Internet disintermediates foreign aid as it does so many other communication-dependent economic structures? Natch! This resonates with John Robb’s link to Phillip Bobbit’s important work describing the ascendancy of the market-state:
“…the market-state promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen.” How’s that for a consumer-oriented manifesto? It’s a classic market opportunity, and the virtual Al-Qaeda market-state is responding to it with innovation and energy. The entrepreneurs at Spirit of America see the success enjoyed by this new class of entrepreneur, and realizes that an American response, fueled by real abundance, can overwhelm the competition with a better product, one that actually improves lives rather than one that promises to improve the afterlife. It’s a functioning product vs. vaporware, and it’s really no contest. The Spirit of America proposes to deliver real results to the customers to whom Al Qaeda is shipping empty cartons. In that sense, SoA is as much a market-state as Al Quaeda, but still a baby one. How big does SoA have to grow to match Al Qaeda in GDP? In about a week and a half, last month, SoA raised $1,500,000, giving SoA an imputed annual GDP of $52 million. That’s about 25% as big as the US economy in 1789, according to these experts. It’s a start. |
Laughing Easily, and Long
Oh Kaye!Doug Kaye has posted his interviews with Marc Danziger, COO of Spirit of America, and force of nature; and Kerry Dupont, SoA’s Director of Procurement/Logistics. They give a good insight into how SoA evolved and, importantly, how the project is embraced by all sides of the political spectrum. (Kerry gives a great example: her husband is very conservative and his mother’s a committed liberal. “At dinners, I think we’ll end up throwing wine.” But both of them embrace the SoA vision–and specifics–enthusiastically. Kerry tells more here.) Spirited CounterpointerDave Winer, bless his heart, is a reliable curmudgeon. When no one can find something wrong with Spirit of America, Dave is the loyal opposition, cautioning the rest of us clueless enthusiasts from joining hands in our shared ignorance:
I agree that we Americans have to get over ourselves, but that’s mostly because we’re a subset of that egotistical species, homo sapiens, that needs, collectively, to get over itself. Fat chance! About as likely as the absurd hope that we’ll stop guzzling gas and start electing leaders with brains, morals and courage. As the military says, a hope is not a plan, and hoping for the impossible is a waste of time and bandwidth. Alan Kay famously said that “The easiest way to predict the future is to invent it.” It’s a clever way to suggest that the only way to prove something is worth doing is to make it worthy.
But I’m missing the dark, ugly American aspects of SoA. Even Dan Gillmor is more optimistic than Dave, and Dan is our most trusted and insightful doubter of All-American cure-alls. The only problem he sees is that gear might not reach its intended recipients:
How Do I Question Thee? Let Me Count the WaysIs it a problem that Americans choose to share their abundance with Iraqis? Is that a bad example? Should we not take advantage of the communications power of the Internet and the logistical miracles of space-available air freight? Which of SoA’s self-absorbed, questionable initiatives shall we stifle?
I understand the threat of irresponsible giving that Dave is cautioning us against. Oh, it started harmlessly enough when Dianna Smith humored her husband, Special Forces Sgt. First Class Jay Smith. Jay had asked Dianna to send baseball equipment so he and his buddies could organize a Little League program for Afghani kids in the town of Orgun-e, 20 miles from Pakistan. See, this is how these imperial initiatives start: innocent-appearing, but with a Pax Americana motivation. The hapless volunteers should have recognized the xenophobic threat in the next slide down the slippery slope when they helped load 2 tons – 4,000 pounds! – of Frisbees for delivery to Iraq. There is surely a diabolical back story behind the nine Arab TV stations that the Marines are about to equip, thanks to about $1,500,000 donated in a week when the idea was raised at SoA. The Marines had found the buildings and, I guess, antennas for the nine stations, but the equipment had been destroyed. Now the equipment is in Iraq, ready to be delivered and lighted up. The stations will be turned over to Iraqi ownership and management, but the Marines have stipulated that the stations must accept the Marines’ paid commercials, urging Iraqis to not kill . . . wait for it . . . Marines! You do see the propaganda machine they’re setting up, don’t you? Soon the Marines will be broadcasting where the kids can pick up their frisbees. I have a soft spot in my heart for American GI’s. I hauled a ton of ’em around Vietnam in ’67 and ’68. Couldn’t find a bad one in the bunch. As an airlift pilot (trash hauler), I’m aware of the good deeds that airlift crews have done. Did you know that, during the Berlin Airlift, the crews would airdrop candy with little parachutes they’d stay up half the night preparing? You DO know that candy causes cavities don’t you? There you have it: another plot against the world’s disadvantaged. OK. I’ve gone over the top with this Fox News commentator persona. But we moderates don’t often have the luxury of teasing those who question straightforward humanitarianism. But there’s a deeper opportunity here, and if it’s not progressive, what is? Strike Force Echo: Fulfillment Specialists
|
Spirited America
|
Dan Gillmor wrote yesterday about Spirit of America (SoA), which is providing peer-to-peer support to Afghanis and Iraqi’s coordinated by American GI’s. Dan is struck by the fact that Marc Danziger and I are both over-the-top gung-ho about SoA, although we represent ends of the spectrum of opinion for and against the war in Iraq.
As Dan said when we spoke last week, there’s no part of the SoA project that any of us can find fault with. If you’re a bleeding heart liberal, you want to demonstrate that people who hate the war can reach out to the people hurt by our government’s illegitimate war. Rabid war supporters see a chance to demonstrate that the war can be won because the greatest American force is the innate goodness of the American GI, and that it’s worth going to war to connect our terrific GI’s with Arab kids. I can walk both sides of that street. Marc Danziger got started by coordinating volunteers to fulfill the requests, and now he’s involved full time, directing all aspects of SoA as Chief Operating Officer. Jeff Jarvis hooked me up with Marc last week, in the hope that I can help them copy the parts of the Dean campaign that worked right – specifically the mechanics of a grassroots campaign using the strawberry roots hierarchical model I discussed recently. Like all of us, Jeff feels strongly about this, moving mountains behind the scenes. He is a buzz machine. Read Jeff’s take here. America Actually Coming Together
SoA is wielding the positive kind of energy that seems non-existent in the political arena. Are we surprised to discover that the positive energy is rising spontaneously from a grass roots, self-organizing movement? SoA started with Dianna Smith, who sent baseball equipment to her husband Jay, a sergeant with the Special Forces in Orgun-e, Afghanistan. Her shipment started a movement. Perhaps the catalytic moment was when an Afghani kid named Nazim said, “I like to be a player, not a fighter.“
It works both ways. GI’s surely see their younger selves when they watch a 9-year-old belt one out of the infield; any 9-year-old, growing up in any family, regardless of the religious image on the wall over his bed, and regardless of the hatred his uncles were taught.
Could a web-based movement be far behind? And a visionary leader who grabs the bull by the horns? The leader is Jim Hake, Silican Valley entrepreneur and visionary. The sound you hear around Hake is that of the ball rolling, Big Time. As I understand the rough sequence, more shipments followed rapidly, especially after FedEx agreed to haul stuff for free. This week FedEx is flying a free charter loaded with 10-20 pallets of hand and power tools for Iraqi tradesmen. So it goes when you get mixed up with the grass roots. Tipping PointI love grass roots movements (You know, like the American Revolution). Movements that resonate so deeply with the right thing to do that support comes out of the woodwork, from people all over the ideological spectrum. From people so tired of resenting their neighbors’ opinions that they find a way to join with those neighbors and do something positive for a change. There’s no shortage of authentic needs at the people level in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there’s no shortage of grass roots energy here in this land of abundance. Money, of course, is just a form of energy. Other needs arose and were immediately met. Baseball games-in-a-box – a pallet loaded with everything it takes to equip two teams to learn the game from GI’s – GI’s who surely see their younger selves when they watch a 9-year-old belt one out of the infield; any 9-year-old, growing up in any family, regardless of the religious image on the wall over his bed, and regardless of the hatred his uncles were taught. Baseball-in-a-box and school kits sound straightforward, especially with free shipping. But the logistics aren’t trivial. If you want to send hundreds of school kits, the Marines discovered, you need to buy the parts in bulk and customize the kits. A tote bag loaded with a pencil box, notebook, lunch box, crayons, etc., sounds simple, but it needs a gang of volunteers to unpack the shipments of tote bags, pencil boxes, etc., and re-assemble them as individual kits. The assembly lines formed at Camp Pendleton in southern California. That takes a lot of volunteers and that’s where Marc Danziger comes in. Marc is a tech consultant and soccer dad in the L.A area, who took to this project like he was born for it. He stepped up and became active coordinatng volunteers. He was so active that he and Jim Hake had a little heart-to-heart and now Marc Danziger is coordinating SoA’s day-to-day operations. Kerry Dupont (the Maine b I hope I can help Jim and Marc and Kerry line up a million people and several million bucks in pledges for continuing support. As you know, I have some views on how that might be done. So, as Jeff Jarvis writes, here’s your opportunity. Get involved. If you have a war-peace preference, express it by helping our troops show their true colors. Doing so, you can demonstrate that the real power of our country is our people. Spirit of America LinksSoA Background |
WiseChat
|
From an IM session yesterday with Doc, in response to my Terror as PR post in response to his post declaring that Nick Berg’s beheading was PR:
Sheesh. The guy can’t help himself… Doc even gives bonuses in his IMs:
|
Democracy’s To Do List
Jerry Michalski and Andrew Rasiej (pr. ru-shay) have organized a terrific conference on May 24 at The New School here in New York: Personal Democracy Forum (or “PDF”. Heh).
The Personal Democracy Forum will bring together political figures, grassroots leaders, journalists and technology professionals to discuss the questions that lie at the intersection of technology and politics — to take a realistic look at where we are now and where we are headed.
The notables include a few people I met through the Dean campaign: Joe Trippi, Sanford Dickert, Nicco Mele, Mat Gross, David Weinberger. I’ve added more info below.
What is Still Missing?
The final question in the Forum’s Aspirations is “What is still missing?” (Aha! The most noble question in human endeavor). Also, Jerry Michalski asked me what I thought the perfect session would be, so I’m answering him here. Naturally, I think that what’s missing are all the pet projects I’ve dreamed up. They are:
Strawberry Roots Activism
Friend to Friend model
Strawberry Roots and the Voterfile
Social Networks
P2P Policy Engagement
RSS-based Assertion Processor
RSS-based Freedom of Information
Open Resource Governance
Bureaucrat Retirement Initiative
Open Republic
The characteristic of the first three ideas is that they are mostly technical, decentralized and that they provide information among people that is actionable. Most importantly, they are permission-free. The importance of permission-free grows when we think of the crucial role of viral marketing to the success of any product, whether it’s an iPod or an iPresident. The last four require continuing, centralized effort, which is a more iffy proposition.
Worthy? Buzz Worthy? Buzzed?
It’s time for politics to leverage the self-forming capacity of the web. I believe this is the core disconnect between traditional political activists and the new toolmakers.
Micah Sifry and I represent those two ends of the spectrum. He’s a professional who’s fascinated with the promise of these tools and I’m taken with what he needs from the tools. Political pros are still wired for centralized intelligence, and most of the political tools reflect that bias. Until we move past that mind set, campaigns will exhaust themselves trying to create buzz rather than riding a wave of buzz inspired by the campaign but not built by it.
No matter how hard you flog your product, if you don’t generate buzz, your sales will be ordinary. But if your product generates spontaneous buzz, you’ll prosper no matter how little you promote it. Wendy’s current ad campaign shows amateur “Wendy’s champions” encouraging others to eat at Wendy’s, a fiction about the champions they’d like but don’t have. Managers and experts take all the credit for success and leave little for the viral processes that they don’t really understand: the specific mechanisms by which some ideas fire customers’ imaginations and others don’t.
But it is possible to get our heads around the new rules of viral markets. Malcolm Gladwell and Seth Godin and, of course, the Clue Trainers, have done seminal work in this area. In Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Gladwell deconstructed why epidemics take off and how a few East Village kids in NYC caused Hush Puppy shoes to become the IN thing. When your target market is a swarm, even if the swarm doesn’t know it is one, you have the potential for your product to take off despite your planning. Joe Trippi has been candid that something like that happened with the Dean campaign.
Here’s what I think needs doing, starting with the most viral idea I can come up with:
Grass Roots Strawberry Roots Activism
Your front lawn is dependent on you for seed, feed, water and weeding, each seed pushing out just a few blades for us to admire. Rhyzomes, like strawberries and crabgrass, are more creative. Once started, they shoot out opportunistic runners which put down roots in hospitable circumstances. If the new plant prospers, it puts out multiple runners, and so on. Strawberry roots activism may be the future of politics.
The Dean campaign hit a wall at about 150,000 active supporters, though four times as many were registered in its database. (Surprisingly, there were thousands of active supporters who chose not to register with the campaign’s web site.) How might the campaign have scaled its conversational throughput to a high enough level that it would get the votes it needed?
When I was embedded at Dean Headquarters, I learned that supporters were energized primarily by their ability to “touch” the campaign and by the sense that their personal views were actually interesting to the campaign. Any campaign that wants to attract rabid support must give each potential supporter the power to connect substantively with the campaign and to accept all supporters’ opinions on substantive issues.
But what is “the campaign”? There’s no clear dividing line between “the campaign” and “the supporters.” Every campaign has volunteers working at headquarters and in the field. Are those people inside or outside the campaign? Does it matter? When anyone associated with the campaign is responsive to a less-connected supporter, it can be as powerful an involvement as if the supporter had engaged directly with an “official” campaign staffer. Here’s the structure needed to build winning associations that cascade through a population, sweeping up support:

This is the “polymer” structure that I proposed to the Dean campaign last October and continue to believe was the key missing element of the Dean campaign. (Indeed, it’s missing from all campaigns: the only reason it was conspicuous by its absence from the Dean campaign was the campaign’s intent to leverage every Internet possibility.)
The Friend to Friend Model
Leveraging Supporters’ Existing Social Networks
The defining breakthrough of the 2003 primary season may have been the accidental innovation of registering “members” of a campaign. People accustomed to registering at other web sites were happy to register at deanforamerica.com as they do elsewhere. From registration, it’s a series of baby steps to Meeting Up, contributing, house partying, and all the rest of the Dean magic. Unfortunately, registering on any web site is a broadly acknowledged impediment to becoming involved. Who knows? For each supporter who signed up, perhaps there were 10 others who never took the trouble.
But why not leverage the personal information that the self-declared supporters have already entered into their personal email address books? Clearly the only impediment is technical, so I established mydeanpeople.com last winter to give supporters a way to cooperate with potential new members of the campaign. This required the combined efforts of Alden Hynes, Zack Rosen, Shannon Clark and Neil Drumm and Ian Bogost.
- Using a few mouse clicks, any user of Outlook or another address book can save any number of their contacts as a text file.
- At mydeanpeople.com, a campaign supporter can upload such a contact list and then review the contacts as a list, or individually, to edit each contact’s information.
- With a single click, the supporter can send a personal email to one of their contacts, containing a link that invites the contact to review their personal information at mydeanpeople.com. Preferably this is done with their friend, their campaign mentor, present or on the phone.
- With a single click, the prospective new supporter can “push” their contact data to the campaign, taking advantage of a process the campaign had built for internal use.
In moments, automagically, the new supporter has easily registered, voluntarily, with the campaign web site without the inconvenience of having to visit the campaign’s web site. In this way, it’s possible for each supporter to engage any number of their acquaintances in the reasons to support the campaign and to easily join up. The next steps can seek a contribution, their personal policy preferences and, most interestingly, register their own contacts with the campaign.
Thus 1 begets 10 begets 100, etc. Equally importantly, the hierarchical relationships among these thousands or millions of supporters is known and forms a kind of telephone tree for mobilizing support quickly and effectively. If the campaign flows information through the tree structure, it can be as effective as parents announcing a snow day. And the communication is from people in your existing social network, a far more compelling contact than yet another mass mailing from a campaign you may support but can feel like spam.
This Address Book-based approach is an extension of the Friend to Friend System developed by Pat Dunleavy in Williamstown, Massachussetts to override a property tax limitation:
Instead of laying siege to a population and wearing it down with uncomfortable and unwanted approaches from strangers ringing doorbells or calling during the dinner hour, you grow the campaign fromthe inside, through the web of relationships inside the community.
(From the PDF description)
The Williamstown activists had friends contact friends by selecting them from a centralized list that the campaign had compiled. It’s probable that the mydeanpeople system is faster, easier and more complete. It’s simply the logical next step in having friends approach friends.
The question that we designers and builders of tools must ask is whether the mere presence of such tools catalyze the inherent urge of like-minded individuals and interest groups to organize themselves. However, as Alan Kay taught us, “It’s easier to invent the future than to predict it.” Can I have an Amen?
Brad deGraf, Micah Sifry and Jim Moore commented recently in response to the NY Times Magazine article describing the Republicans’ centralized, pyramidal “Amway” campaign. I suggest that self-forming “telephone tree” structures may exhibit the same compounding growth of network marketing structures, without the centralized command & control.
Person-to-Person Multi-Level Networks
It’s useful to remember that “Organization” is important,and hierarchists excel at the art. But “Organization” describes any activity that has become organized, whether from above or spontaneously, by its members.
Strawberry Roots and the Voterfile
The “voterfile” is the heart of any campaign’s work. This is the data base, maintained by each Secretary of State, of registered voters and their stated affilitation, and it’s notoriously flawed but it’s the only staring point activists have had. When activists canvass neighborhoods, this is the data they carry with them. Anyone can pay a nominal fee to get voterfile data. I learned that there’s quite a little service industry that takes voterfile data and cleans it up and organizes it for campaigns. The political parties do this also, and earn serious money by charging their candidates for the service. The hacktivists that Dean left behind are taking this on as a worthwhile challenge, including the Advokit project that Pat Dunleavy and Dan Robinson have formed, based on Dunleavy’s experience with the Williamstown project.
But, as Chandler Bing might say, “Could it be any more centralized?” In an open source world, there must be a better way to accumulate this data, since there’s far more contact data, and more detailed, sitting on individuals’ hard drives, if there were only a way to get at it. Perhaps the mentor-newbie address book-based approach is a way to build a superset of the voterfile from scratch, while adding in even more interesting kinds of voters – those who haven’t voted before but will this time.
P2P Policy Engagement
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) is an organizing force powerful enough to connect people on several continents to develop so
ftware – one of the most complex of all projects. Other factors equal, any campaign that harnesses P2P power will defeat a campaign that does not. When supporters become members – campaign insiders – you need to give them what they want, and what they want is a voice in policy.
This was probably the Dean campaign’s greatest failing. Although there were discussion forums and cross-comments on the blog, there was no systematic seeking of policy input from the campaign’s members and no way to organize policy preferences to summarize the sense of the campaign’s supporters. It was a goal but not a priority, even though there was a lot of discussion about how to so engage the campaign’s members. Nicco Mele, the campaign webmaster, had reserved the domain opensourcepolicy.org with the expectation that it might be the right vehicle. Nicco and Mat Gross and Alison Stanton and I discussed the structure at some length after I drafted a prototype. Unfortunately, there were other priorities.
There were several policy professionals working for the Dean campaign. They taught me that policy professionals hate the idea of the voters expressing their explicit policy preferences in a way that politicians must acknowledge and, perhaps, respond to. Here’s a condensation of one idea for a policy preferences panel. Members of any web site could use the preferences panel to build their aggregated sense of what they want politicians to do:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
This expression leaves great opportunities for improvement, but it includes the vital elements:
- A quantitative and qualitative expression of policy preferences
- Raw material for a blog for each respondent, using the policy comments
- A chance to join a Special Interest Group (SIG) for each policy area.
Imagine with me that such a detailed polling tool encouraged each of us to express our values so explicitly. We could then understand the values profile for each person, family, census tract, zip code, city, county, state and nation.
Of course, each piece of legislation also expresses a set of values, as does every speech, amendment, rider, piece of pork, military adventure and, over time, each politician. Though experts may not welcome explicit policy expressions from the voters, policy professionals would be useful in describing the values profile of legislation and politicians, using the same matrix as the supporters, so that apples are compared to apples. I’d like to have such experts working for me, so I could print out my personal voting guide on election day, telling me how I would have voted if I’d had the time to compare all these actions personally.
RSS-based Assertion Processor
Google links are implicit, but a timeline is explicit. Here’s an example of a timeline asserting that the Reagan administration traded arms for hostages whenever it was politically expedient:
|
IRAN CONTRA SCANDAL
|
||||
| “October Surprise” allegation |
10/80
|
Reagan-Bush campaign makes secret pact with Iran to delay release of the Embassy hostages until after the November election, in return for future covert arms sales. | ||
| Reagan takes oath of office. |
1/20/81
|
Hostages held in the American Embassy in Iran released. | ||
| An Israeli official suggests a deal with Iran to then-national security adviser Robert McFarlane. . . |
7/85
|
…saying the transfer of arms could lead to release of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. McFarlane brings the message to President Reagan. | ||
|
8/30/85
|
The first planeload of U.S.-made weapons is sent from Israel to Tehran. | |||
|
9/14/85
|
The first American Hostage is released. | |||
| Reagan secretly signs a presidential ‘finding,’ or authorization… |
12/5/85
|
…describing the operation with Iran as an arms-for-hostages deal. | ||
|
etc., etc., etc.
|
||||
John Robb believes that, given a semantic aggregator, any set of blogs could form the basis of a knowledge log (K-Logs). Work groups and companies are trying to do this already, but why not create knowledge logs that let We the People look at blocks of text that describe the activities of political figures?
The “News” (as print media quaintly call their output) already is built around the classic Perry White imperatives to expose the who, what, where, when, how, why of every article, column or exposé. The writers and their editors and reviewers don’t flag those data elements, but they sure as hell could. Why not make those general classifications explicit and then extend them with additional, explicit tags to let the expositors sell us more efficiently on the point of their assertions, whether they are selling outrage or smug complicity. What is there about an otherwise lifeless lump of ASCII text that causes it to be worth the author’s effort? Without some animating force, it’s not worth our time either. Those elements of outrage, assurance or innuendo should include the kinds of data that excites people at a cocktail party or sells books: sex and money and intrigue. We are drawn to the media based on its power to push our buttons. There is a characteristic to outrage as there is to beauty and grace. Just because the elements of outrage are hard to describe is no excuse to abandon the quest.
The elements of outrage are what journalists strive to express even as they attempt to push their master narrative of omniscience and objectivity–the dominant myths of the press, as Jay Rosen is so masterfully teaching us. Today, Dave Winer suggests the need for exposing non-journalism in journalistic drag:
A possibly interesting twist on the…
A possibly interesting twist on the Is It Journalism? perma-debate. Okay, let’s not worry for a minute if blogging is journalism or not. How about keeping a list of pubs that claim to be journalism that run stories that are clearly not journalism, and clearly not marked as such. Factual errors that are never corrected. Conflicts of interest that are not disclosed. We’ve learned that the pros simply won’t investigate themselves, which itself is a breach of journalistic ethics, as far as I’m concerned. So what’s to stop us from doing it for them?
Heh. Nothing. Anyone can assign RSS tags to anything they quote, which is just another form of assertion. Perhaps, if we all think of our own and others’ writing as assertions subject to debugging, we’ll lose the arrogance that “experts” put on like a suit of clothes– a form of wishful thinking, IMHO.
As Alan Kay suggested when he told us that it’s easier to invent the future than to predict it, it takes longer to argue over why to design an RSS-based Assertion Processor than it takes to develop the means to expose what there is about any body of text that is asserted to be outrageous or reassuring.
Dave, do you have the time or interest to take a stab at this form of RSS? Does the 2.0 spec allow such an extension?
RSS-based Freedom of Information
I’m with Steve Gillmor: “Nothing sways me from the notion that RSS is a transcendent technology.”
(Heh. It doesn’t mean Steve’s with me:
Whether I agree with Britt’s last comment about Big Media (I don’t), I understand his perspective. It adds to the dialogue, the conversation. The advent of the blogosphere and RSS has provided both a filter for information and a low-barrier mechanism for empowering the direct participants in a conversation.)
RSS could be an acronym for the Rosetta Stone for Sharing. We the People are winding up a four-year crash course in why we should mistrust a secretive government. Our chance now is to establish Freedom of Information on steroids. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was a reaction and antidote to the last time a Republican administration knew more about what was good for us than we did. Clearly, the reaction will be to re-invigorate FOIA, and I hope we embrace and extend openness by legislation that federal documents must be online, in HTML, and offer RSS feeds like the rest of the world’s documents will, by the time FOIA II is passed.
Open Resource Governance
One of these days, a candidate will win by offering an alternative so obvious, compelling and profound that s/he will be hailed as a savior of the country. That alternative is Government BY the People. Literally. We will be the source of surveillance video, thanks to our ubiquitous PFR videophones (like soldiers taping prison truths). We will triangulate the useful insights into what’s really going on through our blogging of the facts as we interpret them. We will learn that we hold all the capital and that we can express ou
r preferences for action with our wallets in the same way that online political contributions have revolutionized politics.
Why shouldn’t we also do for government many other services, not necessarily for pay but for reduced taxes and better security? Think SETI on steroids. MoveOn can raise a million bucks overnight for a cause. Why can’t the EPA raise awareness and even money using the same tools? The outlandish seer in my head says that if enough people want a Star Wars missile defense, then they can ante up the cost, requiring the government to make a stronger case than it has so far.
I don’t know if government-by-bakesale should be our budgetary model, but our current model is broken. What if voluntary support turned out to be the system that improves on the representational democracy we like to think is perfect when it so clearly is not?
Government-by-bakesale has an important virtue going for it: The politicians and lobbyists will hate it.
Bureaucrat Retirement Initiative
Government bureaucrats aren’t cheap, especially with the great benefits, infrastructure and expensive processes that surround them. But their actions are what really cost us. Like any private sector bureaucrats, they must use every budget dollar before the end of the year, or risk losing that dollar in next year’s budget. But the most expensive part of our Bureaucracy Support System is the proliferation of projects, procurements and studies that the bureaucracy orders up to justify its existence.
In the face of this incredible churning, most of us feel that many bureaucrats could be replaced by a properly designed web application. Every major company is learning to reduce head count by having its customers do their own order entry and move their requests over the web. The federal government can’t work that way since the point of the bureaucrats is to keep their jobs and increase their budget. Without the civil servant’s enthusiastic help, how could you reduce the head count?
Simple. Get their help. Some day a reform-minded leader will establish a swat team of IT experts who implement a standing offer in the federal government: If you believe your job is expendable, let us know, and we’ll work with you to eliminate it. Then you can go home and continue to get paid, receive your agreed-upon GS raises, and retire on schedule. What’s the benefit to the taxpayer? It’s worth paying you to stay home so you can’t dream up more novel ways to spend our money.
Open Republic
Naturally, I believe that the Open Republic initiative deserves to be developed. The purpose of Open Republic is to act as the indispensable guide to the use of technology in politics; providing an entry point for the tech-averse political novice and an operations guide for the tech-savvy political pro. Working with Ethan Zuckerman and Allen Gunn and Katrin Verclas, the idea has developed and we’ve started to spec out the web site:

You may recall that Open Republic is intended as a monthly online publication reviewing the currently available political technologies with a thorough guide to their use. Open Republic will also commission improvements in activist tools and perhaps the creation of new resources.
This list is just one man’s opinion, so it’s only the start of a consensus. Open Republic would provide a formal review and documentation process for discovering and describing everything that Andy Rasiej and Jerry Michalski want to explore on May 24, as well as doing something about it.
Imagine That!
Personal Democracy Forum
Speakers and panelists include:
- Senator Bob Kerrey, President of the New School University;
- Ralph Reed, President, Century Strategies
- Joe Trippi, Former Campaign Manager of Dean for America;
- Sanford Dickert, CTO, John Kerry for President;
- Danny Goldberg, Author of Dispatches from the Culture Wars: How the Left Lost Teen Spirit;
- Mark Halperin, Political Director, ABC News
- Scott Heiferman, CEO, MeetUp.com;
- Nicco Mele, Former Webmaster, Dean for America;
- Jerry Michalski, Former Managing Editor of Release 1.0;
- Eli Pariser, National Campaigns Director of MoveOn.org;
- David Pollak, Executive Director, Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century;
- Simon Rosenberg, President and Founder, New Democrat Network;
- Andrew Shapiro, Host of What’s Next on Thirteen/WNET;
- David Weinberger, Author of The Cluetrain Manifesto;
- Congressman Anthony Weiner, 9th District of New York;
I like the sensible framing of the Forum’s aspirations:
Avoiding both breathless hyperbole and uninformed rushes to judgment, we will tackle questions like:
- What is the role of online activism in today’s political landscape? Are watchdogs more powerful than ever?
- How do weblogs and other alternative media sources change how information moves? What is their perceived objectivity? What is the role of citizen journalists?
- How does the online medium help and hinder public discourse? What are we learning from deliberative democracy, deep democracy and other projects?
- How can we guarantee security and control for online voting?
- What are the deeper opportunities for community building and consciousness-raising online? How can politics get more personal?
- What unconventional methods of campaigning and fundraising are emerging?
- What has really worked? What is still missing?
Terrorism PR
I’ve been working hard on a summary of political tech tools, but I’d like to pull some terrorism-as-PR threads together.
Doc can smell PR a half a world away:
“First, take it from an old PR guy: the Berg beheading was not an act of war; it was an act of publicity.
Second, stop and think of what that publicity was meant to do, and what it has the power to do regardless of its intentions. Hal Crowther puts it best: The best way to give a lie the force of truth is to soak it in innocent blood.
Jeff Jarvis points to Doc’s post and harvests comments:
Comments:
It was precisely an act of publicity, as all terrorism is.
And the deliberate suppression of those images, and any substantive discussion of them, by our ‘journalists’ in the mainstream media is a calculated act of opinion-steering.
Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive at May 17, 2004 11:45 AMDoc is right that is was a PR move. That’s what terrorism is: An attempt to frighten people into capitulation when you’d otherwise lack the ability to defeat them. The act fails if the intended target does not frighten.
Hafta disagree, though, that choosing not to publish image of the Berg beheading is a “calculated act of opinion-steering.” It seems to me an act intended not to sicken people. I don’t need or want to see tape of a beheading to be repulsed and angered by it, thank you very much. Imagination suffices. Making decisions about what to present to readers and what to leave out is essential to journalism. Readers do it, too. And so does Jeff and every other blogger when they decide what they want to write about.
Posted by billg at May 17, 2004 11:56 AM“…act of publicity” – so are embedded journalists, the staged “toppling” of Sadam’s statue, the Jessica Lynch “rescue”….
Posted by mm at May 17, 2004 12:33 PMActually, I thought it was a lesson in beheading for all good would be muslim terrorists. Maybe the media is right not to be posting jihadi techniques of the dumb and the demented.
Posted by Kat at May 17, 2004 01:04 PMOn the same note, see Mark Borkowski’s posting — The vile PR stunt that escalates the hatred
Posted by Constantin Basturea at May 17, 2004 02:06 PMWell, it seems the viewers from the ME were so huge in numbers that some sites could hardly handle the increase in traffic. Any site which posted the URL for the video got bombarded —and the majority were from the ME. Go figure. On line jihad for dummies with a demo on the art of beheading innocents.
Posted by Kat at May 17, 2004 05:09 PM
Decoding Terrorism
Dan Brown, the author of the Galaxy-class bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, wrote a prequel, Angels & Demons, which describes a lecture on terrorism:
“Terrorism,” the professor had lectured, “has a singular goal. What is it?”
“Killing innocent people?” a student ventured.
“Incorrect. Death is only a byproduct of terrorism.”
“A show of strength?”
“No. A weaker persuasion does not exist.”
“To cause terror?”
“Concisely put. Quite simply, the goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear. Fear undermines faith in the establishment. It weakens the enemy from within . . . causing unrest in the masses. Write this down. Terrorism is not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government’s façade of infallibility, and you remove its people’s faith.”
In a nutshell, Brown is saying that terrorists’ success depends totally on our response to the act. This is like a so-called social computer virus that scares people into bizarre responses to an email describing a computer virus that doesn’t exist. I’m not suggesting that terrorism doesn’t exist, but that we need to keep each attack in perspective in order to defeat the attackers. If one terrorist success causes us to re-engineer our society, why not just give them the keys to the kingdom?
I’ve previously suggested that our response to the terror was totally inappropriate to the act of killing 3-10,000 people on television. (10,000 is how many would have died if the planes had impacted an hour later. The body count is a distinction without a difference.) I’ve discussed with Jeff privately and publicly that we need to be warriors: take our losses, bury our dead, isolate our exposures, repair specific flaws in our systems and stick to our mission plan.
But what is our mission plan? The mission plan of the United States is not the Bush plan and never has been. In America’s third century, our mission plan has not changed for 228 years: Our God-given purpose is to demonstrate that a varied populace from disparate origins can live peacefully under an open government that governs minimally but humanely.
However, our current government’s response was not restrained and it was not enlightened. The Twin Towers attack was used for PR for a weak administration’s narrow purposes. Our current bureaucrats seem unaware that the our country was an expression of the age of enlightenment. Rather, our government responded in a way you’d expect from people who’d never been shot at: we overreacted and thus we engaged in our own acts of terrorism, as Dan Brown describes it: “Undermine faith in the [enemy’s] establishment.”
I’ll say it again. All Americans are combatants who were drafted into combat when a couple dozen guys got lucky 2-1/2 years ago, leveling some expensive real estate and taking out .001% of our population. The 9-11 attack was like several other attempts, except that it was the first one that was effective, on our soil. The next time that happens, and it will, what shall be our reaction? Should we steel ourselves as might a nation of warriors, or shall we succumb to the appealing rhetoric of self-victimization and emotion? Shall we model ourselves on the actions of heroes or shall we behave, as we have been, like participants on the Jerry Springer Show?
Of course we’re not likely to act consistently. However, our leaders and our press could conceivably act with courage in mind rather than market share.











