Remnants and rebuilding: the online/think tank intersection.
Fri, May 11, 2007
America, Conservatism, Democrats, Featured, Politics, Republicans
Preface: left and right online.
The challenge of building the right wing, conservative, and/or libertarian movement online is in many ways less daunting than that faced by its opposites on the left. This is paradoxical on its face, as the left has done a vastly better job of taking advantage of the possibilities and potential of online activism. It bears repeating that the most popular online community in the world is the left-wing Democratic Party organ, DailyKos. With estimated advertising revenues of at least $800,000 annually, to say nothing of informal and unreported income, the site is a powerhouse of fundraising and activism that, with the rest of the left-wing blogosphere, exerts an increasing influence on the ideology and tactics of the Democratic apparatus. There is nothing remotely like this community of online activism on the right: whereas the left-wing blogs hector and pressure their party to come into line with them, the relationship between the right-wing blogs and the Republican Party is far more one of dominance by the latter over the former. Online communities of the right are simply smaller, less organized, and less willing to alienate the party.
Technorati Tags: America, Democrats, Online activism, Politics, Republicans, Think tanks
This will change in time. See Erick Erickson’s recent actions at RedState for a bellwether; and more important, see the precipitous decline of the GOP itself. The right wing’s independence online was hindered to an extent by the fact of a party in power, and the consequences that could be brought to bear as a result of that power. Partly this meant that supporters of that party felt a responsibility to support it as such, but mostly it meant that bloggers, who are largely like Kissinger’s “frustrated principles” of speechwriting, did not want to sacrifice their access and influence for something so unrewarding as principle. (With respect to my blogging colleagues who may protest that they opposed the Administration on multiple occasions, I can only respond that this is a different thing from the party; and that I join them in responsibility for our collective lapses.) The collapse of Republican fortunes may be a bad thing for the country, but it will probably prove a paradoxical boon for its online proponents. As with the left-wing “netroots” of 2002-2006, a window now opens for Republicans to reshape their internal politics and relationships in a fashion not restricted by the interests of power-holders, of whom there will be few. Renewal in defeat, and hope at the nadir, is an old theme: “And the remnant that is escaped … shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.” As we look toward the grim landscape of the near term, we, that remnant, must build and plan for the long term.
I. The foundries of intellectual capital.
How do we begin? Specifically, how do we marshal the resources and capacity of the online sphere to support our efforts and colleagues in the political and policy sphere? I noted that the challenge for the right is less daunting than that for the left, and this is because we have one key operational advantage that they do not: a generation’s worth of centers for intellectual production and capital. I refer here to the network of think tanks and academic institutions that have arisen across America since the last comparably dark period, the 1970s. These are known by varying degrees to most participants in the public square; but less well known is are the facts that there are a lot of them, their numbers are expanding, and their measurable impact lags dramatically behind their potential. I am a direct participant in the think-tank world, so my perspective is predictably prejudiced in this respect: but, I think, as a rare crossover figure between that milieu and the online-activist set, I also have some worthwhile perspective on how each may reinforce the other.
There is no definitive count of how many think tanks there are in America, and there is no hard definition of what constitutes a “think tank.” On the latter, we can say that a think tank is a scholarly institution established for the advancement of a particular policy or ideological goal, or one that conducts its work from a declared policy or ideological preference. On the former, it is sufficient to say that beyond the big names of Cato, Heritage, Brookings, Hoover, et al., there are 263 members and allied institutions listed by the State Policy Network alone — and these are merely the subset of entities that fit within SPN’s purview of “state-based, free market think tanks.” Beyond that purview are even more excellent institutions that seek the advancement of broadly conservative ends through their own scholarly efforts. The point here is that there is a constellation of several hundred of these entities; they largely produce excellent work; and they are dramatically underutilized by their ideological fellow-travelers online. If the old conservative cliché is that “ideas have consequences,” then why aren’t we, the first-movers of the online right, advancing our ideas and ideamakers to the hilt?
Right-wing bloggers in particular must grasp that this is not merely a source of content for content’s sake: the work of the think tank community is profoundly threatening to the agenda of the left. An illustrative example is the Tennessee Center for Policy Research’s exposé on Al Gore’s electric bills several weeks back; the left-wing hate mail received by TCPR (PDF) in response is a wonderful reflection of the anger and desperation of our opponents when faced with those efforts. And that is mere tactical scalp-hunting, amplified not by right-wing bloggers, but by traditional media: how much greater would the lasting policy impact be if the substantive counter-documentary to the former Vice President’s film received wide blogospheric play? (Full disclosure: as the NYT reveals, the documentary is the work of my own colleague Steve Hayward.) We already know that online activism moves and shapes opinion — so it is up to the movers and shapers to make sure those opinions are informed. We owe the country we seek to direct no less.
II. Online activism and the void in the states.
It is not enough to say that the online right and the think tanks should talk to one another. There are a series of discrete prescriptive steps for each, as they seek to mold the Republican and conservative resurgence of the next decade. The online activists, first and foremost, should begin concentrating on local and measurable action. There is a surfeit of people wishing to create national-level weblogs, and a surplus of amateur pundits wishing to write at length on war, peace, and Washington, D.C. The proportion of that pool who will do any of those things well is quite small; and the market space for it is even smaller. RedState exists, and you won’t get another RedState. (Nor another DailyKos, for that matter.) The dramatically underserved market niche in political blogging and online activism is at the state level and below. There are good local weblogs, but not many, and not for most locales. If, as reader surveys suggest, RedState is the blog of choice for Capitol Hill Republicans, where do GOP state legislators in Austin, Atlanta, Sacramento, Tallahassee, et al., turn? The “blog of record” does not exist at this level, and this is a distressing absence for a party that historically grooms its national leadership at the state-executive level. There are several reasons for this absence: advertising revenue on weblogs are naturally more substantive with a national audience; self-promotion for bloggers wishing to transition into policy or journalism work is less available at the state level and below; and there is a comparative lack of glamor in state policy versus national and international issues.
III. Supporting the online activists: funders.
All this signifies more than a need for online activists to refocus on the states: it also means that the funding and intellectual-production apparatus of the American conservative movement must support that refocusing. Funding is self-explanatory, if knotty: foundational and individual donors move slowly, and rightly seek metrics and assurances that online activists are ill-prepared to deliver. (Sitemeter is a poor substitute for a competent marketing person.) I don’t have the answers here, and I’m not sure that anyone does: but I do know that bloggers need to begin thinking about measurable impacts beyond mere hit counts; and I know that funders need more education on just what bloggers and the online sphere can do to advance the cause. The bottom line is that if and when someone emerges as a definitive locus of pro-conservative online activism, there needs to be an institution or mechanism that identifies that person, and subsidizes his or her endeavors. The bloggers need that hope, to spur their efforts, and the movement at the state level and below needs their work.
IV. Supporting the online activists: think tanks.
Beyond funding, the provision of intellectual capital is itself a major missing piece for the online right. Think tank efforts to reach out to right-wing and libertarian bloggers have been erratic, and their efforts to participate as bloggers have been largely unsuccessful. The cultivation of relationships online is not simply a matter of en masse e-mails and ad hoc relationships: instead, deliberation and purposeful outreach is required for a successful engagement of online allies. There are several components of this outreach. First among them is the identification of online activists who may be helpful — or who may benefit from the think tank’s work. (Note, please, that the think tank needs to assess the landscape in terms of potential benefit to the blogger, and not just potential benefit to it; both will redound to the think tank’s credit in time.) This identification is easier demanded than done, and the nebulous nature of assessing online actors is further impetus for the creation of the identification mechanism described above with respect to funders.
Having identified the relevant actors, think tanks must cultivate them as a cross between media and donors. Online activists and bloggers are a unique mixture of both, in that they perform a communicative function similar to media, and may deliver de facto pro bono work in publicizing the think tank’s product. A targeted blogger should be invited to think tank events and receive the usual mailings and e-mails — but he or she should also get regular calls from the marketing chief and relevant scholars, and have special access for interviews and interaction. This may strike the small think tank as somewhat tedious, and indeed it is — until that think tank’s scholar goes to the statehouse to testify on a bill, and every legislator present is deluged with e-mails from a friendly blogger’s readership. When one considers that politics are about half a decade or more behind commerce in terms of technology’s inroads, this is a sound investment for the think tank. The provision of intellectual product should be targeted and coherent. Some think tanks, like my own, have an explicit policy of not producing works in “academese” or unreadable scholarly jargon; all adult Americans should be able to read our work and comprehend our policy recommendations. The think tank wishing to engage bloggers would do well to adopt a similar practice. Beyond this provision, the think tank can offer the online activist or blogger one final, key thing: material support in the form of an adjunct fellowship. This does more than lend the recipient a stipend — it also legitimizes him or her with a professional title, that itself legitimizes his or her advancement of the think tank’s work and aims.
As an addendum, one course of action for the think tanks that is not addressed here is the establishment of a think tank’s own online efforts. This is a closely related but also fundamentally different matter that will be addressed elsewhere.
V. Conclusion.
What is the desired endstate here? Of course it is the victory of Constitutional governance in the conservative conception. This will not happen whole, nor soon. As one of the key vehicles of the movement — the Republican Party — enters a probable sustained low period in its history, an emerging vehicle of the movement, the online activists, and an established vehicle of that movement, the think tank complex, have an opportunity to join forces and propel one another to mutual leadership of that movement. When the Republicans recover, as they eventually will, they ought to recover as a party of principle and action. The think tanks and the bloggers lend themselves, by their very nature, to both. It therefore befits them to seize this moment, and move forward to reclaim the ground that the politicians have lost. This short piece is neither the beginning nor the end of this effort, nor the final prescription for action. It is, though, a starting-point for formulation. We have the tools to remake the movement: the question is whether we take them in hand with purpose and deliberation, or strike forward with mere formless hope.
Popularity: 23% [?]
May 12th, 2007 at 08:21
Great comments, and I agree on almost all counts. Can I make one unrelated suggestion, however?
I’m not yet 40 and I had trouble reading this format. It’s a nice, austere design, but the type size is too small and faint, IMHO.
May 12th, 2007 at 08:50
A thoughtful piece. While I share your general goals, I see a few problems.
You say that the right wing bloggers have been too subservient to the Republican party. There is some truth to this, depending on how you define right wing bloggers. Realistically speaking, places such as lewrockwell are on the “right”. They are and have been quite hostile to the GOP for a while now. That site gets traffic comparable to National Review Online. There are other paleocon and paleolibertarian sites out there. This splintering of the right into antagonistic factions is a large part of the problem. I don’t know the solution, but one needs to be found. National Review would sooner give space to Noam Chomsky than to Steve Sailer. For too many on “the right”, personality trumps policy.
The Democratic party seems to be dominated by people who are true believers in left/liberal politics. Conservatives do not play the same role within the GOP, even under the most elastic definitions of conservatism. The Republican Party often seems overtly hostile to conservative and libertarian thought. If I’m right then our problem is bigger than that of the “netroots”, who are dealing with politicians sympathetic to their cause.
It seems counterintuitive, the media being what they are, but GOP politicians strike me as being more suspicious of blogs and bloggers than the Democratic ones.
“RedState exists, and you won’t get another RedState.”
Perhaps this is just boosterism for a site you sometimes write on, but RedState is dwarfed by a number of other blogs, including Malkin, Powerline, and NRO. Not to mention the aforementioned paleo sites. It’s interesting that this is so, considering the resources lavished on it. Part of the problem may be that it is not really conservative. Many of the people I’ve seen writing there are pro-war liberals.
Your article implies that the goals of the conservative movement are known, and focuses on how they can be realised. It strikes me that the difficulty exists due to the lack of agreed upon goals.
May 12th, 2007 at 09:56
To blog is to do some “free.” Which is the opposite of “follow the money.” And, the reasons the GOP fortunes dwindled is that people have left Bush’s “show” … the way people leave the theater when there’s a stinker up on the stage.
Last night, I slilpped a DVD into the player. It was Robert Vaughn’s one-man-show FDR. Using extensive rebutts to journalists; throughout the dialogue, you get the picture that ALL PRESIDENTS are called names. But the best ones turn it into repartee.
As a matter of fact, when FDR was in his 3rd race, where the GOP puts up Wendell Wilke, 1940. FDR used extensive “jokes” at 3 GOP House Members: Barton, Martin, and FISH.
So, it’s not as if politics is DIFFERENT; only that Bush is lame at it. And, surrounded with “ideologs.” People who share an agenda; and there’s no curiosity about other outcomes.
Just the way probabilities play out over a field of randomness; you’ll come to see that Bush was doomed to failure. But didn’t see it coming, either.
On Iraq? He took Saddam out. Where I now call him the Realtor for the HOUSE OF SAUD. Because? He, somehow, and very mistakenly felt, the sunnis would always be the devils in control of Iraq. And, instead? That’s now how you influence people.
So less and less people were influenced by Bush’s “strong arm,” given that he didn’t add legs to it.
And, yes, the GOP also suffers because the Bush Family knew how to manipulate the primaries; so two UNQUALIFIED DISASTERS, two Bush’s landed in the White House.
What’s the margin you need to win? ONE PERCENT. But it sure feels better when you pull MORE. Sarkozy in France, just pulled his winning spread to 6%. And, going after women, by illegalizing abortions, again; isn’t what you’d call a great way to head for victory. (Alas, playing that card worked for the Bush’s).
People don’t like the “left” more these days. They hate Bush’s failures, though. And, when they see Alberto Gonzales, and his parade of incompetents; it makes things worse.
Now, how do you fix your label? You put more chrome on your Edsels?
May 12th, 2007 at 10:08
Jake, you’re right that I need to adjust the formatting. On my to-do list for the weekend.
Carol, your penultimate graf has it right, I think.
Flenser, I must be honest and tell you that I don’t consider most of the self-described “paleo-” movement to be especially relevant. There are many good ideas from that corner, but its general willingness to tolerate unsavory characters and ideas as putatively benign fellow-travelers puts it outside meaningful discourse. (What’s the gain, after all, in coalition-building with folks who hate Abraham Lincoln, think there’s an Israeli/Jewish connection to 9/11, and/or advocate “race realism” as a policy font?) Even if Lew Rockwell draws more traffic than NRO, it doesn’t follow from that that there’s a future for Lew Rockwell in shaping the conservative movement.
As for RS, you’re right that it’s not the sole, nor the largest, participant in the universe of right-blogs. But it is, I think, the only one that set out from the start to be what it is — for what that’s worth.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:13
“It bears repeating that the most popular online community in the world is the left-wing Democratic Party organ, DailyKos. With estimated advertising revenues of at least $800,000 annually, to say nothing of informal and unreported income….”
That sounds like you’re accusing DailyKos of something without actually coming out and doing it, or offering anything like evidence. I also wonder about your definition of “online community” that allows you to say that DailyKos is the most popular one there is in the world. And further I wonder why you would think DailyKos was a Democratic Party organ, when the authors there frequently take positions different from those taken by Democratic Party politicians - especially on Iraq, labor, and environmental issues. They certainly are left-wing, though, so your sentence isn’t entirely incorrect.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:17
dKos touts itself as bigger than Slashdot, the prior record-holder for largest online community extant. It is certainly a de facto organ of the Democratic Party at large; and its internal finances are certainly murky. All this is established.
May 12th, 2007 at 10:48
Joshua
“There are many good ideas from that corner, but its general willingness to tolerate unsavory characters and ideas as putatively benign fellow-travelers puts it outside meaningful discourse.”
As I say, this focus on who you like and dislike is inimical to the world of ideas, which does not respect persons. It’s interesting that you yourself were once interested in forging relations with the left, whose affinity for unsavory characters and ideas is well known. The project of trying to rebuild a conservative movement is not going to succeed as long as conservatives persist with their decades long fetish of throwing out people to their right and embracing people to their left.
“Even if Lew Rockwell draws more traffic than NRO, it doesn’t follow from that that there’s a future for Lew Rockwell in shaping the conservative movement.”
By any reasonable understanding of influence, it does follow. Maybe you mean that it won’t shape what you regard as the conservative movement? But that just gets back to the my initial point about antagonistic factions. Before you can undertake the “challenge of building the right wing, conservative, and/or libertarian movement online”, you need some idea of what this movement stands for. Do you have such an idea?
The conservative movement has to stand for something. At present it resembles a group of fairly bright people flailing about looking for a cause.
May 12th, 2007 at 11:20
Maybe you mean that it won’t shape what you regard as the conservative movement?
If you wish. I won’t be a part of any movement headed up by Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, et al.
Fortunately, the chances that these men will shape conservatism at large is are fairly small.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:24
I came to this post from Instapundit. I agree that all this needs to be done.
I question, however, whether the GOP is at a sustained low period. The GOP was confronted in the 2006 Midterm Election by a “perfect storm” of at least (a) midyear election in the second term of an unpopular President, (b) a GOP majority in both Houses that had lost its edge and had become the establishment that it loathed before 1994; (c) a hostile media (MSM and on-line) quick to point out any and every flaw in GOP governance and behaviour (e.g. Rep. Foley); and (d) the situation in Iraq. Even given that, the Democrats picked up barely enough seats to organize.
So I’m not as gloomy as the post. Should the situation in Iraq turn around or should the Bush Administration have another success that cannot be ignored by the MSM before the 2008 elections, the GOP may well recapture both Houses of Congress and retain the Presidency.
However, it probably helps the GOP activists to think that they are wandering in the wilderness.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:30
David, here’s hoping you’re right on all counts.
May 12th, 2007 at 12:57
I don’t mean to be a pest, but I googled “daily kos slashdot “largest online community”" and got four results, none of which matched your claim. Perhaps you could offer a link?
If you say that “all this is established” regarding my other points, well, there’s certainly no arguing with that, is there?
May 12th, 2007 at 15:01
I feel I should object a little because there’s one major exception to your view, Joshua, of the think tanks divorced from blogs and activism, and that’s Townhall. Most forget that the Heritage Foundation got Townhall started, and still most don’t appreciate how massive it is. Content-wise, they blow dKos out of the water in a few important ways. They brought in Hewitt’s blog to star, but also have over 4,000 user blogs, popular syndicated columns, and heck, whole radio shows. They could do better, like tone down all the blinking crap they have, but it is a huge conservative clubhouse, if not yet a major activism hub.
/I’m honestly not affiliated with Townhall in any way. :)
May 12th, 2007 at 15:04
Yeah, you’re right about that, TK. However, I’m not sure Townhall is as important as it wishes it would be: as you note, it’s not a major activism hub, and though it’s entertaining, I don’t see it affecting policy much. Heritage did indeed get it started, so point taken there — inasmuch as Heritage is a relevant model for the mass of think tanks, which is highly debatable.
May 12th, 2007 at 15:06
To Ted @ 12.05.07 / 12pm
I noticed that, too. Alexa’s count doesn’t square with that.
May 12th, 2007 at 15:55
First, I am very happy that “Mr Tacitus” is back.
Re Townhall: I seem to remember that in the days before the big right-wing blog explosion of 2002, Townhall was pretty important. Back then Internet commentary was driven by daily-updated newsletters. I remember going to Salon a lot in those days; but I remember going to Townhall too.
Townhall’s core audience, MSM-disgruntled righties who wanted an alternative, ran off to consume the blogs of their choice instead of Townhall. This made it harder for Heritage to get its talking points across. Meanwhile, while Salon (etc) became irrelevant, dKos arose.
Trevino obviously thinks that a central location for the Right would highlight those talking-points which help our cause: individual responsibility, low taxes, opposition to damaging foreign ideologies. It would keep out self-destructive opinions like anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, which are lies; and opposition to Lincoln, which is subversive to any movement which supports a unified national response to the “relics of barbarism”.
But the Right as it stands now is trying to ally creationists, which include Townhall-approved columnists like Mike Adams; with their opposite - racial theorists like Sailer and also Derbyshire. Without saying too much about which theory of human origins I prefer as more predictive of human behaviour, I will say that both do claim to be predictive of human behaviour, and that the Right will find it increasingly difficult to form an internal policy with the two (incompatible) theories pulling it apart.
May 13th, 2007 at 19:37
It is certainly a de facto organ of the Democratic Party at large;
Actually, it works in the other direction. The party doesn’t use kos as its mouthpiece repeating the party’s talking points (I can’t help but think you’re partly blinded by the way much of the content-producers on the right operate). Rather, the dailykos seeks to have the Democratic party repeat the talking points of the dailykos.
Parties, it’s true, cultivate communities as a means of creating a steady stream of revenue. The dailykos, however, sought to create a community that could provide a steady stream of revenue as a means of creating leverage over the party.
April 8th, 2008 at 18:51
It should be really interesting to see the Republican Party of the future if McCain become president. It could make the whole party more moderate.