Why Twitter Matters & The Left Should Be Nervous

Michael Turk | May 5, 2009 - 8:34pm | 9 comments | Email This!

I realize I'm inviting much ridicule from my friends on the left, but I'm going to write this post anyway, and I'm going to leave the title intact - Why Twitter Matters & The Left Should Be Nervous. It's no doubt going to generate some giggles among the online intelligentsia in the Democratic Party. That's ok with me.

I have, for several months now, seen a string of posts and tweets from these same lefty friends that are either mocking or dismissive of the Conservatives nascent efforts on Twitter. Here's one example courtesy of TechPresident's own Micah Sifry.

It's positively quaint to listen to Republicans murmur optimistically about their "dominance" on Twitter. #polc09, #tcot, #p2

The very first time I saw a comment like that, it reminded me immediately of comments I had seen and heard before. They were the openly dismissive comments directed by complacent and cocky Republicans at the Democrats efforts online.

I specifically remember more than a few people, myself included, who watched the rise of the online left with initial derision. As late as 2004 and 2005, I heard things like, "The Democrats and their blogs. How's that working out for them? All that effort and how many wins has it resulted in?"

Beginning with Conrad Burns and George Allen, we began to quickly see the results of "those blogs". It's a lesson we failed to heed early on, and it contributed greatly to our demise.

What we failed to recognize was the infancy of an effort to use new technology to mobilize. It was an effort to build a new network and the infrastructure to disseminate a coherent message.

I have argued that the reason the Democrats never mastered talk radio was very simple - they never had to. In modern politics, the insurgent party will adapt to the most interactive (and the most real-time) technology available at the time. In 1992, having lost the White House, House and Senate, the GOP gravitated toward talk radio. Despite it being a broadcast medium, it was the most interactive medium available. It was adapted to facilitate the conversation about the direction of the party and the country.

The Democrats, rising out of the loss in 2000, had to coallesce around a platform. Talk radio, had the Internet not been available, would likely have become the staging area and the rise of the left on talk radio would have been a near certainty. But a funny thing happened on the march toward the AM dial.

With the Internet, blogs and Meetup became the new polis for the exiled Democrats.

Now you could argue that two data points is hardly enough to qualify my central thesis - the adaption of interactive forums by the out party. But keep in mind that Americans detachment from one another and from in-person communities really didn't explode until about this same time. Prior to that, most people who were politically active simply turned to their party and its structures. It's just the last 20 years that have split us from our parties and each other, so we can only look at the data available.

That brings us back to the present day and the Republicans.

Now that we are the out party, we are turning to the Internet to discuss, debate and strategize the party's future. It is no longer, however, simple enough to label "The Internet" as a monolithic thing the way we did with the Democratic use of the medium. The Internet is no longer about websites as it was with blogs and Meetup. The Internet, as it exists today, is more a generic platform for advanced communication services - whether they are site based, text messages, cellular applications, or anything else.

In the world of converging technologies, Twitter represents the single most interactive, most real-time, tool available. Twitter is mobile. Twitter is rapid. Twitter facilitates deep content (via linking) and fast action (via retweets and viral distribution).

For the Democrats that dismiss Republican testing of many and various models of activism on Twitter, you should watch very closely what's going on, rather than simply mocking it. Complacency and satisfaction with your status quo is a slippery slope and it's very easy to fall into the "yes, but what has it gotten them" mindset.

It is likely, I would even say certain, that Twitter, or some next generation concept that builds upon Twitter's framework, will be a central component of the GOP resurgence. It most certainly won't happen overnight. However, I guarantee you will - when you find yourself out of power again - be able to trace the roots of your downfall to this earliest of efforts.

Until then, to my friends on the left, let me say two things. First, we'll keep using Twitter, and you can keep cracking jokes. Second, as long as you do, we'll see you on the other side, soon enough.

Update: Based on further conversation (via Twitter) about this post, I need to clarify a point. I'm not claiming the GOP is currently "dominant" on Twitter. That was Micah's reference. I'm simply looking at the tendency for conservatives to adapt to Twitter faster and easier than they have other online venues.

The left's attitude (represented by Micah's comment) seems to me to be that the GOP is putting all its eggs in the Twitter basket without doing all the other things that the left did to be successful. My argument is that's a false assumption. It requires that the GOP mimic the left to advance online. Just as the left bypassed the right's use of talk radio and went straight on to a different model, I think the right may be able to skip directly past the duplication of the left's infrastructure by simply making use of what are currently the most advanced communications and mobilization tools. I see evidence that many in the right are developing new models in an effort to do just that.

Those new models have not yet become "dominant". My central premise is, however, is that many on the left and right seem to believe we must embrace the left's status quo. I, on the other hand, believe our salvation will not come in duplicating their model, but in creating a new paradigm for our own activism.

Our readers also like:

Candidates Site Ratings on Finding Local, Public Events
284 recommended posts
Categories: 
Featured: 

Comments

Just to be clear

by Micah L. Sifry on May 6, 2009 - 11:54am

Mike--

As always I appreciate how you approach issues where partisan differences could otherwise obscure or make impossible a civil discussion. I will try to continue in that same spirit.

When I tweeted about conservatives "murmur[ing] optimistically" about their "dominance" on Twitter, the key word in what I wrote was how "quaint" it was. It reminded me of the conversations I used to see among politically-minded technologists on the left five years ago, who seemed to think that all that was needed to get the good guys back in power was better software and better platforms. All the noise among conservatives to get on Twitter, be the "top conservative on twitter," etc, reminded me, in some quaint way, of the naivete of those technologists (many of them earnest well-meaning liberals) who imagined that "if we build it, they will come" would work in the arena of political organizing (as opposed to finding stronger messages and messengers, to convince the public to put them back in power). Obviously, in 140 characters, such subtleties don't necessarily come through, and I can see why you might have read my tweet the way you did.

A couple of other comments about your post.
1. I don't think there's much evidence of Democrats dismissing or ignoring Twitter, or how Republicans are testing it out. Ds are doing a lot of experimentation with Twitter (I'm thinking of dozens of electeds and hundreds of govt agencies using it, plus countless activist projects and individuals playing with #hashtag campaigns, etc); if Republicans aren't watching what's going on, I'd be surprised.
2. You're probably right that conservatives have been faster to adopt Twitter than they have other online venues. That's definitely interesting. My guess is that it's partly how easy Twitter is to use; even John McCain figured out how to tweet from his Blackberry. Even John McCain. {That's a joke, Mark Soohoo!}
3. I don't know if there is a "status quo" model on the left of how one uses social media to organize politically. You seem to think that being in power will lead to complacency in that regard. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Judging from how many on the netroots left are talking and acting these days, I'm not sure they think they are actually in power! People like Markos Moulitsas, Robert Greenwald, MoveOn, et al are hardly resting on their laurels and taking victory laps around K Street.
4. Finally, and as I said to the conservatives on the panel at Politics Online that was taking place when I posted that tweet, it's extremely doubtful that Twitter or any other communications tool alone will restore conservatives to power. Those guys need a new message, one that in my humble opinion requires junking big pieces of conservatism (including leading icons) that have clearly failed to garner majority support. Until that kind of renovation happens on the Right, adoption of new tech and new tools is just a sideshow. I think you're right that it's possible these new social media will foster a more diverse and open conversation than what's been seen before inside the Right, but that doesn't guarantee success in the political arena, does it?

Thanks

by Michael Turk on May 6, 2009 - 12:25pm

I appreciate the clarification. I read your tweet very differently, obviously. That's one of the dangers of written text.

With regard to your first three points, I definitely have seen evidence that any of the three could be 100% accurate. I do, however, disagree with the final point.

The left did not rise to power by advocating a middle ground. Much of their policy proposals so far are based on traditional big government solutions. Which is fine with me. I am a firm believer that the nation is well served by two parties - one which advocates a strong federal approach and one which pursues a limited federal approach. The intersection of these view points has traditionally served us well.

I disagree with the likes of Colin Powell that we should just get on board the big government, high-tax bandwagon. I also do not believe that the current economic problems are the failure of limited government, but the failure of poor management by government.

There is nobody on the right (that I know of) who would argue that the last eight years have seen a dramatic reduction in government. Indeed, the size, scope and mission of the federal government expanded significantly under the GOPs watch.

I believe that the GOP would be well served to give the boot to those who profess opposition to federal government excess, but who fed willingly at the government teat. Immediately following the passage of the first bailout package, I published a list of some of these folks. There are, however, many more.

What we need is a concerted effort to reassert the debate over the size/scope of government in a way that meets the citizen needs. The federal government is not the only entity capable of solving problems. The GOP needs to again demonstrate that by leading effectively at the local level.

The GOP lost that concept, and given a choice between the guys who do big government poorly and the guys who excel at it, it should be no surprise the American people brought the pros in to clean up the mess.

Seems to me we agree

by Micah L. Sifry on May 6, 2009 - 1:07pm

Mike--

As I read your argument on my fourth point, I think I hear us agreeing. I'm saying that conservatives won't see a revival of their political fortunes until they retool their ideas and clean their own house. You say you want to give the boot to people who "fed willingly at the government teat," and that "What we need is a concerted effort to reassert the debate over the size/scope of government in a way that meets the citizen needs."

To my ears, that means kicking out the racketeers and profiteers who fed and enjoyed the K Street boom fostered by all those juicy government giveaways (of special tax breaks, subsidies, direct grants and regulatory favors) and then figuring out how to make sure government, at whatever level, is meeting citizen needs.

Where we differ is on whether the new crowd in there now is just for bringing back "big government" or if it's for smarter, more effective government. I think we all want more of the latter, regardless of our particular ideology. I also think a lot of our agreement about things like making government more open, transparent, and participatory is because we believe that lots of citizens watching and participating in their government improves the chances of getting smarter, more effective government.

Pretty much...

by Michael Turk on May 6, 2009 - 2:04pm

I'd agree with you on the high points, and you're definitely right about this:

Where we differ is on whether the new crowd in there now is just for bringing back "big government" or if it's for smarter, more effective government.

To me, anyone who starts with new spending, rather than a freeze of existing budgets, a sustained and serious inquiry into, and significant cuts in the waste and fraud in government is simply not serious about smaller, smarter government.

The papers made a big deal about Obama's recognition that $100 million was nothing in terms of budget cuts. If it's nothing, and you are all about big thinking, why not start larger? Why not challenge every employee in government to identify waste fraud and abuse in their agency? You could even offer a 5% "bounty" on wasteful spending. Why not challenge the bureaucracy?

Yes, the GOP has lost all credibility on fiscal responsibility. That's a given. But claims of wanting smaller, smarter government paired with window dressing initiatives don't fill me with much faith.

Fair points

by Micah L. Sifry on May 6, 2009 - 2:15pm

Mike--

We're straying pretty far from our usual focus here, so I'm going to call an end to this back and forth, unless you want to engage further on whether transparency and enhanced use of "Web 2.0" practices can be of value in making government more efficient.

I'm more interested in what we (the citizenry) will do with our growing powers of self-organization, information-sharing, group-forming, etc than in what leaders at the top of big institutions say they want. My (hopeful, admittedly) sense is by adopting and calling for more transparency and interactivity, Obama is giving a big push to forces already in motion, that are expecting and demanding that government modernize how it operates and spends our scarce dollars.

As for faith...why are you looking to be filled with faith in the promises of politicians? ;>)

Micah

Indeed. And some additional thoughts ...

by JonPincus on May 6, 2009 - 2:32pm

Well said, Michael. There i is a lot of complacency and dismissiveness of many on "the left's" attitude toward Twitter and conservatives' early lead in organizing. The fixation on #tcot and Fox News' support for the teaparties leads to a lack of awareness of the breadth of activity and successes. And I also agree that a big chunk of the dynamic is the email- and blog-fixation of the current power structure, who see that as how they won in 2006 and 2008.

This fits in with a consistent pattern of the "big progressive blogs" minimizing social network-based activism in general ... and no wonder, it's a huge threat to their insider white- and male-dominated power structure. Most bloggers (and those who get their news from them) still haven't come to terms that Obama's onlne strategy largely ignored the big progressive blogs and instead focused on social media (especially myBO and YouTube, and to some extent Facebook and MySpace). The "big progressive blogs" have never followed up on Get FISA Right and 100,000 Strong against Evan Bayh's success, didn't take #dontgo seriously, and largely ignored Join the Impact, #motrinmoms, the Facebook TOS protests, #amazonfail, or #pman -- all of which relate to progressive causes. Hmm. Seems like a pattern to me.

That said I should point out that there are those on "the left" who do take Twitter seriously and have been organizing there -- and paying attention to what's happening on the right. In particular, I'd like to highlight #p2 ("progressives 2.0"), a hashtag Tracy Viselli and I proposed in early February. Its origin was as a way of engaging on Twitter with communities currently marginalized by the progressive blogosphere; more recently, it's gotten broader support by progressives and in last week's tweeting we expanded our mission to include being an umbrella tag for progressives on Twitter and being the "progressive batchannel". To find out more, please check out the #p2 wiki.

More generally social media technologies like Twitter, Facebook, etc., favor the grassroots over entrenched power structures -- the Obama campaign and Join the Impact are two clear examples of this, and (at a smaller scale) so is the recent #tcot kerfuffle. Social media are key for involving youth more deeply -- and result in younger people taking more leadership roles -- and as I described in Cognitive evolution and revolution potentially allow collaboration in ways that can counter existing dimensions of oppression including gender, race, geography, etc. This isn't a left/right thing: it applies just as well to communities who have been marginalized within the Republican party and the conservative movement in general. So it'll be interesting to see what changes happen to conservatives as a result of their embrace of Twitter.

jon

—

jon -- http://talesfromthe.net/jon

Fair point

by Michael Turk on May 6, 2009 - 5:32pm

I agree that it is up to us to demand accountability, but our partisan nature will generally make us more likely to forgive the sins of our respective sides.

As you know, I'm a cynic/skeptic first. I'm not questioning Obama's commitment to openness because he's a Democrat, but because he's a politician.

To your final point, I still invest what little faith I have because despite my cynicism, I still want to see things get better.

Talk radio's interaction?

by razajac on May 6, 2009 - 10:07pm

You said: "Despite it being a broadcast medium, it was the most interactive medium available. It was adapted to facilitate the conversation about the direction of the party and the country."

I'm trying to guess what you're talking about: I guess it means you can call in and say your piece.

It's actually good that you mention talk radio when you talk about Republicanism/"conservatism" and new, interactive 'Net tech. What's interesting about this is that if you hadn't, you would have failed to highlight what might be the most salient point.

When I think about the greatest recent-historical "success" story of interactive talk radio, I think about...three guesses...That's right: Limbaugh. Who wouldn't?

He rode a wave, and Repubs controlled the government, and laurel-bestowing ceremonies were held to bestew his brow with honorific leafiness.

But look at what he represents; and he represents plenty: It's a fact that scientifically-run media analysis has pointed up the hard fact that Limbaugh-listening is correlated to public-affairs ignorance. Limbaugh listeners **proudly** called themselves "dittoheads". Proudly. Think about that a second.

Honestly reflecting on the Limbaugh legacy for 2.38 seconds does not bounce back a pretty picture, and certainly--absolutely--shows ruminations on the interactivity, or not, of Limbaughesque talk radio as utterly beside the point.

In short--if perhaps a little yet-more obtuse; hang with me a sec--it's about quality, not quantity. And I think if the Repubs want to redeem the moment, they're not going to be able to avoid this. And an honest look at this issue isn't going to be easy--and we see the dis-ease permeating the flurry of new talking points falling, one after the other, like lead balloons. There's a quality-based new interest in that elusive-yet-essential concept: Governance. I was going to say, Canadian-style, "good governance", but after the Bush years people will take what they can get. And as bad as so many on the right are straining to make us dittoize otherwise, we may luck out and actually get good governance out of Obama.

And, twitter or no-twitter, that's the bottom line that the right has to deal with.

And thanks for bringing this up!

thnx for sharing

by ejjjjder on June 2, 2009 - 5:05am

thanx for share michael turk.