the love of change
Hey folks- over the next two days I’ll be posting dispatches from the Netroots Nation conference in Austin. The beauty about a conference for bloggers is that nobody gives you a funny look when you’re in the audience for a panel hacking away at your laptop.
I’m waiting for my first panel to start:
Since I was so focused on philanthropy blogging last week, I have a backlog of environmental and web 2.0 news to share. This could be a long list of links, but it should keep you busy for a while.
Social networking? Despite all of the attention paid to it in (occasionally breathless) media coverage . . . Facebook, MySpace, et al have not proven to be terribly effective tools for campaigns. Does anyone really think that the fact that Obama has five times as many Facebook friends as Hillary Clinton has turned out to be significant? Demographically interesting and revealing, sure, but actually relevant to how the Democratic primary process has gone so far?
[Obama's] response to Clinton’s gas tax proposal was to reject it as a Washington gimmick that would . . . do nothing to address long-term energy issues. That rejection was coupled with a principled energy platform that would address those issues.
Why not try the same thing in WV and KY? Start by telling the truth: as president, he would stop the expansion of dirty coal. [...]
Of course, it’s crucial to couple this with a positive message . . . that means “green jobs,” but more than just that. It means stimulating the development of other industries and revenue sources by spending on infrastructure, education, public works programs, and a decent social safety net. An Obama administration will try to pay these areas back for the sacrifices they’ve made in the name of providing the country with cheap electricity.
It probably wouldn’t help him win WV or KY . . . [but] [m]aybe he could defy conventional wisdom by treating rural white voters like adults, helping them plan a real path to economic health and sustainability rather than telling them fairy tales about the continuing viability of earth’s dirtiest fuel.
After the auto polo photo, I don’t really have anything else to say. Happy Monday.
I live in North Carolina. You might have heard about a little primary election we had on Tuesday. I actually voted weeks ago, taking advantage of my state’s one-stop early voting process: voters can show up at any early voting location in their county, register, and vote on the same day. The early voting locations open about three weeks ahead of election day, and offer weekend hours for voters who are unable to vote during the work week. I walked into my polling place, voted, and was back at
work within 20 minutes. As I walked back to work, I couldn’t help thinking: I can’t believe an idea this indisputably good for our state actually came to fruition. Now don’t get me wrong: I love NC, and we have a number of incredibly dedicated civil servants working in all levels of state and local government, not to mention brilliant and talented policy advocates in the nonprofit realm. And yet, for some reason I’m still shocked that early voting is real.
On the other end of the spectrum is the $100 laptop. This strikes me as such a powerful idea, such a POSSIBLE dream–there is, in fact, an excellent design–and yet…the project is stalled and faces innumerable obstacles.
So here’s the question: what are other policies, products or inventions (maybe online tools?) that seem almost too good to be true? What’s something amazing you’ve seen/heard about, only to be shocked when it became reality? Alternatively, what’s the best idea that you don’t think will ever come to fruition?
My second story (and question) is inspired by an article in Fast Company magazine (thanks for the plane reading material, Dan!) on “The Brand Called Obama:” 
Politics, after all, is about marketing — about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume. The promotion of the brand called Obama is a case study of where the American marketplace — and, potentially, the global one — is moving. His openness to the way consumers today communicate with one another, his recognition of their desire for authentic “products,” and his understanding of the need for a new global image — all are valuable signals for marketers everywhere
As Jarred and I have disclosed before, we’re fans of Obama’s politics. But more and more, I find myself attracted to the Obama “brand” with the same fierce loyalty I feel for a company like Apple. Let’s just say, if Apple released an electric toothbrush, I would probably buy it. These brand loyalties are interesting to me. Jarred and a number of our friends are irrationally loyal to one particular “barbecue” (in quotes because it’s not legitimate ‘cue) joint in their neighborhood, despite all convincing evidence of its over-rated nature. What forms and perpetuates these loyalties?
Again, here’s the question: what brand(s) are you loyal to–to a fault? What brands will you absolutely pay a premium to support, even if logical alternatives exist? When you examine your brand loyalties from a detached perspective–I can, for instance, recognize that an Apple toothbrush would probably be awful…and that I would buy it–what loyalties seem ridiculous? Which can you justify, and which are completely irrational?
Image of $100 laptop used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user Kofoed.
Obama sign image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user sweetashvegas.
Hey folks–I’ve been a bit out of the loop lately, and I’ll be traveling almost non-stop for the next few weeks. While Jarred will be taking one (a few?) for the team and blogging in my absence, I hope to chime in when I can from the road. Here are a few links, albeit a little abbreviated this week:
“The sculpture consists of 100 cast iron figures which face out to sea, spread over a 3.2 km stretch of the beach. [...] As the tides ebb and flow, the figures are revealed and submerged by the sea.”
“[N]o online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.”
Well, that’s all for now. Keep checking back all week for new posts.
I recently wrote about my hopes that political candidates would carry their newfound appreciation for the social web from into office as elements of a “collaborative governance” strategy. Here’s another danger in candidates that use the social web as much as possible in the context of a campaign, only to drop those tools like a bad habit as soon as they’re elected…or drop out of the race: resentment from internet communities. Stowe Boyd writes an open complaint to John Edwards (emphasis mine):
So, you opt to try to exploit the edglings by signing up to Twitter, and writing a blog, and all that newfangled web stuff, trying to mine the potential there with ersatz involvement and cheesy, inauthentic participation: cramming old one:many messaging into a conversationally rich environment.
Then, you drop out. And proof that it is totally bogus, you just stop. Bam. No ‘thanks for the memories’, no ’see you in the funny papers’, and certainly no ongoing involvement, since after all, there really was no involvement involved.
Proof of old politics wolf in new politics sheep’s clothing: they assume the ways of the new social web revolution as a means to come into contact with us, but when they lose (and maybe when they win, as well?) they drop the pretense of involvement, and go back to whatever they really believe in. Which is clearly not this new emerging whatever-the-hell-it-is on the web.
They will try to exploit web culture for their own purposes, but they aren’t really engaged here.
Harsh, but largely justified. I expect these types of complaints to multiply until politicians truly embrace the social web as something other than a tool to be used in the context of elections. These campaigns are developing impressive, dedicated, engaged communities online. But online activists are not going to flock to a campaign that refuses to appreciate them.
Recent Comments