On to the second part of my shadow-boxing exercise with RochesterTurning, the messaging bit. From the comments of the protagonist article:
rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate
I think we also have to learn the language of persuasion. Think George Lakoff. And do trainings in it. And difficult as it may be, when we have a message, try to present it in a unified fashion.
I think that perhaps the simplicity of a message is a critical key to reaching voters and affecting elections. Not that we need to dumb down a message, but rather that over-nuanced, long-winded diatribes take too long for most people to read. I should know: I’m the king of long-winded bloviation.
But then there’s a fundamental difference between the Progressive structure and the Conservative, and which is the better model is a debate worth having all by itself.
With Conservatives, there’s a top-down approach: a small number of think tanks and intellectuals manage the message, and that filters down to the masses, each level moderating the message to match it’s audience. This is the broadcasting model. There’s very little to confuse the message because everything rolls down hill, much like shit.
Then, when the election happens, they have a “grass roots” infrastructure of people well-versed in the talking points of the Right. That infrastructure then moves into the community, spreading the word that they’ve all learned from maybe a dozen sources or less.
The Liberal/Progressive model is currently in the throes of reform, but the new shape seems to be an open model of individual bloggers and activists each doing their own thing. Yes, there are big blogs that move a certain portion of the blogosphere to talk about specific things, but by and large, things are pretty free form.
The problem with this is that organizing this mass can sometimes be like juggling Jell-o. Rottenchester’s original post points out a fair example.
I mentioned in the comments of my previous post that the Obey/activist brew-haha was mostly a bi-product of this sense of individual activism. We’ve all seen the inspirational videos of citizens voicing their opinions in creative ways. Unfortunately, that seems to have given rise to the thought that having the balls to do whatever makes you either inspirational, creative or in possession of an opinion that resonates. This is simply not the case.
The good news, from a messaging standpoint, is that different blogs and activist outlets draw different people into the circle. Those who want confrontation can find it and those who prefer a more intellectual argument can find that also. Those of us who spent years screaming at our radios listening to Rush because at least he expressed *some* kind of opinion can now find a place to have our own opinions included.
But how to unify that into a message?
Perhaps in some way the Progressive/Liberal movement needs to adopt something akin to the “Open Source” model. Don’t ask me how the hell this would happen, perhaps some sort of “Talking Points Wiki,” if you’d like to open the floor to even more trendy web stuff. . .
But the big difference between Open Source and open blogging is peer review and final source material. Anyone can download open source software and code into it whatever they like; anyone can setup an RFC (Request For Change) and submit their changes to the group for consideration. However, those changes get reviewed by the group, argued over, and finally if they pass the test, added into the next release.
Perhaps if the open blogging format is to have any effect on the message, there needs to be a central repository for all these ideas we throw out there to be reviewed by a group and added to a bullet points list for all our edification. Probably not a Wiki, per se, since Wikis are edited on the fly, which isn’t really the same thing.
And of course, we’re not talking about one big repository, either. Rather, statewide or even city/region-wide groups that perhaps meld their national issue lists together into a national repository. Just like open source, individuals are free to do their own thing: express your difference or add shades of nuance to the basic point. But a larger group voices a cohesive message and builds a coalition that is genuinely a “net roots” initiative.
I dunno. This post is definitely of the “brain-dump” variety. Does any of this make sense to anyone?
Technorati Tags: Netroots, Messaging, Progressives, Liberals
powered by performancing firefox
3 Responses to “Progressive Messaging and Anger, pt Deux”
-
[...] Zones to task, and gets it front paged at The Albany Project! He has some good adds (here, and here) to our recent discussion about tactics and progressive [...]
Well, your characterization of conservative=top-down and progressive=bottom-up doesn’t hold up given how much progressive talk sounds like the daily regurgitation of talking points from the fax machines of organized labor, the Democratic party, or MoveOn. I think a fair analysis would show top-down and bottom-up activity occuring among both liberals and conservatives.
Well, it wasn’t meant so much as a personal attack against Conservatives as it was a broad-strokes concept of the way things work. Well, not even so much how things work as how things are developing.
You are quite correct, actually: there’s plenty of message control happening on the left from the top. That’s at least partially because the politicians who actually do the work need to feel important and original. I suppose that’s fair, as far as it goes. At the same time, you’re characterization of “progressive talk” ignores the fact that, as liberals, we agree with many of the points of liberal organizations. Obviously, there’s going to be similarities.
But what I am saying is that currently, the most powerful force at play in the Democrat/Liberal/Progressive world of politics is the so–called “Net Roots.” In the Net-Roots, things are considerably less controlled. Look at me: no sane Democratic politician would ever consider allying directly with my message, and yet I think I have a lot to say for which there is a Progressive audience. You didn’t find me accidentally, after all.
This was, as I said, some of my least-favourite writing I’ve done in a while, however. . . .