Skip to content

From campaigning to governance 1: civic engagement

11-Nov-08

“Yes we can,” as an election slogan, implies a relatively simple mission: get more people to cast a ballot for your candidate than for the other one. But as Barack Obama’s creed pivots from a battle cry to a governing philosophy, what, exactly, “we can” becomes a much larger and more complex matter. So, too, is the potential role technology can play in an Obama administration.

In this series of essays I’ll look at how Obama’s new CTO might transform American democracy in three areas: civic engagement, administrative transparency, and legislative advocacy.

(Cross-posted at techPresident)
More…

The future of campaign technology: the ground game

09-Nov-08

Canvass sheets, re-imagined

Dawn in Hillsborough, NHThe morning of November 4, 2008 found me — like thousands of others all across the nation — rushing from door to door the final phase of the get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort. In those pre-dawn hours in rural New Hampshire, the fate of the election came down to the mundane work of footsoldiers armed with low-tech (yet high-gloss) door hangers and paper walksheets.

Low-tech, High-glossBut only this literal last mile was low-tech. Everything leading up to this moment was built on a solid, database-driven foundation. And so it’s easy to imagine how the mechanics of campaigning might evolve over the next four years:
More…

Making the impossible possible

08-Nov-08

Recently, Randy Pausch, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University, became a source of inspiration for many Americans. In his Last Lecture, given soon after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, Pausch spoke about what it takes to achieve your lifelong dreams. It takes, he said, believing that the barriers we face are only there to prove how much we want those dreams.

For as long as I’ve been alive, the common wisdom has purported certain barriers to be insurmountable.

  • that America would not elect an African American president
  • that the specter of socialism will always truncate consideration of shared solutions to shared challenges
  • that an honest politician is either an oxymoron or a dupe

Several days on the other side of Election 2008, these barriers have been crossed. What I thought was impossible is now very real. In place of the common wisdom, I am trying on some brand new beliefs:

  • With an African American president, we might, just might, be able to have that much-needed conversation about race in America.
  • We can engage in creative problem-solving about the shared challenges we face – from covering the uninsured to creating a top-notch public education system for all – with all options on the table.
  • We can tell the truth, practice the Golden Rule, love our enemies, and (sometimes) win

If Randy Pausch is right and the barriers are there to show how much we want our dreams, then America has proved itself to want certain things much more than I thought. But, more deeply, if this election teaches me anything, it is that with God, all things are possible.

I don’t believe God favored a particular candidate on Tuesday. But I do believe that God enabled us to cross some debilitating barriers so that we could more fully pursue God’s compassion and justice in this time. And for that, I am grateful and full of hope.

- Rachel Hope Anderson

Cavorting with terriers

08-Nov-08

There’s been much speculation about what kind of puppy the Obamas might buy for the girls. Some have suggested a pit bull (named “Maverick,” of course). But we would commend the suggestion of Saturday Night Live’s “Crazy McCain Rally Lady,” who opined that “Obama cavorts with terriers.” We prefer Cairn Terriers ourselves:

Obama coddling Terriers

(Terrier courtesy of tanakawho, cc2007)

Congress, not Obama, needs a Geek Corps

01-Nov-08

In the past several months, Internet-and-democracy types have wondered how Obama’s Netroots-savvy campaign might translate into governance. Should Obama win on Tuesday, will we see some form of wiki governance? How “Google-transparent” will the Administration and its agencies be? Will Obama focus an empowered blogosphere to pressure Congress to pass major reforms?

These are useful speculations, and for those of us who desperately await universal health care and a “Manhattan Plan” for green energy, critical ones. Yet I suspect that the most important question will not be how a President Obama might leverage Internet power. Eight years of Bush-Cheney executive imperialism has made our President quite powerful enough, thank you. Rather, the health of our democracy depends on whether Congress will figure out this Internet thing.

Americans hold Congress in greater contempt than even W., yet it was not always this way. The Founders had intended the legislative branch to function as the heart of our democracy; John Quincy Adams even went on to become a Congressman after his tenure as President. Since then, though, legislators’ relationships with their constituents has diluted as states and Congressional districts have grown in population. Meanwhile, television concentrated national attention on that dude on the tube. The office of President thrives in an age of mass celebrity.

The Internet – the realm of the “long tail” – was supposed to break concentrations of power. It would be more than ironic, then, if blogs and social networking instead super-powers an already-muscular Presidency. It would also endanger the legislative essence of our democracy.

We now have definitive proof that the Internet can power up a grassroots political network. If the Obama campaign is the most successful startup in American political history, then it’s vital that its core techniques not remain a trade secret. Those methods are more desperately needed to strengthen our fractured and anemic Congress — supposedly the People’s branch of government.

If you harbor any doubt about the danger an emasculated Congress presents American democracy, consider the bailout debacle. This sad chapter in American legislative history saw Congress not only cede leadership to the Administration, but also abrogate its relationship to the American people. Yes, they ultimately passed something, but not without engendering serious suspicion that they were merely authorizing the economic equivalent of the Iraq War resolution. (And, on the other hand, there was a serious risk that they would pass nothing at all.)

What we need, then, is a movement – a movement to Change Congress. But while Larry Lessig is right that it’s time we flushed earmarks and other corrupting influences out into the open, I would love to see big thinkers like him also apply their brilliance towards something even more audacious than transparency. We need something like a Geek Corps; a Geek Corps for Democracy that will rework the interface between legislators and their constituencies: to rebuild trust and honest, genuine relationships between lawmakers and We the People. Television atrophied these relationships, replacing them with top-down “communications” that withered our citizenry’s bottom-up power. The Internet can restore them in the very ways that Obama has shown us we can.

What would such a reworking look like? In the example of the bailout, perhaps a set of YouTube videos that explain, in simple illustrations and plain English, exactly where things had gone wrong. Or maybe, more ambitiously, a collaborative public solution-building exercise joining the expertise of economists with the values of everyday citizens. Who knows? The point of a Geek Corps for Democracy would not be to apply preconceived ideas but rather to embed themselves within several Congressional Districts and experiment, in hundreds of little ways, how to rebuild community within each District and then between the District and its representatives in Congress. Probably, this would entail a lot of parties and other social gatherings at first, just to bring people together. Over time, though, each Geek would try many different approaches – listservs, wikis, virtual worlds, house parties, social networking, etc, etc, – and keeping track of what works. And what works will probably not be sexy, probably work because of the implementation not concept, and probably be different from one part of the country to the next.

Carefully noting what’s worked for the Obama campaign would, of course, give the Geek Corps a head start. But it would be the benefit of all of American democracy that these lessons give some authority back to the “people’s branch” of government. Regardless of who occupies the White House, concentrating even more power with the Presidency threatens to compound one of the gravest errors of the past eight years.

No on 1; Yes on 3

27-Oct-08

It's a Reckless Idea

“I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.”

–Oliver Wendell Holmes

Holmes’ view is not very popular today, but the reality is that a modern society cannot exist without a well-funded government. Nobody likes taxes, and we all believe we deserve the full fruits of our labor, but it is a common human foible to attribute all of the credit of our own labor to ourselves and not to the help of many others.

A business — big, small, or otherwise — could not possibly exist without the infrastructure of government — not merely the roads paved by our common funds, but the police who ensure public safety, the courts that ensure the enforcement of contracts, the regulations that instill public confidence in the business’s goods.

We are not a socialist collective, and we should not be. But Massachusetts is a Commonwealth, and I take that appellation seriously. As our on Constitution states in Article X:

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: but no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people.

Consent is, of course, key (we being of the tea-dumping crowd, after all), but the point here is that in pledging to support a Commonwealth, we accomplish what we cannot alone.

For those who live in Boston or Cambridge, walk over to the historic Longfellow Bridge sometime and take a good, hard look at the crumbling concrete and rusting steel. We have been starving our government for decades on the false belief that government is “wasteful” and that, magically, we can get MORE by giving LESS. This is the kind of wishful thinking that took us to to the very pinnacle of Wall Street illusion.

We’re all responsible to contribute to the costs of civilization. We’ll all pay the price if we don’t.

—-==–==–==—-
Yes on Three

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated

– Mahatma Gandhi

I leave it to my friend Matthew Pearl to express the importance of voting Yes on Three. You may notice a seemingly active debate in the comments that follow. If you look closely, though, you’ll find that there are only two handles, “SaveTheDogs” and “GreyhoundTrainer”, going at it. Follow their links and you’ll get a good, strong whiff of Astroturf. Like this fake blog with “BS” all over it.

The racetracks’ and casinos’ PR firms must be pretty worked up about this initiative to throw so many hooligans at the problem. Don’t believe a word.

Vote Yes on Three.

Extended primary WAS a boon to the Democrats

27-Oct-08

Back in February I made this claim while most Obama supporters were chewing their fingernails over the showdown with Hillary Clinton. Results from the field are backing me up: a 50 state+ primary benefited both Obama and the Democrats tremendously, pushing up the Dems’ voter rolls and helping Obama build a veteran ground team that McCain just isn’t matching:

An observation we’ve heard repeated in Obama offices across America, Crandall emphasized how beneficial the contested primary had been for building the foundation for record turnout. “We had real hints of it in the primary,” Crandall said. The first-time voters the campaign energized for the May 6 vote foreshadowed what North Carolina is seeing today. Crandall remembers thinking “these are NOT your typical primary voters.”

- FiveThirtyEight.com

I’ve spoken to enough Hillary supporters in NH who felt, in fact, that the contest didn’t run long enough (many wanted a floor battle). Ending this contest any sooner would have been a disaster.

In any event, what Obama has now is the envy of any political operation anywhere: thousands of battle-hardened organizers spread throughout the 50 states. This is not just a benefit to Obama on Nov 4 — it benefits all of American democracy. It may even yet become a thorn in Obama’s side: a people who have stood up do not easily sit back down again. And that’s how democracy should be.

A network analysis of the Obama 08 campaign

14-Oct-08

A fresh pair of articles is shining light back on to the Obama ground operations, which — presuming victory on November 4 — will be remembered as one of the deepest and most robust political startups in modern history. Zack Exley’s in-depth piece on “The New Organizers” in the Huffington Post goes into (excruciating) detail on Obama’s Ohio general election team, while the Washington Post finally brings some MSM coverage to Obama camp’s innovations. Common to both pieces is the role of Marshall Ganz, probably the leading theorist and practitioner of grassroots organizing in America, and the striking absence of any similar efforts by the Republicans and the McCain campaign.

Both articles describe the Obama campaign’s team structure, which marries tight grassroots networks to a more traditional campaign hierarchy. My colleague Aaron Shaw has been ruminating over the topologies of these networks take and, taking off from his thinking, I suggest that the campaign in its ideal type looks a bit like this:

The Obama campaign network

The superstructure of the campaign is traditional, top-down command-and-control (with information flowing upwards, of course). At the roots the campaign — as is typical for most volunteer efforts — comprises ad hoc mesh networks. It’s in inserting strong, tightly-knit teams that the campaign has made the greatest innovation. Each team, as a whole, functions like a paid staffer, with similar responsibilities and accountability. Exley quotes a paid field organizer, “This program allows [volunteer] Glenna’s team, with just two or three weeks of [database] training… to know how to pull lists and put canvass packets together. So all that type of work that eats up so much time for organizers can be handled at the local level—at her place.”

Neighborhood teams thereby function as force multipliers for paid staff. And they work because, with extra investment into training and fusing teams together, they allow busy people with school or full-time jobs to play as big of a role as they’re capable of taking on, rather than being stuck with one-size-fits-all phonebanking just because the campaign lacks the infrastructure to recognize their unique talents.

In my diagram above, I drew a circle around the team to indicate that they can function as the equivalent of a paid staffer. What’s I didn’t quite illustrate is the fact that, as local residents, the teams also have a deeper and wider network than a paid staff parachuting in. Outsiders are more prone to be captured by local elites who may or may not have the campaign’s best interests in mind. Furthermore, the total number of solid connections that paid staffer can make locally is probably much lower than the total number of contacts that the local team, in total, already has. It’s easy to see how — with enough time and money to invest in their recruitment, training, and support — strong teams become the natural junction between a national, top-down hierarchy and a local, dispersed field of volunteers.

The black magic of financial innovation

10-Oct-08

Arthur C. Clarke’s third law reads: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” What’s the difference between technology and magic? As this blog post points out, “magic” is the halting of inquiry. With that formulation, it’s possible that science can paradoxically plunge us into a second Dark Ages, when the world around us are controlled by forces beyond our ken.

It has become obvious that, among recent technological advances, no field has moved so far so quickly as the world of high finance, specifically, the world of complex derivatives. George Soros testified in 1994 to the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, “We use derivative instruments to a much lesser extent than generally believed, very largely because we don’t really understand how they work.” Both he and Warren Buffett restricted their dabbling in derivatives after being seriously burned.

In his 1994 quote Soros didn’t mean that he didn’t know the role derivatives play in the market. Rather, he was pointing out that — like an iPod, or a jet engine — it’s quite difficult to figure out what is going on under the hood of any particular derivative instrument. In other words, they are magic.

Which is not to say that widespread understanding can’t catch up to complex derivatives to make them safer as bona fide financial instruments. Many derivatives have genuine value: consider weather-based derivatives as a hedge for farmers. A heap of regulation to ensure transparency when useful and block abuse when it’s not would help close the gap between financial technology and magic.

An economist is lying when he blames “greed”

09-Oct-08

As a matter of public relations, no one has ever gone wrong blaming financial disasters on “greed.” But we all know that greed is the basic engine of capitalism. Greed may not be “good,” but it’s there, and we rely on it to power our modern economy. So the problem isn’t greed: greed, like the poor, will always be with us. The key to a thriving capitalist economy is channeling that greed in productive directions.

(That channeling, by the way, is called regulation.)

So when Alan Greenspan argues that the current meltdown is due to “greed” (Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy, NYT), warning bells should go off that this guy is trying to get himself off the hook.

The whole point of regulating markets is to manage systemically what we cannot count individuals to do wisely. Mr. Greenspan is no fool. He knows that, and he knew it at the time when he was unscrewing the safety latches that prevented Wall Street from venting all that red-hot greed into the unprotected sectors of our economy. And in deregulating exotic derivatives, he stood by while Wall Street created a risk-laundering scheme of epic proportions.