1. On fostering ideas:
On BMG, I recommended creating permanent, volunteer councils largely comprised of non-establishment experts to both serve as a sound board for Deval Patrick (so he can test ideas out with them) and as a way to create new ideas Deval could use. They could be similar to the transition teams, but be a radically new way of doing things after the transition is made. There could be any number of committees ranging from issues to geography, set up through an executive order. They wouldn’t suffer from any of the obfuscation or scares of creating any ideas that may be considered “far out there,” because these people aren’t going to suffer from the wear and tear of the political machine. Councils on Education and Higher Education should include people at all levels, from students to teachers and professors; Councils on Health Care should include doctors, nurses and patients. Things that the establishment may never be able to think of just could come out of these committees.
One of my biggest complaints about any bureaucracy is that eventually people lose their fresh ideas and get too busy working on the day-to-day problems that they lose the ability to be an innovator. Creating councils of non-lobbyists, who are experts in their own way – from students who have gone through a flawed system and have ideas of making it better to local business leaders who know how to create jobs in Springfield – will bring an influx of new ideas to kick start new innovation. New people should be brought in every few years to make sure the councils don’t become complacent themselves. These councils will be a way of taking the “tank” out of think tank – they’re ideas from everyday people for everyday people.
2. Exporting our ideas to Massachusetts:
A. Let’s create a podcast! I’ve been in talks with Mike at Massmarrier, Lynne at Left in Lowell and Susan at Beyond 495 about creating a Leftyblogs Podcast. I don’t know if it’ll be monthly, weekly or what, but I think the interest is there that we’re going to commit to it. However, I don’t want it to be just us. I want the podcast to include people from all regions of the state, representing all sorts of issues. There’s a number of fantastic glbt and geographic blogs that I’d love to have join us. Heck, I’d like to see more than just bloggers be a part of the podcast – the netroots is a large operation.
Furthermore, the innovation shouldn’t stop there. One day, I envision much more than podcasts for Massachusetts – I see videos, online satire and all sorts of mediums that the progressive netroots must look into. If anyone is interested in the podcast or has ideas of their own, let me know. Send me an email (which is available on my profile).
B. Join the Mass Netroots Project: Or an organization like it. Blogging isn’t for everyone – and its power has limits. Blogging is a platform and isn’t any more powerful than the people who provide the base of that platform – the people who read blogs and tell their friends about what they’ve learned. Like any foundation, a strong and organized base is the key. Luckily, the netroots are working on organization through such efforts as Moveon.org.
However, there’s been little effort to organize around the state level – until now, that is. Groups like the Massachusetts Netroots Project are quickly becoming a key way to create change through localized organizing combined with netroots activity. I’ve talked about the Mass Netroots Project on my blog before, but they really do great things. The Netroots Project was started by blogs like www.firedoglake.com to bring the message, ideas and momentum of the lefty blogosphere into state house offices. Right now, there’s a core group driving the Mass Netroots project to becoming one of the most powerful early efforts so far. They’ve already made powerful, behind-the-scenes efforts simply by organizing in small groups of people and knocking on Senator Kerry’s door – helping the Senator contribute a lot of late money during the General Election season, which could have helped pick up a seat.
People power is replacing lobbyist power, by usurping big money with big effort. Yet, the Mass Netroots Project has a long way to go and a lot of potential. Currently, most of the members are working with Senator Kennedy and Kerry – and issues like habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights are their key issues. If there were more members, the Mass Netroots could be knocking on the doors of our entire state delegation. They could be making appointments with State Representatives and State Senators, solidifying the movement and making sure our elected officials know where their loyalties lay – with the people, not lobbyists. Through organization, they can become a force that will rival any powerful lobby in Boston and export our ideas through powerful, behind the scene methods.
C. Reach out to the mainstream media: For too long have they existed in their own little cocoon. Because of the mainstream media, “moderate positions” are often confused with the far right. Because of the mainstream, candidates for office like Phil Dunkelbarger and John Bonifaz barely ever saw the light of day. Until the mainstream media gets that hard news isn’t optional, we need to keep our eyes on them.
However, that doesn’t mean we should just go on a bash-the-Boston-Globe spree (though it’s a favorite past-time of mine). Part of getting institutions to change is through working with them, not against them. We need to send them friendly reminders when they print horrendous stories; we need to find ways to get progressive blogger stories mainstream attention – just like the Right-Wing-Noise Machine has been so successful at doing. Part of this process will be to shift the media from thinking of bloggers as diarists at best and threats at worst and make them see that we can be an asset and that we’re now a part of the media (even if it’s a slightly different in many ways). Just because we aren’t paid, doesn’t mean we can be ignored. Just because Howie Carr and Sean Hannity are paid, it doesn’t mean everything they say is news simply because they said it.
Blogs like BMG and Left in Lowell have got a little mainstream attention. However, for the large part, few others have. What does that mean for the progressive, netroots movement? Some great candidates, who don’t have millions to spend, will have no chance. Important news events and issues – like Killer Coke and fraudulent signature collecting – are largely ignored. In essence, it means the people are screwed and terrible stories are covered in the place of good ones.
What it all means:
By creating new committees, with regular meetings, comprised of people who are directly involved in the process at all different levels – a new diversity of ideas will be created that could breath life into the system. These people can both help start ideas and foster them, until they’re ready for either the public or Deval Patrick’s team. They won’t be paid; they won’t be lobbyists; they’ll just be doing this because they care. A lot of these types of organizations already exist; we, as progressives, should make sure Deval Patrick and the public hears their ideas.
However, no one will ever hear those ideas if the netroots doesn’t amplify the message. Sometimes, the message is best heard through a few, committed volunteers – people like members of the Massachusetts Netroots Project. Citizen lobbyists
can go tell our politicians what normal people think, instead of just HMOs, Unions and Big Business.
Yet, that’s not enough. Sometimes a message is best heard through amping up the volume. That’s where new forms of progressive media will come in – be it either the podcast project I’m trying to start or something completely new and better, such as a Mass Blogger Internet TV which could be a powerful competitor to the TV stations which tend to be biased. Furthermore, we need to work with the Mainstream Media and make sure issues that progressives care about are covered with proper diligence. Progressives make up a huge part of Massachusetts and we deserve coverage of issues that progressives care about in the daily newspapers. The combination of fostering new ideas and getting them out there into both the public and in the offices on Beacon Hill is a surefire way to make sure the outlook for America and Massachusetts is Progress.
Ryan, this is all fabulous stuff. Thanks for the ideas and effort.
<
p>
I have to say that when I hear about meetings and committees and whatnot, I immediately begin to wonder, Who exactly is going to be on these things? Will it be Joe and Jane Sixpack, jes’ folks who are helping out the Commonwealth, or will it be the usual suspects, political hobbyists and cranks? (Like us??)
<
p>
In other words, how do you reach out and make such things actually representative and not merely a megaphone for those who happen to show up?
I’m not going to lie. A lot of the process in getting the right kinds of people would need to be looked into further. However, I sort of see it as an open call for volunteers. I think it’s an area that the transition teams could be involved in, at least until there’s a better or more obvious way of doing it. However, yes, I do think there should be “cranks” like us – and I also think there should be completely different kinds of people. However, they should all be relatively normal, yet qualified, contributing members of society. If it were a committee on improving the North Shore, I’d like to see a business owner or two that’s had new success in struggling business areas like Downtown Lynn. I’d like to see some young professionals with a background in communities and new what they wanted/needed to help bring more peers to the city and make Massachusetts affordable in the region, etc. I’d want larger developers in the region who’v had success in turning dead areas into affordable housing or new business growth. I’d like to see some long-time residents who had a detailed knowledge of some of the cities, what went wrong and who had some unique ideas on how to make things better that went beyond new paint, pretty brick walkways and flowers. So – I’d want a whole assortment of people.
<
p>
If I were designing own committees, I’d try to have a vague idea of the kinds of people I’d want serving: people who had worked in a related field for a long time, yet maybe weren’t politically active before – at least in the traditional sense (for example, maybe they were active on the other side – but not entrenched politicians or lobbyists, etc.).
<
p>
To better explain it, I’ll use an example of how I’d gather one committee. On something like higher ed, I’d want at least four or five students on it. At least one or two would be from UMASS Amherst, others would come from state schools and other UMASSes. I’d probably even want one from a community college, to get that perspective. How would I pick among students? Basically, out of the people who seemed interested – I doubt too many people, beyond those who were really interested, would sign up (only one person ran for Student Trustee of UMASS last year!) – so it would come down to selecting the best among the bunch, who presented some ideas and had a clear understanding of the school system, what was wrong with it, what was right with it and what could make it better.
<
p>
I’d also want people who were professors and staff, about 4-5 of them. There’d probably be more professors interested in it, so I’d be inclined to look at how the professors had been involved in the system before. They’d have to be very open about what they felt was wrong with the schools and what they thought was right. I’d want each of them to have their own unique ideas and opinions, etc.
<
p>
To finish off the group, there’d need to be some representation from administrative positions or maybe former members of the UMASS Board of Trustees, etc. There should be about 4-5 of them. You could actually look at some of the people who were canned by Romney for wanting the law school, etc. There’s a lot of potential there for some solid picks, especially since they’re no longer part of and beholden to the system. While I’m not keen on members of the administration on board, they certainly need to be there as they have expertise on some parts of the system I don’t know about (vice versa). Furthermore, they could offer a unique perspective and help balance out the system. They’d obviously have to show a command of what’s right/what’s wrong and what they think needs to be done to fix it. Etc.
<
p>
There could be another set of people added to the mix too – alumnis, parents of current students (and maybe people who fit under both catagories). I think they could add a lot. However, I wouldn’t want any committee to be larger than 15 people or so, so the ratios would have to be toyed with if we were to give them a fully equal part to play.
<
p>
Like I said before, I could envision Deval’s transition team working on developing these committees as I sort of see it as an extension of the whole process. I just think it’s important that there are new perspectives on board and that it’s not just Deval going to listen to town meetings. We need a somewhat independent group that our Governor can depend on for open, honest opinions and new ideas – which, in large part, town meetings do. However, it takes ideas a while to develop. Sometimes someone comes up with a great idea, but it takes other people to finish the idea off and make sure all of it works well. I’m sure many of you could improve upon my idea to have councils (especially in forming and developing them).
<
p>
For other councils, people who have more expertise in those areas would have to figure out how to make it work and how many of what kinds of people should be there. However, I have put some more thought into other committees too… It’s just late and I wrote too much already (and I question how much of it is coherent at this point)… so I’m going to shut up now.
<
p>
I’d love to hear any of your ideas on how to make it work, though, because I think the idea itself could be revolutionary IF it can work. If it can’t work, then it could either quickly die or become just another institution for the establishment – which is far from what I’d want (2 year term limits on the committees could probably help stop that from happening, though, as I don’t even know if there’d be enough machine people willing to volunteer for that kind of volume of committee seats! LOL). However, we – at BMG – should try to develop it because I think it could just be the pinnacle of “people-powered politics.”
When I say that there should be some cranks like us on it, I was in a way disagreeing with you that we are cranks. Well, not me personally, I’m not suggesting I hop on one of these committees lol (I’d never have the time anyway, too much blogging Romney bashing to do!) However, if we are cranks, our ideas are any worse or less valid for it.
<
p>
If by cranks, you mean blogger/netroot types, I think we’ve already seen that we have constructive ideas to offer. David is currently serving an important position – and rightfully so. It was a good pick. Same with Michael Wilcox.
<
p>
As I’ve come to know many members of the Massachusetts netroots, I’ve come to a shocking conclusion: a lot of us cranks just so happen to be very, very bright and highly respected in the fields they belong to. The three of you are perfect examples. Then there are people like RevDeb, who are highly respected members of the community. RevDeb basically specializes in fixing communities of sorts – albeit it religious communities. Then there are people like Susan, who’s currently serving on her Dem town committee. There are people like Michael Ball, who are incredibly intelligent, well spoken and elder members of the community – and he can rant with the best of us. Many (most?) of the commenters on sites like this and FDL, etc. happen to be bright, highly contributing members of society.
<
p>
Having worked with the Mass Netroots Project, I’ve come to know some of the core members of the group that’s helped lobby Kerry and Kennedy on some important issues as citizen-activists. One has her PHd in immunology. I’ve already talked about RevDeb. I’ve met people who work in fairly high ranking positions in the energy industry and I even met one guy who with close relations to the intelligence industry – who knew all sorts of crap that went down in Iraq, etc. that even went over my head.
<
p>
So, to sum it up, a lot of us “cranks” are perfectly legit choices to help represent these kinds of councils. People who are a part of the netroots – and I’m not really talking about bloggers – tend to be really great at what they do. They tend to be concerned with the way things are going – they’ve taken notice over the past few years and realized they don’t like what they see. However, they generally haven’t been huge political activists – at least recently. They probably never ran for office and never tapped into their extensive knowledge and employed that specific knowledge for the state.
<
p>
In fact, out of every blogger and commenter I’ve met, I’m the only one who fits the stereotype: a liberal, oft-angry undergrad. And even I think I’ve had, as Deval Patrick would say, ‘one or two good ideas.’ =p
Ryan, a useful tool for extending the cyberworld to the traditional media is Spotlight. FireDogLake has a Spotlight link after every post, enabling a reader to send that post directly to a reporter or pundit of their choice without having to search for an email address. (I noticed that BMG is on Spotlight’s “supported” list, but I don’t see the link after each post – is there something I need to do to activate it?)
<
p>
More information on how to add Spotlight to your blog here.
Hi, This is Mark of The Spotlight Project. Let me know if you have any questions about Spotlight or need help integrating it into BMG.
<
p>
In the next few days I am planning to add a new feature where you will be able to preselect the media outlets by state. Currently, national media outlets are displayed by default.
<
p>
Thanks
Mark