Interview With Richard Ron, Senior Fellow at CATO

Thanks to Allie Winegar Duzett for the video.

Wait, Déjà Vu Anyone?

In case you have been out of the loop, here is a quick summary of the political events that have occurred on the right side of the aisle these last few days:

1. Elections Occur on Tuesday, Rand Paul takes the Republican nomination for Senate over Trey Greyson, who was “favored by the establishment.” 

2. Antiestablishmentarian ‘conservatives’, libertarians and others celebrate the coming of the populist resurgence in American politics. 

3. Rand Paul is in trouble.

Yes, Rand Paul is taking some heat for his stance on myriad issues (most from before most of us at TheLobbyist were born) including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act among others.  Now, my link above is to the Salon and the piece(s) written about these matters, which may not be completely fair because they do not have a knack for being impartial if you get my drift.  Nevertheless, it is the best way to better understand your views; by taking in and understanding the most penetrating criticisms levied against you or your beliefs and learning from them (Madison’s contributions to the Federalist Papers were best at this in my opinion). 

I am not going to get into this Federal government vs State government, civil rights vs. libertarian, right vs. wrong stuff though.  I want to point out a coincidence I noticed:

At the liberaltarian dinner, many of the liberals persuasively argued that the pool of freedom isn’t fixed such that if government takes more, then there is necessarily less for the people. Many government interventions expand freedom. A good example would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was opposed by libertarians like Barry Goldwater as an unconstitutional infringement on states’ rights. Yet it was obvious that African Americans were suffering tremendously at the hands of state and local governments. If the federal government didn’t step in to redress these crimes, who else would?

This was written by Bruce Bartlett almost exactly a year ago.  I am not quite sure where Mr. Bartlett stands these days, probably more as a liberaltarian as a matter of fact; but I always enjoy a good coincidence.  Especially when the 1964 CRA was a point that Will Wilkinson at CATO also delved further into:

I think part of the problem is that if you hold up the Civil Rights Act as an example of libertarian success, most libertarians will deny that you are one. I think both the Civil Rights Act and the women’s movement did in fact lead to tremendous net increases in liberty. I think Bruce makes an excellent point. Federal intervention, while certainly limiting freedom of association and trumping more local jurisdictions, resulted IMO in an overall increase in freedom. That many traditional libertarian conservatives, such as Goldwater, seem to have been willing to sacrifice a great gain in overall freedom in order to maintain status quo levels local self-rule seems to me to betray a commitment to ancient ideals of liberty as community self-government in conflict with the modern idea of liberty as freedom from coercion.

All of this, a great dialectic between libertarians and liberaltarians, nearly a year before this current Rand Paul situation hit the fan. 

-rj

The Chamber of Commerce & Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

According to its website, the Chamber of Commerce’s mission statement is as follows:

“To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility.”

As such, you can understand my confusion when I read this by The Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued its 2009 congressional scorecard, and once again, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex. — certainly one of the two most free-market politicians in Washington — gets the lowest score of any Republican.

Paul was one of a handful of GOP lawmakers not to win the Chamber’s “Spirit of Enterprise Award.” He scored only a 67%, bucking the Chamber on five votes, including:

• Paul opposed the “Solar Technology Roadmap Act,” which boosted subsidies for unprofitable solar energy technology.
• Paul opposed the “Travel Promotion Act,” which subsidizes the tourism industry with a new fee on international visitors.
• Paul opposed the largest spending bill in history, Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill.

(Rep John Duncan, R-Tenn., tied Ron Paul with 67%. John McHugh, R-N.Y., scored a 40%, but he missed most of the year because he went off to the Obama administration.)

Growing up, I kept hearing about the great and powerful Chamber of Commerce, and how it was the defender of business. Being a naive conservative, I assumed “free market” and “pro-business” went together. Fortunately, the Chamber’s support of the bailout started my education, and Carney’s column last year about insurance companies- and, as such, the separation between “pro-business” and “pro-free markets” was the icing on the cake.

Going back to the Chamber’s mission statement, I would argue its ratings (and, related, some of its policy positions) violate the following portion of the statement: “advance human progress…based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility.” Since when does supporting government bailouts, subsidies and other intrusions in the market increase human progress, individual freedom, initiative, opportunity and responsibility? (Hint: NEVER) One could argue incentive is helped by government intrusion, though obviously the Chamber and I disagree on where incentivizing should stop. Certainly, these sort of incentives violate the rest of the statement, and thus invalidate any defense of perverse government incentives.

Secondly, I would argue the Chamber is invalidating its very existence, which is to help businesses. Its site claims over 96% of the Chamber’s members are small businesses, with less than 100 employees. Since when does supporting items for big businesses (such as TARP) help those 96% of businesses that are too small to save?

Unfortunately, this is not the first time the Chamber has invalidated its mission or existence with its ratings. Last year, according to Carney (emphasis mine),

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., had the most conservative voting record in 2008 according to the American Conservative Union (ACU), and was a “taxpayer hero” according to the National Taxpayer’s Union (NTU), but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says his 2008 record was less pro-business than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton.
This year’s picture was less glaring, but it’s still more evidence that “pro-business” is not the same as “pro-freedom.” The U.S. Chamber is the former. Ron Paul, and the libertarian position, is the latter.

David Boaz at CATO says it best, in response to the rating (emphasis mine):

But to suggest that Paul is wrong to vote against business subsidies — or that DeMint was wrong to vote against Bush’s 2008 stimulus package and the $700 billion TARP bailout – certainly does illustrate how much difference there can be between “pro-business” and “pro-market.” Instead of “Spirit of Enterprise,” the Chamber should call these the “Spirit of Subsidy Awards.”

For what they’re worth, the Chamber’s House ratings can be seen here.

The Heritage Foundation Bloggers Briefing

Rob Bluey, The Director of Online Strategy for The Heritage Foundation, was kind enough to invite me to the weekly Bloggers Briefing held at The Heritage Foundation every Tuesday. Today’s speaker was Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), a leading conservative in the House and the first Member of Congress to have a blog, which can be seen here.

Below are my takes from the event:

1. I met a number of interesting people, including Dan Kotman, Press Secretary for American Solutions and Steve Johnston, Associate Director of New Media for the office of the Republican Whip. I also met bloggers from Think Progress and RedState, and managed to give my card for www.thelobbyist.net to all of these people.

2. Pence spoke and, as always, was excellent (this is the third time since October I have heard him speak in person). He turned down the opportunity to run for the Senate this year, and he said it was because he wanted to lead a “conservative majority” in retaking the House in 2010. When asked if he wanted to run for President in 2012, Pence said of course he did (as he said, “Isn’t that the American Dream?), but that it would depend on the time and circumstances. He also said he was staying because he felt it was his “duty.”

3. The Think Progress blogger- a very brave young man, showing his face and speaking up, I might add- asked Pence about the Citizens United vs. FEC decision by the Supreme Court last week. In short, Pence made two points: first, that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” means just that. Secondly, he said he agreed with the great conservative writer George Will, in that transparency was the issue at hand, not who can and cannot have freedom of speech. He said he would have no problem with a requirement that all Members of Congress should have to put received funds on their websites at the end of every day.

One thing Pence avoided answering by sticking to the transparency and freedom arguments was the Think Progress blogger’s second question, which was what did Pence think of the ramifications of the SCOTUS decision regarding international funding of campaigns. Pence made reference to the Democrats having to pay back such funding in the 1990s, said foreign funds should not have influence on our elections…and then never really answered the question any further.

4. I managed to put a plug in for www.rightosphere.com. A CATO blogger sitting next to me immediately began asking me about www.Race42012.com, which he said he enjoyed reading.

5. I asked Pence two questions. The first was would he prefer a Republican majority in the House or a conservative majority? He stated that he believed the new conservative majority would be made up of a new generation of leadership in Washington, DC, but never answered the real question I had, which was the difference between conservatives and Republicans.

The second question was what would a new conservative majority in 2011 push for their first step in transparency. While he never directly answered the question, he did reference negotiating bills in front of the public and a couple of other basic points that are slipping my mind at the moment.

6. Four excellent quotes from Pence:

A. On the expected move by President Obama to try to freeze billions of dollars over three years: “I never met a spending freeze I didn’t like.” Pence was also asked when he had first heard about this freeze proposal, and said it was in December, when Republicans recommended it to President Obama at a jobs summit. 

B. “Any gesture at fiscal sanity would be welcome.” Pence said , however, that Republicans would compare that proposed freeze to the laundry list of expected spending programs in tomorrow’s State of the Union speech. 

C. “This isn’t anymore about debates about actuarial perfection – this is about what kind of country we are.” Possibly the best quote of his 50-minute presentation (including Q & A). Pence made the point that the bailout in 2008, the stimulus from 2009, the takeover of the private industry etc. by the government was about who we are as a country regarding the role and size of government, as well as regarding personal responsibility. Regarding the latter, Pence was almost entirely directing his comments at Wall Street.

D. Paraphrased: “Two things have happened [since I came to Washington in 2000]. My opinion of national government has gone down and my opinion of the American people has gone up.”

*Originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

Free Speech is now Freer

Ed Morrissey reports and comments on the Supreme Court’s declaring McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. In short, freedom reigns and Congressional overreach is unconstitutional. He also has the official opinion and thoughts on the matter from CATO and Cal Thomas.

Morrissey makes the same point so many conservatives already know- that transparency is the key to reform:

Will this open the floodgates to corporate and union money in elections? Well, it never really left. The restrictions in the BCRA and other campaign-finance “reforms” just forced the money into less-transparent channels, creating mini-industries of money laundering in politics. This ruling will just allow the money to be seen for what it is, rather than hiding behind PR-spin PAC names and shadowy contribution trails.

The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, specifically defined in the Constitution. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution. Otherwise, work for transparency, something that would increase freedom of speech for the average person.

Net Neutrality Astroturfs Pushing Hard

In the resent weeks AT&T has been at the forefront of some curious decisions. They along with Apple have prevented companies like Slingbox from placing Apps on the iPhone that would stream video over 3G, but then allowed Major League Baseball, whom they have close ties, to introduce an application that would stream live baseball games. Then this week came the news that Apple and AT&T denied a Google Voice app from being placed on the iPhone that would allow users to use the app for VoIP calls or cheap international calls, which may have been part of the reason that Google’s Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple’s board.? The Google application is similar to Skype, but the currently available Skype app can only be used on WiFi.

The various incidents brought clamors of Net Neutrality violations back into public lime light. An area of concern usually focused on traditional Internet networks. The situation brings up new questions about what networks should be allowed to manage packet delivery in the world of the “end-to-end principle” and whether a company should be allowed to control the applications available on its networks. The cell industry is a new realm for this debate, and the questions surfacing may be hard to tackle. A company like Apple and AT&T who are selling a product and service in this particular arena may have a decent claim that certain applications usurp their business model on the very thing they are selling and negate their ability to generate revenue. Cell phone companies have traditionally operated in models that are essentially silos. But the ever evolving nature of the phone market place essentially putting tiny computers, rather than simply stand alone phones in consumers’ pockets is opening questions pertaining to consumer rights.

In what has to be the worst timing possible for Apple and AT&T’s antics was the introduction of the Internet Preservation Act of 2009 by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) on July 31st. The situation certainly is causing the drum beat for the bill to be loud and clear. But who is beating that drum and why?

Some of the major groups pushing for Net Neutrality include The New America Foundation, a group heavily backed by Google who also retains Google’s CEO as its chairman. Lobbying operations that receive money from Google including FreePress, SavetheInternet.com, Public Knowledge, and Media Access Project are also heavily engaged. Additionally, Lawrence Lessig, whom I have great admiration for but disagree with his Net Neutrality stance is a hard charger in this area and also backed by Google.

So why is Google so interested in Net Neutrality as law and especially at the width and breadth of this new bill when Google VP Vint Cerf was quoted as saying,

A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.

There are probably a variety of reasons. One may be that Google can simply speed up their traffic and avoid the end-to-end principle by edge caching. Essentially they make deals with telecos to place their servers all over the country (and world) and can deliver the data as cache speeding up the transfer of bits to the end user. Cache isn’t considered “network management” by most standards and therefore their bits travel faster while they pour money all over regulation that will prevent anyone else from having their Internet traffic be able to keep up.

Additionally, while Net Neutrality advocates claim that the current situation causes barriers to entry into the broadband marketplace for new broadband companies and technologies, the argument in reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Five years ago this was a decent argument. Today, new options are cropping up all over the country. And in a few years time, most consumers in metro areas should have at minimum five choices. My home town of Atlanta currently has seven plus options for high-speed broadband access at the moment, from copper, fiber, and satellite to WiMax with Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) soon to follow suit as well. But with government controlling broadband, and creating regulation for how companies manage their networks, the entry barriers will more than likely only worsen.

As Tim Lee puts it,

New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today’s network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms.

And along with barriers for entry in regards to new ISP’s, it may also create barriers for entry for new ideas like new advertising models. This may be another reason why Google and its lobbyist are pushing hard for this bill. [Make no mistake, Google is an advertising company, not a search company.] Additionally it could create barriers for entry for new technologies and services in the ISP market. The Internet is still in its infancy. While it has reached a point where the average user probably does not remember life without it, it is still a growing, evolving beast. What we imagine is not possible or that no one would be interested in today may be laughable tomorrow. The future of the Internet may become a customizable personal experience where individuals may specifically choose an ISP that is solely built for a specific purpose.

What if for instance Limelight Networks, a content delivery service for the likes of Apple’s iTunes, Microsoft’s Xbox Live, Sony’s Playstation Network, and Netflix decided they would create last-mile networks instead of simply connecting to a last-mile network? This would provide end users connected to the service the ability to have all time sensitive content like high definition movies, music delivery, downloadable content, and online gaming priority over non-time sensitive content like email or casual Internet surfing. The possibility of product specific entertainment oriented high speed networks is absolutely not out of the question for the future of the Internet.? But if this bill passes, things like this would no longer have only the current barriers of entry, they would have additionally have the government to determine entry.

As Richard Bennett, a network architect who has testified before the FCC, describes it,

In its essence, the Internet is a resource contention system that should, in most cases, resolve competing demands for bandwidth in favor of customer perception and experience. When I testified at the FCC’s first hearing on network management practices last February, I spent half my time on this point and all other witnesses agreed with me: applications have diverse needs, and the network should do its best to meet all of them. That’s what we expect from a multi-purpose network, after all.

Net Neutrality backers are currently scarred that ISP’s will take advantage of them in some way. But the free market traditionally has a way of correcting itself. James G. Lakely, managing editor of Infotech & Telecom News and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute recently argued in the The Bulletin in favor of the free market when it comes to the Internet,

The ordered chaos of market forces may scare those who don’t understand it. But the market is efficient, quickly responsive to the needs and wants of consumers, and in the proper sense of the word free.

This couldn’t be better stated. Neutrality proponents love to point out situations like last April’s fiasco with Time Warner Cable’s move to metered billing. And they continue to harp on the issue to this day as a reason to enforce Net Neutrality. But what happened in that case? The market reacted with grand outcry. [More than likely because they didn't understand it, and the truth is that metered billing would probably save 95% of broadband Internet users a huge chunk of change.] Within days of the outcry, TWC pulled the plug. The market didn’t want it, and the company responded to the market.

Which ultimately begs the question, will the government react in only days if the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 has a negative market impact? If the 60 year period between updates of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 is any example, we’re in for trouble. Trouble that will only allow for other countries to continue passing us by in broadband innovation and delivery.

-nick

The Personal Democracy Forum Doesn’t Help Conservatives

Monday was a very long day here in New York City.? The Personal Democracy Forum Conference busted out of the gate bright and early and never seemed to slow.? The conference and its attendees are a cornucopia of ideas and innovation.? It certainly feels as if the applications built for and during the Obama campaign have spurred an entire new focus in the political realm.? I feel like I’m a fly on the wall of the office that invented grassroots mailers.? It certainly seems that we are witnessing the initial stages of a new era in politics.

Six month from now things will be very interesting.? The first campaigns since the 2008 presidential race will begin cranking their engines.? It will be the first big test as well.? Letting all of us evaluate who “got it” after the last go round.

One has to understand that when they attend these sorts of events that there is certainly a goal of objectivity.? The reason for attending is to discover the areas in which politics and technology are intersecting.? How is technology, or possibly more specifically, the Internet changing politics?? Are these changes creating the evaporation of results from the previous models?? If so, how do we incorporate these new tools into our area of politics to create new successful models?? That’s what we are hear to discover.

The reality though is that people that are passionate about anything can’t keep it from seeping out even when they are trying to hold back.? There is nothing wrong with this.? I take zero issue with individuals who wear their heart on their sleeve.? At least it’s out there.

But at some point a balance issue develops.? If panels are mostly chaired by a certain orientation of political enthusiast, the point of view is always the same.? If the audience to which they are speaking is of the same enthusiasm, then they are preaching to the choir.? The cheers and hardly applause comes because of political orientation and alignment and not because all political technology enthusiast share the same goals.

We don’t.

Case in point was the fine display of two sheep being led on stage for the final panel of the day.? The sheep, in the form of two teleco representatives, had their achille’s slit so that they couldn’t escape and then were promptly ritually massacred by the Picadores Josh Silver.? Silver, well known in tech policy circles for avoiding any concerns or facts outside of his own talking points was suburb in his beat down.? I honestly couldn’t tell if the teleco reps were ill prepared or just trying to play the saint for the audience, the obvious antagonist.

But why was this happening?? Silver has a particular motivation and a goal, and not one with which all parties in the tech policy community would agree.? Why was no one with a differing point of view sitting on this panal?? Not to defend the telecos, but to ask questions from a differing foundation, or to call Silver’s bluff.? Where was Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or Adam Thierer who started Technology Liberation Front?? Where was Timothy B. Lee, CATO fellow and Ars Technica contributor? (Who in my humble opinion has hands down written the best scholarly explanation of network neutrality available.? Which is mighty humble of me, if I do say so, considering I’ve written on it myself.)

I did appreciate hearing the audience gleefully suck up every drop the FCC commissioner Blair Levin had to say; especially the part where he told us that they were creating a plan.? Really? The plan he is referring to of course is the National Broadband Strategy which comes due in February of 2010.? What hardly anyone knows though is that the US Department of Agriculture who has used the Rural Utilities Services (RUS) division to improve broadband distribution in the past has been awarded funds for distribution from the stimulus.? RUS plans to distribute its roughly $2.5 billion by September 30th, 2009.? The National Telecommunications and Information Administration?who received the bulk of the broadband stimulus funds?will hand out their dollars in three phases occurring Spring of 2009, Fall of 2009, and Spring of 2010.

Spend first, formulate your plan later, Mr. Levin?? Sort of seems counterproductive to planning at all.

Conservatives are boned at PDF 2009.? There is certainly not enough representation amongst panel members.? Some of this is absolutely not the fault of Personal Democracy Forum.? We are under a liberal Administration, and that administration appoints liberal bureaucrats.? An invite to Robert McDowell or Meredith Attwell Baker would have been nice.? Maybe they were invited, and turned it down.? This too is a possibility.? At least Cas Sunstein with his Fairness Doctrine-esque “electronic sidewalks” for the Internet isn’t present.

I’m not laying the wood to PDF.? Yes, from initial indications it doesn’t appear that the ideological sides are well balanced, and possibly they don’t know where to look.? The real trouble however is the attendees.

The Personal Democracy Forum doesn’t help conservatives.? Because conservatives aren’t there to be helped.

The numbers are simply overwhelming.? I’d guestimate that the attendance is somwhere close to one thousand.? I’d also venture to say that there are roughly five conservatives there.? And I’m incorporating the one libertarian I saw with a Ron Paul button.

I’m dismayed.

I know these folks are out there.? I’ve written about them.? So where are they?? After this past Fall why aren’t ogles of people from the right side of the aisle on Capitol Hill all over this event?? Did the speakers shy them away?? I don’t really think so.? I’m a strong conservative-libertarian, and have been for years.? And while there are a few people in the speaker list that irk me on the average day, I wouldn’t let them keep me from attending when the majority of lectures and panels are simply focused on an examination of content in some form, a discussion of getting content to an audience, or about tools to help you be more efficient and productive.

This is subject matter that conservatives need to hear.? Maybe PDF needs to market themselves more to conservative circles on the web?? Possibly all conservatives on the web are poor and couldn’t afford to attend?? It could be that conservatives don’t fit in with all the Apple fan boys present at the conference.? If there were more Dell owners then it might have been more balanced.

All thought provoking questions.

These are just initial reactions.? I’m sure I will be thinking more about it into the second day of the event as I look for reasons for the paltry representation.

Secretly though, I think the liberals in the crowd are ecstatic.? Why wouldn’t they be?? It’s like someone serving up a box of free gold to anyone who shows up at the box and takes the gold.? And only liberals are showing up, so they get to take home all the gold.

You can’t teach a dead dog new tricks.? And you certainly can’t expect to win a fight you don’t show up to.

Very much looking forward to Tuesday.

-nick

Conservatives Just Don’t “Get It”

You’ve heard this right?  Conservatives just don’t “get it” when it comes to technology, social networking, and Internet marketing.

Really?

I’m so sick of hearing this.  What secret technology recipe do Dems and liberals hold in this medium?  What have they done that is so damn special?  Everywhere I turn I’m being fed this line about how liberals have cornered the market on online politics.  Why?  Because the Obama campaign used Twitter, Facebook, and put a donate button on their campaign website? Please…

MoveOn.org is certainly a big player in some areas of webspace, and they have no equal in the conservative cybersphere…yet.  TheVanguard.org argues that they will be the conservative answer to Moveon.  This is a promise we have heard before, so I will remain cautiously optimistic.  But while we are on the subject, what is it that MoveOn has on it’s website that is so mind blowingly special?

I circled it for you in case you are a conservative/libertarian that just doesn’t “get it”:

The MoveOn page is filled with rhetoric and articles.  As an aside if you look closely you will pick out blatant misleading numbers all on one page. Their email sign up claims 4 million members.  The article under “Success Stories” claims 5 million members in the title.  While just under the title the actual story print claims 4.2 million members.  I wish my boss paid me an extra 80% on every 20% of the dollar I made.  But I digress.

The big FTW that liberals all other the Internet sipping their techno-lattes are getting all worked up about is how many email addresses MoveOn has collected via what boils down to a newsletter sign up box, a donate button, and a graphic icon link to their Facebook and YouTube fan sites.  That’s it folks.  That’s what the big liberal Net geniuses  are walking around heads in the clouds over.  High-five guys! You conquered the Internetz!

What is the actual gain from this?  MoveOn had close to $60 million in donations in 2004, and unless usual donors took their money straight to Obama, it’s safe to assume that the number was close to that in 2008.

While not in direct competition, The Heritage Foundation had a similar endowment in 2008 and also holds a similar size contact list.  Being that Heritage is a think tank, and not a social club, many of their priorities are different.  But there endowment certainly allows them to compete in the same spaces that a group like MoveOn is battling for ground in.

But what are the real numbers here?  Why can’t conservatives compete in the webspace like they do in talk radio in meatspace?  Why don’t we get it?  What aren’t we getting?

WHAT WE DON’T GET IS THAT WE HAVE BOUGHT INTO A LIE THAT WE “DON’T GET IT”.

… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

?Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Look at the numbers:

MoveOn is winning the Facebook war.  That’s pure Paris Hilton “hot” right there.  You guys can trade pictures and make cute references to the Messiah’s newest portrait in your status bar.  But Facebook isn’t the only application in webspace.  Liberals claim to be controlling everything.  But the numbers don’t add up.  The DNC less than half the subscribers or channel views than the much webspace belabored RNC on YouTube.  And the RNC easily rivals MoveOn in YouTube channel subscribers, falling behind by only 500 subscribers, but actually having 65,000 more views of channel content.  And Twitter, the Internet rage that is constantly talked about by liberals like they invented it is completely dominated by conservative and libertarian organizations!  In fact MoveOn and the DNC don’t even have representation on Twitter.  And let’s not even discuss individual members of Congress’ Twitter or Facebook adherence.  They all have them.  No one has an advantage.

So why are liberals and media outlets always saying that conservatives “get it”?  Because of Obama.

The Obama campaign’s technology effort which receives ravenous attention didn’t invent these applications or even use them any differently than anyone else in the conservative movement, with the exception of my.barackobama.com which allowed individuals to organize local events online.  Ultimately a brilliant strategy.  But It is no secret that Obama implemented an 18 month online social networking strategy, while John McCain simply pushed hard at the end, running what amounted to be a 72 hour “get out the vote” train wreck.  The reality of what happened last year was that Obama’s team produced an in depth Internet strategy from the very beginning.  The Internet was not just a webpage used to promote his candidacy and explain his policies.  It was used to connect like minded individuals through various ranges of social networking.

This isn’t something new to conservatives and libertarians.

It was new to John McCain’s campaign staff and John McCain.  And by the time McCain got on board with a decent Internet strategy, that ship had sailed, and Obama’s web presence was rolling down a mountain like a Mac truck with no brakes.  When liberal pundits are issuing their insults toward the other sides comprehension and use of Internet applications, they are thinking of the Obama campaign specifically, and not the broad strokes.  What Obama did with technology and did early was a great move.  But the uses of tech in his campaign was not some secret cauldron of witch brew which only liberals had the necessary skills to use.  Conservatives have been using the same tools for years.  And when we saw them being used by Obama and used successfully, we were sitting around all thinking, “This stuff should be obvious, we are all using it, why isn’t McCain.”  Conservatives have it right.  They’ve “got it”. In fact if you want a closer look at how well they get it, look to efforts like CEI’s openmarket.org, bureaucrash.com, globalwarming.org, or the Heritage Foundation’s stopspendingourfuture.org, 33-minutes.com or their joint venture ReadTheStimulus.org.  Or try RedCountry.com, RedState.com, TopConservativesOnTwitter.com (#tcot), atr.org (Americans for Tax Reform), netrightnation.com; these go on forever.

The RNC’s loss of Cyrus Krohn is a tough blow.  But you can’t build an empire with one hammer.  And furthermore, the duties of the RNC specifically does not necessarily need to be creating and implementing new widgets and whatzits.  It needs to be making sure that the next candidate is.  If the RNC was behind at some point then let’s be clear, the RNC is not the conservative movement.

Realistically, there is also more to the story.  While conservative get technology and use it effectively, the last campaign was riddled with problems.  Mixed messages and feelings over the Bush policy, the party being sporadic with their message, and many conservatives feeling like they were being left behind and no strong voice to represent their political ideology.  At the same time, Democrats were very united.  Not by Twitter or Facebook, but by a common theme, ‘Paint McCain as another Bush — No more Bush!”

For conservatives to rebound, and additionally re-capture the votes of moderates and libertarians they don’t need to just use technology well.  Getting a lot of followers on Facebook or Twitter will not win an election.  Conservatives need a unified voice, a return to traditional conservative values, and a common theme.

Which they have found, in Obama.

-nick

?I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind.  Some come from ahead and some come from behind.  But I’ve bought a big bat.  I’m all ready you see.  Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!?