On Thursday night I met with a group of old friends in the middle of Berlin. It was the weekly "Stammtisch" for the group American Voices Abroad, which a group of American ex-pats, including Colin and me, helped start in the spring of 2003 as a way to oppose the invasion of Iraq and articulate other positions on US foreign policy and our own democracy.
Events have moved beyond those early days and efforts, but the group still meets and finds interesting ways to get involved in the public sphere of Berlin and with other US citizens' activist networks throughout Europe and the US. I just wanted to stop by, surprise some old friends and see what they were doing.
I found them at Barcomi's in the Sophienstrasse and they were meeting with a man named Patrick, who is one of the top Information Technology (IT) guys for MoveOn.org. He grew up in Germany and visits Berlin annually. He had dropped in at the Stammtisch to introduce himself as a lead in to his presentation next week on MoveOn.org's upcoming US election initiatives.
So I started asking questions. Patrick told us that MoveOn.org is interested in testing out a campaign model on the upcoming elections in Kentucky, where the election is up for grabs. It involves much of the old campaign grunt work of going door to door and calling voters as they leave for work to encourage them to go to the polls (Patrick mentioned that this is actually a good time to catch voters). Given their resources, they are focusing on the governor's election in Kentucky and the voters in the Lexington metropole area. It is unclear in which states they will focus their attention for the US presidential elections, but they think they have a successful model in the works for how to improve democracy.
I was curious to see what Patrick thought about the state of politics today. On the one hand, as we sat around discussing this from different angles, there is clearly a concern about the state of US democracy, questions over proportional voting, widespread corruption, transparency, the use of smear tactics and the diversion from focusing on issues and developing sharper analysis for stronger positions and better policies. On the other hand, the new media and bloggers in particular appear to have helped in some ways such as providing a greater degree of transparency to what is going on out there in our politics.
From his view, Patrick sees the biggest change in the money. He feels that a group like MoveOn.org can now fund any electoral campaign at the state level through small donations of $30. Smaller donors and more of them are able to make a difference at the level of state elections. He noted what he termed the small "d" revolution in our democracy. There is better news media now that are able to provide greater transparency to our politics. Groups like MoveOn.org have figured out the "carrot" in the political process and can now focus large sums of money from many small donors interested in the same issue to help a candidate win the vote. What they have not figured out yet is the "stick", i.e., how to hold politicians accountable once they are elected and get them to vote like they promised. AVA members brought up other issues like informing voters on all the ballot initiatives that pop up on their ballots and thinking of ways to develop stronger grassroots approaches to the content of our politics.
Finally, I had to ask Patrick about the "white elephant" still lingering in the room before he left. What did he think about MoveOn.org's poster campaign on General Petraeus in the lead up to his US Congressional Report on Iraq last month? Back home I kept hearing about MoveOn.org's smear tactics directed toward General Petraeus and journalists demanding that US Presidential candidates like Senator Hilary Clinton take a clear stand against MoveOn.org, which she skillfully avoided in her Sunday morning news blitz two weeks ago.
From his point of view, Patrick felt that MoveOn.org's response started with a good communications director. They received many responses from their own membership expressing their concerns about the organization's campaign, even suggesting that it was a mistake. So MoveOn.org sent out emails explaining their position. They found that the members who then responded to this explanatory letter were first appreciative of the fact that MoveOn.org responoded to their emails at all. Some also said that they then changed their opinion on the matter once they had read the group's explanation. Others said that they were still not convinced. Most of the objections that their surveys found, however, involved members' views on US military leaders and civil servants, never the facts cited in the campaign's message.
I asked Patrick to explain this point a little more, since it seems to be the crux of the matter. I explained that I had been telling many of my students at Penn State since 2003 to follow General Petraeus when he was with the 101st Airborne in Iraq. He seemed astute from all reports and sharply analytical and intelligent in his division's operations. The 101st seemed to have a different approach that was working. Patrick explained that MoveOn.org wanted to point out that we expect the highest integrity from our military leaders and civil servants, but that their jobs ultimately come with boundaries. They have to obey the US Commander in Chief and MoveOn.org asserts that this colors the analysis in General Petraeus' report.
From this view, the smear campaign against MoveOn.org resulted in a slight dip in polls that measure people's attitudes, but in the end, it generated huge name recognition for MoveOn.org in the process.
With that Patrick had to leave, but if I can make it this coming Thursday night, I will report some more.
Events have moved beyond those early days and efforts, but the group still meets and finds interesting ways to get involved in the public sphere of Berlin and with other US citizens' activist networks throughout Europe and the US. I just wanted to stop by, surprise some old friends and see what they were doing.
I found them at Barcomi's in the Sophienstrasse and they were meeting with a man named Patrick, who is one of the top Information Technology (IT) guys for MoveOn.org. He grew up in Germany and visits Berlin annually. He had dropped in at the Stammtisch to introduce himself as a lead in to his presentation next week on MoveOn.org's upcoming US election initiatives.
So I started asking questions. Patrick told us that MoveOn.org is interested in testing out a campaign model on the upcoming elections in Kentucky, where the election is up for grabs. It involves much of the old campaign grunt work of going door to door and calling voters as they leave for work to encourage them to go to the polls (Patrick mentioned that this is actually a good time to catch voters). Given their resources, they are focusing on the governor's election in Kentucky and the voters in the Lexington metropole area. It is unclear in which states they will focus their attention for the US presidential elections, but they think they have a successful model in the works for how to improve democracy.
I was curious to see what Patrick thought about the state of politics today. On the one hand, as we sat around discussing this from different angles, there is clearly a concern about the state of US democracy, questions over proportional voting, widespread corruption, transparency, the use of smear tactics and the diversion from focusing on issues and developing sharper analysis for stronger positions and better policies. On the other hand, the new media and bloggers in particular appear to have helped in some ways such as providing a greater degree of transparency to what is going on out there in our politics.
From his view, Patrick sees the biggest change in the money. He feels that a group like MoveOn.org can now fund any electoral campaign at the state level through small donations of $30. Smaller donors and more of them are able to make a difference at the level of state elections. He noted what he termed the small "d" revolution in our democracy. There is better news media now that are able to provide greater transparency to our politics. Groups like MoveOn.org have figured out the "carrot" in the political process and can now focus large sums of money from many small donors interested in the same issue to help a candidate win the vote. What they have not figured out yet is the "stick", i.e., how to hold politicians accountable once they are elected and get them to vote like they promised. AVA members brought up other issues like informing voters on all the ballot initiatives that pop up on their ballots and thinking of ways to develop stronger grassroots approaches to the content of our politics.
Finally, I had to ask Patrick about the "white elephant" still lingering in the room before he left. What did he think about MoveOn.org's poster campaign on General Petraeus in the lead up to his US Congressional Report on Iraq last month? Back home I kept hearing about MoveOn.org's smear tactics directed toward General Petraeus and journalists demanding that US Presidential candidates like Senator Hilary Clinton take a clear stand against MoveOn.org, which she skillfully avoided in her Sunday morning news blitz two weeks ago.
From his point of view, Patrick felt that MoveOn.org's response started with a good communications director. They received many responses from their own membership expressing their concerns about the organization's campaign, even suggesting that it was a mistake. So MoveOn.org sent out emails explaining their position. They found that the members who then responded to this explanatory letter were first appreciative of the fact that MoveOn.org responoded to their emails at all. Some also said that they then changed their opinion on the matter once they had read the group's explanation. Others said that they were still not convinced. Most of the objections that their surveys found, however, involved members' views on US military leaders and civil servants, never the facts cited in the campaign's message.
I asked Patrick to explain this point a little more, since it seems to be the crux of the matter. I explained that I had been telling many of my students at Penn State since 2003 to follow General Petraeus when he was with the 101st Airborne in Iraq. He seemed astute from all reports and sharply analytical and intelligent in his division's operations. The 101st seemed to have a different approach that was working. Patrick explained that MoveOn.org wanted to point out that we expect the highest integrity from our military leaders and civil servants, but that their jobs ultimately come with boundaries. They have to obey the US Commander in Chief and MoveOn.org asserts that this colors the analysis in General Petraeus' report.
From this view, the smear campaign against MoveOn.org resulted in a slight dip in polls that measure people's attitudes, but in the end, it generated huge name recognition for MoveOn.org in the process.
With that Patrick had to leave, but if I can make it this coming Thursday night, I will report some more.
No comments:
Post a Comment