Yes… and no.

One of the problems conservatives have is defining themselves as a coalition. When conservatives don’t define themselves, others do… often incorrectly. American Conservatives should not be afraid to define American conservatism. If the risks are bad press coverage, alienation, and election day loses… they already have that. Are conservatives afraid their branding is going to get worse if they define themselves with a litmus test? In the eyes of the media (the conduit to mainstream Americans), I am not sure that’s possible.

Conservatives are never going to be as liberal as liberals. Their weakness during recent elections is in part derived from their own attempt to be all things to all people. Voters usually know when they smell a rat. A disingenuous candidate who preaches limited government and lower taxes at one fundraiser is not credible when he argues on behalf of expanded social programs and his piece of the stimulus package at another.

Liberal-lite positioning — “I’m for limited government and fiscal responsibility, but I am willing to give you, the voter, anything your little heart desires” is not a winning strategy.  It is a short-sighted, election day loser and damages the conservative brand over the long-term.

Also, is there some definitive study that says, “litmus tests are bad”? I recall the phrase being adopted by the media in a political context with respect to SCOTUS nominees and the abortion issue. Why would a clear set of political values used by conservatives to define conservatives be a bad thing? If clear branding is good enough for Apple to differentiate itself from a PC, why is it not appropriate to apply those same marketing principles to the conservative values?

Finally, political values are not the same as political issues. We should not confuse the notion of defining conservatism with a clear set of political values as the same thing as defining a Republican platform around a specific set of political issues. The former is a set of beliefs embraced by voters who typically vote for Republican candidates. The latter is a label for political party that broadly supports candidates on the right side of the political spectrum and advocates on behalf of specific political issues.

So I say, create a litmus test… how could it possibly makes things worse?

While at Red County, we would use the service to stream editorial content from the contributors of our 30+ blog communities. I would often augment the feed with personal comments to keep things a bit more interesting. Unfortunately, unlike my close personal friends, @aplusk (1,825,141), @ryanseacrest (1,037,533), and @oprah (1,019,191), our followers numbered in the thousands, not millions. Regardless, Twitter was a very valuable tool in our new media toolbox.

The Proliferation of Hashtags

There are thousands of hashtags, each of which help to better define a tweet and the intended audience of that tweet. According to the Twitter Fan Wiki site, hashtags were popularized during the San Diego forest fires in 2007 when Nate Ritter used the hashtag “#sandiegofire” to identify his updates related to the disaster. My first recollection of using hastags in a meaningful way for political purposes was during last year’s #DONTGO movement (www.dontgomovement.com), during which the #DONTGO hashtag was used to focus public attention on leaders of the U.S. Congress who preferred to adjourn for recess rather than finish working on important energy legislation. Use of that specific hashtag has diminished, but it spawned a movement and it did engage new activists.

Since then, those who participate in political discussions on Twitter have many hashtags from which to choose. #POLITICS is the most broad. Other examples include #TEAPARTY (discussion about the Tea Party movement), #HHRS (Hugh Hewitt Radio Show), #ICON (independent conservative). However, one of the most prevalent in conservative circles seems to be #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter). While not particularly intuitive, its growth seems to coincide with conservatives flocking to new media in the wake of the 2008 election.

There seems to be some dispute over who started #TCOT, but it was made popular through the efforts of Rob Neppell (@rneppell), founder of The Truth Laid Bear and proprietor of Kithbridge. Rob is ubiquitous in conservative new media circles and he deserves a ton of credit for helping the political Right embrace new media.

Like most things in new media, that which gains traction and becomes moderately successful is quickly spoiled by the mad rush of spammers, self-promoters, and profiteers to get onboard the next big thing. In my opinion, #TCOT is suffering from this phenomenon and its relevance is slowly being diminished.

#RIGHT: Inclusive & Intuitive

My frustration with #TCOT led to my suggestion to friends that #RIGHT would be an outstanding alternative. It is broad and inclusive. It is highly intuitive. It is not tied to a party or personality. It is not likely to be co-opted or commercialized. Most importantly, it clearly and concisely states to Twitter pros and newbies alike, the nature of the content with which it is associated.

Of course, this is not a competition. I am simply advocating on behalf of one hashtag over another for the reasons cited above. People can use Twitter however they like, write whatever they want, and tag their tweets however they feel is the most appropriate. As I write this, the Obama administration is still focused on taking over the auto and financial industries. Until their mission is accomplished and they have time to turn their attention to Twitter, the service should remain a fairly pure example of a free marketplace. Good ideas will rise to the top. Weak ideas will not.

I would welcome your thoughts on the matter, either here or via a Twitter discussion. Feel free to follow me at @scottwgraves. For more information about Twitter and hashtags, visit the Twitter Fan Wiki page here. For a definition of specific Twitter hashtags, or to establish a new one, visit, @tagalus.

Fortunately, the talk of “nationalizing” banks, policies mandating “reasonable” executive compensation, effort to re-introduce government health care, and the passage of a “stimulus package” which allocates ungodly amounts of taxpayer money on pork projects serve to reinforce the notion that the Democrats generally gravitate to big government socialism. This is obvious to well-informed conservatives. It is beginning to become more clear to the average American.

It is with this political backdrop that I eagerly await the forthcoming eruption when Democrats subversively re-introduce the failed “Fairness Doctrine“.

For those unfamiliar with this black mark on American history, the “Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission’s view) honest, equitable and balanced.”

To most Americans, this flies directly in the face of their limited understanding of the First Amendment which very simply states,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

No amount of nuanced, smooth-talking, feel-good Clintonesque language from the Messiah himself will veil the fact that Democrats would be trying to use their power to squash free speech; specifically, the free speech of the political right who has has dominated the airwaves of talk radio for nearly 20 years. I believe any attempt to establish government oversight of political free speech and commentary could serve as a tipping point that severely damages the Democrat brand and quickly removes them from power. I relish the debate and would welcome an historic groundswell of revolutionary-style opposition.

This issue was the topic of a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rush Limbaugh. As the most successful and dominating figure in talk radio, his conservative views are ground zero for any legislation that directly or otherwise attempts to re-introduce the failed big government policies embodied by the Fairness Doctrine.

Let the debate (and the revolution) begin!

Excerpt:

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free

By Rush Limbaugh
February 20, 2009

Dear President Obama:

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as “local content,” “diversity of ownership,” and “public interest” rules — all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that “This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Click here to read the article on the WSJ website.