Like millions of others around the world, I have been watching this year’s protests in the Arab world, Europe and the United States. What has struck me the most as I have followed the protests on television and in the social media is that the protesters generally know that the status quo should not be tolerated, but are a lot less clear and unified about what they want to replace it with.

In the war of ideas, it’s not enough just to be against something; you have to be for something that is sound as well. Before you set out to alter the status quo, you ought to know how to replace it—and you need to be convinced, intellectually and in your heart, that the new system will actually be better.

When we began our protests at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk in 1980—protests that triggered the eventual collapse of Soviet communism throughout Central and Eastern Europe—we didn’t have the benefit of the Internet and social media. What we had instead was a unifying idea: that men and woman have a God-given right to be free and that government has no right to deny them this freedom. We were fighting for individual freedoms that many Americans take for granted: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom to organize unions, freedom to congregate in public places and express our views, freedom of the press, and freedom to contract, own property, have enterprises and work to uplift the lives of our families and communities.

Those who opposed the status quo in Poland and elsewhere behind the Iron Curtain were great in number. That was the source of our strength: when we realized we weren’t alone and that others shared our concerns and views. This empowered us, as it empowered the protests in the Arab world, and today’s protests in the United States and Europe.

Today’s protests seem more focused on the problems that are plaguing many of the world’s advanced economies, with little regard to the impact of government in creating these problems. What is needed in addition are sound solutions that are mindful of both the effects of government powers and the importance of vital freedoms. These solutions have to be earned through dialogue between bankers, entrepreneurs, public administrators, labor unions and social organizations.

Whenever I support the freedom movements in Cuba, the Middle East, Burma and other outposts of tyranny, I do not support solely the idea of overthrowing those who are in power. I support the processes that would lead to new orders guaranteeing individual liberty, democracy, civic virtue, equality and the rule of law.

Continue reading on the Independent Institute website…

Attending a recent 300 guest D.C. dinner party, I expected to see about twenty personal friends and another two dozen familiar faces who were media pundits and political figures. I didn’t plan to stay long; chat it up with friends and introduce myself to some of the celebs. So much for my plans.

I entered the room and felt like I already knew everybody… and oddly enough, I felt like they knew me. It was amazing! The people and faces from my social networks had come to life!

To “LibertyMatt” I asked about his coaching duties for his son’s soccer team. I talked to “MStevens912” about her new job and shared grad school stories with “Jason912”. These were people who I had never met and yet felt like they were old friends. Conversations flowed. We just picked up where we had last left them… on Twitter and Facebook!

Fast forward to last week. On Wednesday I sat down to my computer with my morning cup of coffee and discovered the nice folks at Twitter had decided to give me a timeout. My account had been temporarily suspended for reasons unknown. As I contemplated the possibility of being cut off from my friends and my conduit for news and information, I was forced to think how the tools of social media impact my life and my organization.

My timeout lasted 48 stressful hours, during which I identified three important lessons about my growing dependency on social media tools. Consider these lessons as you further integrate these same tools into your organization’s communications strategy.

1. Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have become an integral part of how I grow my brand, share ideas, and communicate with the world.
Without those tools, I feel completely isolated. With little or no cost, I can reach out to tens of thousands of potential customers and collaborate with hundreds of like-minded vendors and activists. Leveraging these tools is both powerful and cost effective marketing.

2. Do not take social networking sites and communities for granted.
You are at their mercy. Without warning they can unplug you and your organization from your community. Unlike paid services like your cable provider or wireless carrier, social networking sites are free. And what they giveth, they can also take away. Your problems will get solved on their time, not yours. Keep this in mind as you plan your mission critical communications efforts.

3. Don’t put all of your social media eggs in one basket.
I mention Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube because these are the tools I use. But these are not the only tools; they just happen to be new Big Three. Consider other tools and invest the time to develop a robust presence within those communities. A healthy diversification will prevent the whims of one social network from crippling your ability to communicate with the world.

As readers of Big Government know, late last Friday, ALG issued a press release claiming it had received an offensive e-mail from Dateline NBC producer, Jane Stone. Within hours, the Rightroots had been mobilized and the story when viral.

Known as the “Bite me Jew boy” e-mail, both Ms. Stone and NBC were pilloried by the Right. Throughout the weekend, Matthew Vadum chronicled the exchange of statements and press releases here on the BigGovernment.com website.

So Now What?

It’s been five days and ALG has yet to provide indisputable evidence to prove its claim and NBC continues to back Ms. Stone’s assertion she never sent the e-mail in question.

In making its claim, ALG gambled its credibility with activists and media contacts to help push a story that increasingly looks like a hoax. In at least 2 press releases, ALG very publicly accused a respected media professional for a major media outlet of an explicit act of anti-Semitism; a charge that if true would damage her reputation and destroy her career.

Collectively, the political Right advanced the story and stirred the pot after assurances from ALG that they had their facts straight and had done their due diligence. To date, it appears they had neither.

There are several plausible scenarios, none of which seem to justify a rush to mobilize the troops and publish multiple press releases. These scenarios could include:

SCENARIO 1.) Jane Stone actually wrote an inexplicably offensive e-mail and then followed that moment of stupidity with an outrageous lie to her employer, who then risked the reputation of a major network with an unequivocal denial on behalf of a racist employee. UNLIKELY

SCENARIO 2.) A rogue individual at ALG duped their ALG colleagues by intercepting an e-mail received from NBC, edited the e-mail, and passed it along as legitimate. ALG management then used the same individual or an otherwise unqualified source to complete their “due diligence” efforts. POSSIBLE

SCENARIO 3.) ALG received a legitimate e-mail from Ms. Stone’s Blackberry, decided to edit the text of the e-mail, and began the process of generating publicity with an outrageous and wholly fabricated accusation of racism. The story goes viral, screenshots don’t satisfy the skeptics, and ALG is asked to produce detailed header and server records that do not exist. I PRAY THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN

SCENARIO 4.) Someone used Ms. Stone’s Blackberry and sent the e-mail without her knowledge. ALG received the e-mail, did its due diligence, and published its claim. Ms. Stone denied the claims made by ALG, confident that she did not send the e-mail in question from her Blackberry. PROBABLE

I don’t pretend to know which, if any, of these scenarios is accurate, but as I tweeted shortly after the story broke, “Someone at NBC or ALG is LYING. When they show the e-mail in question (w/ the complete headers), we will know who.”

Yesterday, I spoke with the folks over at ALG and was told they have no plans to release additional information. And while the release of more information could resolve this issue, they continue to stand behind a goofy screenshot conspicuously missing to only real evidence that could validate their claim. In doing so, they have demonstrated a willingness to behave exactly like those on the left who use baseless accusations of racism to advance their political agenda. By not publishing complete e-mail header information, it also looks like they have a disregard for the truth, the inability to conduct meaningful due diligence, and/or an ignorance of the basic technologies involved.

It is the responsibility of those in each faction of a political movement to hold its own accountable.

Anti-Semitism (and racism) is a serious matter and should never be used by any political organization as a tool in its communications toolbox. As Right and Center-right political activists, our credibility on this issue is at stake when one of our own engages in distasteful tactics. As such, it is incumbent on the Right to leverage its influence and demand ALG produce real proof of their allegations. When and if such proof is not forthcoming, I hope we all use our resources to rebuke ALG with the same level of outrage we had when the original story first broke.

I hope I’m wrong about ALG, but my gut is telling me we’ve been played. What do you think?

The beauty of some of our nation’s founding documents is a relative brevity that has allowed the ideas to endure the test of time. Of course, had the Founding Fathers had Twitter accounts, and been limited to only 140 characters per tweet, perhaps our Bill of Rights would have looked very different.

Imagine @JamesMadison tweeting @ThomasJefferson…

“Penned BofR. Ref’d VA Dec of Rights & Magna Carta. Adams & Hancock onboard. Hamilton & P. Henry pissed. LOL. Ratify ASAP.”

Preamble
“Constitution intended to: better union, establish justice, insure tranquility, common defense, promote general welfare, & secure liberty.”

1st Amendment
“Congress shall make no law for or against religion; or abridging freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petitioning gov’t with grievances.”

2nd Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, necessary 4 the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

3rd Amendment
“No soilder shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house w/o consent of owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.”

4th Amendment
“One’s body, home, papers, & effects secure against search & seizure. Warrants can be issued under oath and with probable cause.”

5th Amendment
“Trials 4 capital crimes req. indictment by Grand Jury. No 2X jeopardy. Can’t testify against self. Due process. No confiscation w/o comp.”

6th Amendment
“Accused shall have speedy & public trial w/ impartial jury, the assistance of counsel, and ability to confront and provide witnesses.”

7th Amendment
“In lawsuits >$20, preserve right of trial by jury & no fact tried by the jury shall be re-examined by another Court of the United States.”

8th Amendment
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

9th Amendment
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

10th Amendment
“Powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”

And subsequent amendments…

11th Amendment
“Judicial power of the U.S. shall not extend to any suit prosecuted against one state by another state, or by citizens of a foreign state.”

12th Amendment
“States shall each have ballots for pres. & vice-pres. States certify results & send to Congress. Ties sorted out by quorum in Senate.”

13th Amendment
“Slavery is bad except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party was duly convicted.”

14th Amendment
“Citizen = born or naturalized in U.S. Due process. Equal protection. Reps based on state pop. Traitors can’t hold office. Debt 4 war = okay.”

15th Amendment
“Right of citizens to vote shall not be abridged based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

16th Amendment
“Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes w/o apportionment among the states, and w/o regard to any census.”

17th Amendment
“2 senators from each state elected for 6 yr. terms. Temporary appointments by state governors used to fill vacancies.”

18th Amendment
“The manufacture, sale, import, export, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within the U.S. for beverage purposes is prohibited.”

19th Amendment
“The right of the citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

20th Amendment
“Term of president ends @ noon 01/20. Terms of reps & sens ends @ noon 01/03. If new pres dies before start of term, vice-pres takes office.”

21st Amendment
“The 18th Amendment was a bad idea and is hereby repealed.”

22nd Amendment
“A person can’t be elected president more than twice. Can serve max of 2 terms + 2 yrs. of a term in which one wasn’t actually elected.”

23rd Amendment
“D.C. is the seat of the federal gov’t. Residents get to vote, but not enjoy the rights of a state.”

24th Amendment
“The right of citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be abridge because of failure to pay taxes.”

25th Amendment
“If pres can’t fulfill term, VP becomes pres. Speaker and Pres pro tempore of Senate can declare pres unfit. 2/3 congress must concur.”

26th Amendment
“No law, varying the comp for the services of the Sens and Reps, shall take effect, until an election of Reps shall have intervened.”

DISCLAIMER: I did not go to law school and make no claims of being a constitutional scholar. Modifications to the above are welcome.

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?

Last week the California Republican Party held a “Technology Summit” that represented what I hope is the first of many conversations about the role of technology in campaigns, party building, GOTV efforts, fundraising, and communication. I was asked to speak for a few minutes and used the time to help the audience viualize the difference between the “web 1.0″ and “web 2.0″. As a student of new media who actively learns about and embraces new technology, I realize we are already taking our first significant steps in the the era of “web 3.0″. However, in the world of Republican politics… first things first.

My brief talk included two slides (left and below). The first slide highlights the overlapping and interdependent nature of web 2.0’s tools of communication. It contrasts those tools with traditional media tools like television, radio, and direct mail.

The second slide built upon an understanding that numerous communications tools are now available — none a silver bullet — that allow organizations like political parties to impact the national dialogue. Not long ago, producers, editors, and publishers were the gatekeepers to traditional media. They determined who received the coverage… how much, and how fair. Today, organizations have options. They can use tactics that embrace the MSM to reach large audiences while also deploying tactics that focus on narrow slivers of new media niches made possible by the wonderful convergence of technology and politics.

I am constantly looking for better ways to communicate the relationship of new media tools to those who are just now dipping their toes in the water. Fortunately, I StumbledUpon the featured image in this post. I like it because it is clear, comprehensive, and easy to understand. I hope these visuals are helpful.