Obama's Organization and the Future of American Politics

Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton is the first time an insurgent has beaten the establishment candidate in the Democratic primaries since Jimmy Carter in 1976. This is interesting and important for all kinds of reasons. One, as I've written before, is that it suggests that the era of Big Money and Big Media pre-selecting the nominee of the Democratic party may well be over, in no small part because of the the Internet: lower costs of communication and collaboration, and less allowances for hypocrisy and dishonesty in campaigns.

But there's another big reason why Obama's victory is so important. He is riding herd on the largest and most potent new political organization anyone has seen on the American landscape in at least sixteen years. He's probably got anywhere from four to eight million email addresses on top of his 1.5 million donors and 800,000 registered users of my.barackobama.com, his social networking platform.

What happens with this organization if Obama wins? What will he do with it? And what will it do with him? For us here at techPresident, a website that is focused on how the candidates are using the web, and the web is using them, by the time November rolls around, this could be the billion-dollar question.

This isn't the first time this question has arisen in modern American politics, by the way. And usually the answer is "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss." It's just that the internet should force us to think about the possibilities of a different answer. Not only that, I think Obama is thinking about a different answer.

Read the rest here.

Comments

[beaupritchard]

This article points out one of the most important facet of this election ... an evolution in the way our electoral system is funded.

Suddenly congressmen no longer have to have a donors list of a few wealthy clients(intentional usage) ... suddenly congressmen have to have a long list of voters that give twenty or thirty dollars ... suddenly congressmen have to be answerable to the people who vote for them.

I would think some congressmen would find this a welcome change from having to "ho" themselves out to the highest bidder.

[marxistsocialist]

Iran must be our friend, not our enemy, whatever Bill O'rilley, Glenn Beck and the capitalist media whores claim. They won't be presidents of the USA. You will be the president, and i have faith indeed that you would change Washington, DC and US Foreing Policy toward Israel indeed

Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, but nuclear energies.

Thanks and i hope you listen to my humble opinions about the fascist state of Israel and what we should do about it

[CandaceInCanada]

What he is creating is similar to what the current Canadian gov't is doing. I receive press releases from the PMO (our Oval Office) at the same time the press do. Speeches etc are posted online (both at the party site and where appropriate, the gov't site). Our Hansard (transcripts of House of Commons debates) is published online within 24 hours, so you can go find out what your MP did (or didn't) do. Email addresses for all MPs are published. New policies are also readily available. The only way a citizen can remain uninformed is by choice.

The current (new) gov't had an internet campaign as well, and consistently out-fundraises the rest as they've really figured out the 'retail politics' piece of the game. The party doesn't, however, have the networking/blogging piece of it, but I suspect after watching this campaign, that won't be true for the next election.

Since we already have major compaign finance laws in place (max donation $1,100/year and can only be from a taxpaying citizen, not a union or corporation or any other entity, and spending limits on campaigns), fundraising and organizing at the grassroots is essential.

[BARRY08]

DID YOU KNOW DEAD VOTERS ARE STILL SHOWING UP AT THE ELECTIONS ???

CHECK THIS OUT :

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/dead-voters-still-showing-up-on-election-records-puzzling-officials/

[arvay]

This development can help us avoid the tendency of democracies to slide into oligarchy. Democracy becomes very tangible, when our millions of people can outweigh the select few who are accustomed to selecting our fate.

Will work for both left and right. Hard to imagine Bob Dole getting the nomination with such a force in play.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Republicans picking up on this, and Huckabee-like candidates proliferating over the horizon. OK, I'm an elitist, I think our public is smarter than theirs :-)

[Heyman]

Your Public? What planet are you from?

[lvdragonlady]

We needed to take America back from BIG money, Big business and the useless Media and we have started our movement. We have a long way to go before our job is done but we have started and will continue.
This is OUR country, it does not belong to BIG money, Big business or useless Media.
Hang in there America.........

[WTB]

Yeah, I'm convinced that Big Media had nothing to do with Obama's result in the Democratic primary. Nothing at all.

[OkieMon]

are you kidding? obama raised 450 million to hill's 200 million....big bucks still rule....

[finn292]

Yes, but Obama raised most of that money from small donors over the internet, while Hillary got a lot of money from lobbyists and other big corporations.

[savagetiger]

Short sighted and ignorant statement.

Its HOW they raised the money thats significant. He did it through small, grassroots, individual donations, AND WILL NOT TAKE PAC MONEY.

Hillary went traditional.

Whats shocking is that the traditional method garnered less money, albeit still a large amount.

Big money may still rule, but its the voices behind that money that matter.

[Heru1]

Than you for proving there is intelligent life on this planet.

[justhefacts]

This distinction between an "insurgent" and "establishment candidate" is meaningless in the context of a general election (whether he was or was not the "establishment" candidate in the primary race, Obama now "is" the Democratic establishment candidate for President) and probably counter-productive if we want to elect a Democrat this year.

Obama has already attracted all the "change" voters to his campaign. He now needs to attract the "stability" and "security" voters. They may not like the word "establishment" but they are not going to be reassured by the word "insurgent." McCain ran as an insurgent in 2000 and lost.

Also, there are large donors (Big Money) who supported the Obama campaign. It is not necessarily a bad thing to be able to appeal to people such as billionaires Penny Pritzker (his campaign finance chair) and James Crown (an early supporter), Wall Street investment banks and private equity funds (early large donors), three former SEC chairmen and former Federal Reserve boss Paul Volcker (endorsers).

The internet has a double-edge. Michelle Obama suggested this in her remarks about "bloggers" who "lie." The primary campaign organization is already changing. Some staffers will remain, some will be replaced. The replaced ones may even give unattributed statements to unscrupulous media minions. Some of this is "politics as usual." Not all of the usual politics is evil.

[ggmome]

As long as he doesn't go where they want him to go, as my father used to tell me, 'if they say go this way, find another way'. There are a lot of traps being set and he must beware of them. I personally don't like the 'play nice' concept, cause he is dealing with a whole gaggle of dirty players, smiling in his face, all the time wanting to take his place, they are called the back stabbers... Song by the OJays..

I was taught early in life, about the perils of deceitful people... I pray that Obama will listen to his instincts and forego the perils that await him from a myriad of angles....

[arkgrfx61]

I think Obama's instincts have served him well.
I believe he can definitely play the nice guy, while still holding up to the Repugs dirty tactics.
He knows what he's up against - and since Hillary has broken him in...it's all downhill from here...McCain might want to move out from the bottom because he's gonna get CREAMED!

[ThirdSection]

Obama has good instincts and good people, plus his online grassroots movement sincerely wants him to win.

Also, it's wise to remember that in American politics, charisma trumps nasty, and Barack has plenty of charisma.

[Torus34]

Unfortunately, the grasp of Big Money on government is not affected in the least by who ends up sitting in the Oval Office presidential chair. There's the little detail of Congress and its law-making function to consider, you know. Not that wishful thinking is bad. But it should be seen for what it is: wistfully wishful.

[Rmtns]

But Obama's rejection of lobby and PAC money, leaves some hope that elections will be relying on grassroots organization and small donors, rather than large donors buying influence

[tdpubs]

Obama is setting the stage for election reform and federal financing of elections. We are looking at a major plan to transform how we pick our representatives.

[MattKline]

Big Money is just a symptom of the larger problem...Big Consituencies. When each Congressperson reps over 600,000 citizens there's no choice but to campaign with mass media. And that costs money. One answer is to ban the use of TV and Radio...as they do in the U.K. But the real solution is go back to the ratio suggested in the Constituion: one representative for every 30,000 citizens. Of course, this would mean a House of Representatives with 14,000 members!

MK
www.militaryintelligenceandyou.com

[larry278]

Quite right, Torus34. There are times when age & treachery has an advantage over youth, vigor & enthusiam,
larrt lynch

[kevinw]

He has run a great campaign, but he has also been backed by the party establishment. There has been a power struggle between the older traditional liberal organization and the DLC wing. The Clintons had power with the DLC wing, but have been losing influence as can be seen by the selection of Nancy Pelosi. This does not mean they did not have an excellent strategy for the campaign, they did. But the leadership moved the schedule of primaries so that Nevada and South Carolina would be in the initial candidate test. They said they did this for diversity testing. Why would Edwards or Dodd or Biden, etc need to test against diversity. Obama was selected as the Keynote speaker at the last election. That has been a launching platform for candidates for some time. This takes nothing from his victory, but it is more like the Suni and Shia battle than an insurgency.

[robynuva]

The purpose of moving the primaries, as stated by Harold Ickes at the time, was so that a diverse electorate would have a voice, as opposed to New Hampshire and Idaho, with their conspicuous lack of minorities. It was not to support minority candidates, but to give a voice to ALL those in the Democratic Party.

[hankandted]

This is a terrific post that actually gets to the core of the Obama campaign. It took the "Chicago" model (whether machine or independent) and applied it to the nation at large. It organized on the precinct level in a national campaign. Pundits keep saying that this is new and modern, but acutally, it is very old. In recent years,however, the Democrats, including the Clintons, have relied on big media, consultants, etc. and lost touch with their roots in the communities.

The only problem with the post is that it overlooks the seminal influence on both Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama---the campaign and election of Mayor Harold Washington. It is inconceivable that Jackson would have run without the success of Mayor Washington. More importantly, Obama observed and learned the lessons of the Washington years.

This is why he is very explicit that the organization that he is building is necessary for him to govern. He has said this a number of times. Corporate interests and big money interests are not going to go down easily. They are going to do everything that they can to prevent a president Obama from governing. The only thing that will counteract this is the will of the people. Therefore the people must remain organized and mobilized. We know this from the Washington years. It was the mobilized people that kept him going and gave him his council majority.

[Krikkit]

The potential is breathtaking. Whether it succeeds of fails is dependent on how well the "movement" self-organizes. Our government is not a direct democracy, never has been. It is a representative democracy. We elect officials and send them to DC to represent our interests. Now Obama is saying, we can have a more direct democracy. But unless he can continue to provide convincing leadership, individual interests have the potential to drown out any forward movement.

So when Obama presents to the American public his education reform bill, for example, in which he wants to institute a $4,000 tuition credit in exchange for the student's promise of community service for a time after graduation, will people with no intention of taking advantage of it organize to defeat it because they want the money spent elsewhere? How will people let their interests be known? Will we build some sort of online insta-voting method to poll people?

Obama talks about making the information known and providing the names and contact information for key people who can move the agenda along, with the idea that he can use the organization that's been built for his campaign to pressure lawmakers into compliance. Will that tool be a two way street, though, in which the people can make their feelings known to him as well as to the congress and senate?

I trust his judgment and the judgment of his staff, but this will definitely evolve. How remains to be seen.