Ed. note: This is part two of a three part series I've worked on over the break about understanding the Speaker's race. Part one focused on the problem -- why isn't someone else Speaker yet? Part two focuses on the solution -- how to emerge as a legitimate Speaker candidate. Part three will focus on the goals -- what Democrats should want in a new Speaker candidate.
Part Two: How to Emerge as a Legitimate Speaker Candidate
Barriers -- Craddick's incumbency gives him strong organizational capacity, which builds his legitimacy
Individuals -- Craddick is a gatekeeper for power, which prevents Members from moving up
Group dynamics -- When you can't trust a person, you trust a group
Rising in the ranks -- Craddick challengers need a megaphone to build organizational capacity
Originally, I wanted to write about how to overcome these barriers, but as Straus lived it out over the last few weeks, current events took much deserved center stage. So instead of looking forward, we'll use this post to look back a little -- then close out the series either Wednesday or Thursday (again, based on how busy current events are) with Part 3.
How does one overcome the barriers I've argued exist in order to get elected Speaker of the Texas House? Given that there's a purpose -- legitimate or otherwise -- to replace a Speaker, the biggest obstacle to overcome is building the organizational capacity necessary to develop group dynamics and to exhibit the values of your purpose -- trust, cohesion, shared power -- within your own circle of friends. No (wo)man is an island, and "Anybody But" is still not a valid name for a ballot; the solution, therefore, is to be a uniter (not a divider) with a strong positive narrative that (1) gives others a vision while simultaneously (2) reinforcing the negative narrative of your opponent(s).
The coalition building, in regards to the Speaker's race, requires intraparty and cross-party relationships to be built. One thing that can help make that happen is an understanding of 3D negotiation skills. I want to look at how those 3D tactics are put in play in both the intraparty and cross-party relationships we saw develop over the past month(s).
3D Negotiations: Building a Bargain Away from the Table
A quick intro on the framework I'm using -- stolen from 3D Negotiations:
Most negotiators focus on a single dimension of the bargaining process. They are “one-dimensional,” in our terminology, and the single dimension that they embrace is tactics. One-dimensional bargainers believe that negotiation is mainly what happens at the table. To them, preparation and execution is mainly about process and tactics.
But all too often, this one-dimensional approach leaves money on the table. It is inadequate to the tough negotiations in which the other side seems to hold all the cards. It isn’t well-suited to common dealmaking challenges such as many parties—not just two—tricky internal as well as external negotiations, and shifting agendas. It leads to suboptimal deals, creates needless impasses, and fosters conflicts that could have been avoided.
The argument put forth, then, is that a 3D negotiation looks at all levels of the negotiation: the tactics (1D), the deal design (2D -- creative ways of creating value), and the setup (3D). The setup requires the following (emphasis in the original):
This means ensuring that the right parties have been approached, in the right sequence, to deal with the right issues, that engage the right set of interests, at the right table or tables, at the right time, under the right expectations, and facing the right consequences of walking away if there is no deal. If the setup at the table isn’t promising, this calls for moves to re-set it more favorably.
So what are the right parties, sequences, issues, etc., to create a cohesive intraparty and cross-party group for a Speaker's race? Rep. Straus, the ABCs, and the Democrats showed us how to make it all happen:
Intraparty -- Why "Anybody But Craddick" Worked
Ben Barnes, in his book Barn Burning, Barn Building, wrote about the problems that led to the downfall of the Democratic Party back in the 1970's. From his book:
In the absence of a strong opposition party, the Democrats themselves split into two factions, the conservative / moderates and the progressives.
Unfortunately, while there was intraparty opposition to Craddick, there was nowhere for his Republican opponents to go. Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, the lobby, the SREC, the Texas GOP, Eagle Forum...every Republican group imaginable was in his pocket. Even the press was on his side -- falsely claiming Craddick gained "momentum" when it was clear he didn't have the votes.
The "ABCs" were a specific group that was a safe landing for those who were no longer comfortable with Craddick. Even if a Republican was not an "official member" of the ABC club, there was at least a public group of individuals who could create a holding environment for anti-Craddick sympathies. The players were all important, too:
Rep. Jim Keffer, a respected conservative Republican from rural Texas
Rep. Charlie Geren, a vocal buddy-buddy from Fort Worth
Rep. Tommy Merritt, an excentric but personable East Texas conservative
For the first time, the ABCs became an actual opposition party within their own party. In 2007, they were newly formed, and it was hard to work together. By 2008 and 2009, they had a better sense of themselves as a group and an organization. What's more, instead of waiting for last-minute tactic deals (like they did in 2007), they set the table and sequenced the Speaker's race brilliantly -- waiting until right after the holiday break to meet, choose a challenger, and giving them the weekend (when Members didn't need to be busy with their real jobs) to make phone calls.
And by waiting until January 2 to make their announcement, Craddick didn't know who to run against. Meanwhile, as he struggled to set up a counter to a new challenger, they had a positive for Rep. Straus, a negative for Craddick, and were making calls while Craddick was still trying to hold a meeting. You want to know how disorganized Craddick was? Look at the 2-second "Speaker race" of Rep. Vicki Truitt.
The Republican challengers set the table up right this time. But, they had some help.
Cross-party: Bringing the Democrats on Board
On the other side, House Democrats have been building their coalition since 2003. However, their coalition has not been built -- as Vince and others would argue -- as "anti-Craddick." Texas Democrats have grown in numbers by uniting behind issues that are important to Texas families. At the end of the day, those Democrats who had supported Craddick and those who didn't still agreed on the issues.
The question was simply -- who delivers the best opportunity for me, personally, and my district?
Well, a caucus that grows from 62 to 74 in three election cycles becomes, just as the ABC Republicans became, a legitimate opposition group. There were some in the Democratic caucus who did not feel comfortable with the Democratic Caucus leadership; thus, they voted for Craddick in 2007. But then throughout last session, and in the eighteen months since, Reps. Dunnam, Coleman, and Gallego have shown a remarkable amount of patience and passion to elect more Democrats.
And remember -- the House caucus was the first group to release a list of names. Speaker Craddick tried to argue that some of those names would support him, but what credibility did he have by the time those names were released? Republicans had left Craddick in the seven weeks between Rep. Dunnam announcing the list and then revealing the names. Why would any Democrat move towards Craddick when Republicans were only moving away?
Thus, the "holding environment" that the Caucus created was the list itself; a group that worked cohesively and trusted one another. During those seven weeks, the group spoke together, worked with each other, got to know freshmen Members, and then agreed to all come together and discuss whether they would vote for Rep. Straus (once he was announced).
The Solution - Building Cohesion Through Empowerment
The barriers Craddick erected were that he controlled all leverages of power, thus making him the gatekeeper for all information. The "insurgency" had to then crash the gates to take power from him, but they had to be smart about it. As we witnessed over the past few months, it's anything but easy.
The right people must be contacted in the right sequence, asked to do the right things, etc. But once Members began feeling their own sense of empowerment -- granted to them through the creation of their own intraparty and corss-party coalitions -- it became easier to step outside the box and consider other options. And with strong leaders among both the Republicans and Democrats opposed to Craddick, devising a strategy that played across the entire 3D negotiation spectum became a more realistic possiblity.
Now that there is a "solution" and that we will see a new Speaker take the gavel in a few hours, only one question remains: where do we go from here? Stay tuned to Part 3 (coming tomorrow or Wednesday) for my thoughts.
Ed. note: This is part one of a three part series I've worked on over the break about understanding the Speaker's race. Part one will focus on the problem -- why isn't someone else Speaker yet? Part two will focus on the solution -- how to emerge as a legitimate Speaker candidate. Part three will focus on the goals -- what Democrats should want in a new Speaker candidate.
Part One: Why Someone Else Isn't Speaker Yet (And Why That's Not a Bad Thing)
"Directly challenging existing gatekeepers does not necessarily mean they are destroyed and disappear. It means they bleed influence and power. To make that happen, you need to evaluate your target gatekeeper and determine the source of its power, and then supplant it."
Tom Craddick does not have the necessary support or legitimacy an incumbent Speaker of the House should have. An incumbent should always have a built-in-advantage; even the great prophet Dave Carney would have to admit that an incumbent who is tied is actually losing. Why, then, is Tom Craddick still in this thing?
Let's look at five questions that we'd need to answer in order to understand the problem:
What is the purpose of electing a new Speaker of the House? Answer: To choose a Speaker that treats all Members fairly.
Perception or reality, Craddick does much more than play favorites. Arm-twisting and high-dollar challenges are prevalent among Craddick's reign as Speaker, and Members want a Speaker that will let them have an honest run at their own legislation, and that allows them to vote their districts without the threat of political retribution -- either outside or inside the Capitol -- constantly hanging over their head. No one expects unilateral disarmament; but everyone is tired of the constant call to arms (from both sides of the aisle) that is prevalent under Craddick's regime.
What are the barriers to becoming Speaker? Answer: The lack of legitimacy & organizational capacity of a challenger in a Craddick House.
If there is a general agreement on purpose, then, why is Craddick still in this thing? Today's story in the Dallas Morning News highlights the anti-Craddick unity that has formed among a solid majority of Texas House Members:
The drumbeat to replace House Speaker Tom Craddick is getting ever louder, as Republicans and Democrats add their names to a growing list of representatives who say they refuse to support him for another term.
On Monday, the number supporting someone other than Mr. Craddick grew to 79, more than enough "no" votes to oust him from his powerful, agenda-setting position as head of the 150-member Texas House.
He needs 76 votes to maintain his spot, and if declarations are to be taken at face value – a big "if," to be sure – that would mean he doesn't have them.
Why then won't Craddick step down? Because right now, he has the best public grasp on the three prongs of the "strategic trinagle" that is apparently so well loved among business organizations. Here's a quick look at the triangle I'm talking about:
The idea of this strategic triangle is that each of these pillars influences the other. In order to increase the perceived public value of your candidacy, you need to strengthen your legitimacy/support and/or your organizational capacity, and so on around the triangle. The more you can place yourself inside the triangle, the better.
Craddick has tremendous organizational capacity -- he has "lieutenants" like Rep. Will Hartnett that can speak on his behalf in the press. He has members like Rep. Warren Chisum who have long-lasting relationships with House Members and who will stand up on Craddick's behalf. He has a natural base of Committee Chairs -- including the 10 Democrats that have not pledged against him yet -- that form the core of his constituency. And he has support from lobbyists, large donors, and a Republican Party infrastructure that is very conservative and, by definition, not eager to change.
Dwindling or not, that core organizational capacity and the legitimacy afforded him by his incumbency are significant assets to his campaign -- and they are barriers the challengers (understandably) struggle to overcome.
How do individual members interact with those barriers? Answer: They can't avoid power that is ever-present everywhere, even if that power upsets them.
In what ways do those interactions impact members' understanding of group dynamics? Answer: They move towards the group, not the person, that is aligned with their purpose.
Do those group dynamics help or hurt a new Representative rising the ranks to become Speaker? Answer:Hurts. Without a built-in coalition, and with 150 Members all spread out across the state, you can't make group gains. It has to come one at a time, which is yet another inherent disadvantage of challenging the incumbent.
Atop this post, I quoted Markos' writing about gatekeepers. Craddick is a gatekeeper for power in the Texas House -- even those who are Chairs or sit on Appropriations have, at some point, been instructed about how to proceed. Lobbyists have tons of these stories; I've written about the struggle for power I saw Craddick pursue before, so I won't repeat it here. But if the source of Craddick's power is his operational capacity and the legitimacy of his incumbency, then how do you supplant it?
The seductive thing to do is simply to build and accumulate power for yourself. I think that's what some of the ABC Republicans tried to do in 2007, and that's why they failed. Interacting with a strong organizational capacity vs. a single person promising the world, a Member is going to perceive a large supportive group (even if it's Craddick's) as more trusting.
The reason Paul Burka writes that January 2 is such an important date is because it is one of the few times that the challegners to Craddick will have an honest, public megaphone to establish their organizational capacity. What they say (public value) matters little. If they can demonstrate that they have the organizational capacity to oust Craddick, then they will automatically gain the legitimacy and support they need to defeat Craddick.
The need for the large public megaphone is why group dynamics inhibits an easy challenge to become Speaker. A press release isn't convincing enough; a phone call can work for one person, or maybe a few on a conference call, but not 76. The press conference is the first time the challengers will have a megaphone. But I don't think it will be the last, or the most decisive.
That's my understanding of the problems of the Speaker's race. They are problems that shouldn't be minimized; I often read others' quick dismissal of the challengers inability to immediately supplant Craddick and laugh. The Speaker's race comes in stages:
Prove Craddick can be defeated
Figure out the main challenger(s) to his candidacy
Get the names.
We've just entered stage 2...but there's still lots of time in a game that's just begun. It's not easy to supplant a strong gatekeeper of power. It takes time, struggle, sacrifice, and hard work. I'm going to let Markos close it out for now, and I'll write more this afternoon about how to find solutions to the problems outlined above:
"Before we confront the gatekeepers, we must first understand that leaders are not promoted or ordained. We now live in a rapidly evolving entrepreneurial age, and so the first rule is that we must speak our mind, follow our heart, and question all authority. We cannot wait to get permission before we act."
Introduction: A Lesson in Patience in an Impatient World
"Some of the legislature are for it, and some against it; which has the majority I can not tell. There is great strife and struggling...here at this time. It is probably we shall ease their pains in a few days. The opposition men have no candidate of their own, and consequently they smile as complacently as the angry snarls of the contending...candidates and their respective friends, as the christian does at Satan's rage."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Dec. 13, 1836, in a letter to Mary S. Owens concerning the moving of the Illinois State Capitol to Springfield, Illinois
Even Abraham Lincoln grew impatient of politicians. But it is instructive that this impeccably appropriate quote about the impatient and frustrating natures of human behavior --- very fitting to the Speaker's race context we are all floating in -- can be found in the middle of a letter to a woman Lincoln briefly courted, before realizing that he thought her "skin was too full of fat to permit its contracting in to wrinkles." (Source)
The point: we are people, and we are not perfect. If Honest Abe got impatient with politicians and petty personal things, then what chance do the mere mortals of the 81st Texas Legislature have at being anything less than impatient?
Impatience, though, can be crippling.
Conventional wisdom gets thrust and thwarted around so violently in the middle of the Speaker's race that it becomes hard to know where to anchor. Inevitably, many anchor with familiar faces --- that's why so many at the Capitol are willing to survive the whiplash Paul Burka has given us over the past six weeks. I can't tell if he's imitating Gossip Girl on purpose or not, but I'll be damned if Harold Cook's "Paul Burpa" rendering isn't looking better by the day.
Where, then, do we anchor? Well, I like to anchor in reason, logic, and facts. I gave that a shot when I wrote about Craddick's ceiling and the documentable opposition to Craddick way back on November 13:
We have reached the tipping point for the end of Tom Craddick's reign as Speaker. All we're waiting for is the last brave group of Members to declare they won't support him, and we can officially move on to determining who should be next in line.
I wrote that short paragraph about a month and a half ago, as part of my post detailing the composition of the Speaker's race. Though Mr. Burka -- the perennial gatekeeper of conventional wisdom that he is -- never believed in the post, that fact-based research ended up moving us in the BOR community away from the inevitability of Tom Craddick towards the possibility of a new person. And now we watch as the rest of the Texas political world catches up with us.
Good fact-based reasoning will do it every time. But it takes time. A lot more time than the instant, "did-you-hear-what-he-said?" nature of the Speaker's race can allow. And one thing is absolutely clear: 150 Members can't always know what every one else is always thinking or who every one else is always talking to, so the notion that any one person can easily rise to overtake the position of Speaker is ridiculous.
What, then, is needed to elect a new Speaker? I've written a few ideas about that in a short series of posts that will come online every couple of hours today titled, "Understanding the Speaker's Race." Here's what the series will discuss:
Part one will focus on the problem -- why someone else isn't Speaker yet (and why that's not a bad thing).
Part two will focus on the solution -- how to emerge as a legitimate Speaker candidate.
Part three will focus on the goals -- what Democrats should want in a new Speaker candidate.
I don't have secret Democrat or secret Republican friends in the Legislature, giving me the "scoop" on what's going on behind closed doors. I'm not a paid senior exeutive editor; I'm a 24-year old grad student who volunteers to write. My interest in Texas politics isn't one of "who is aligned with whom" and what that may mean for the next SREC meeting. My interest in politics is the same as most of you, and I'll close with this reminder I wrote the day after Election Day last November:
I believe as well as anyone that the Speaker's race is incredibly important. But I would recommend one thing:
Perspective.
There are some key facts to keep in mind: House Democrats keep gaining seats, House Republicans keep losing them, and no one outside of what many may not realize is a small, small group of Texans cares about the Speaker's race.
They care about restoring CHIP. And curbing the high cost of utilities. And improving our public schools. And providing better long-term transportation options. And having any semblance, whatsoever, of financial security for their families.
We're not going to settle who is Speaker online; short of posting a lot of gossip and rumors, all we can offer here at BOR is perspective.
Perspective is all we promise here on BOR. It's what the series of posts on the "Not Craddick vs. Craddick Ceiling" were all about, and it's what today's series will be about. I hope you enjoy the series.
The following is the third installment of a Left of College Station series: The Issues We Face, an in depth look at the issues that progressive activist will face in the coming year and the coming 111th Congress and 81st Texas Legislature.
Possibly the most difficult task for progressive activist is continuing the movement to abolish the death penalty, particularly in a state that has executed more people than any other in the United States since 1976. There is a particular urgency to this issue; every battle fought is literally a battle for life and death. Organizations such as the Innocence Project of Texas have worked to save lives; Texas has wrongfully convicted 32 people which is more than any other state in the country.
On Friday's episode of Meet the Bloggers there were several activist and progressive bloggers who discussed the death penalty including Mike Farrell, President of Death Penalty Focus, and Liliana Segura, rights and liberties blogger at AlterNet.org. This discussion ranged from the racial inequality that is present in the justice system to the inhuman and uncivilized nature of the death penalty.
The United States has prided itself on being an example for the rest of the world, yet this country is the only developed western nation that has not abolished the death penalty and finds itself in the company of nations that we often point to as the most egregious human rights offenders. There are four countries that executed more people in 2007 than the United States (42): Pakistan (135), Saudi Arabia (143), Iran (317), and China (470); the United States and those four countries represented 88% of all the executions carried out throughout the world in 2007.
The following is the second installment of a Left of College Station series: The Issues We Face, an in depth look at the issues that progressive activist will face in the coming year and the coming 111th Congress and 81st Texas Legislature.
The environment is a critical issue that facing progressive activist; this issue includes global climate change to protecting our environment here in Texas. The most dangerous thing about climate change and the affect that we are having on our environment is that it is unprecedented and unpredictable; there are not models that can predict what may happen in the future and if we do not act we will find out what the worst possible outcomes may be.
According to the Department of Energy Texas produces and consumes more electricity than any other State; however, Texas also leads the Nation in wind-powered generation capacity. With the resources that Texas possesses it is in the unique position to be one of the leaders of alternative energy, and it could also be one of the leaders in addressing climate change.
As Katherine Haenschen of the Burnt Orange Report reported, lawmakers such as Phil King are standing in the way of progress and are disseminating false information about pollution and climate change.
While the "clean coal" lobby spends millions on advertising, without actually having one "clean coal" power plant, and oil companies continue to spend minuscule amounts on alternative energy research, we must continue to pressure our legislatures to mandate the production of alternative energy and the reduction of green house gas emissions.
The following is the first installment of a Left of College Station series: The Issues We Face, an in depth look at the issues that progressive activist will face in the coming year and the coming 111th Congress and 81st Texas Legislature.
Reproductive rights will continue to be an important issue and the public debate may intensify in the next year, despite electing a pro-choice President, having Democratic majorities in both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, and defeating anti-choice legislation in California, Colorado, and North Dakota. The defeats that the anti-choice movement has been handed this year will galvanize the activist in that movement, even though for the first time in eight years the anti-choice movement will be on the outside looking in.
Today's myth -- that all bloggers are young, inexperienced, and have no business weighing in on these important political issues. As if the talking heads on TV and political consultants that run campaigns are infallible, or something.
Also during this segment, Scarborough attacked liberal bloggers for correcting McCain's error, saying they were probably "just sitting there, eating their Cheetos" and saying, "Let me google Anbar Awakening!" He added, "Dust flying - Cheeto dust flying all over. They're wiping it on their bare chest while their underwear - you know, their Hanes."
The absurdity of such a statement is best articulated by highlighting the age and experience of some other progressive Texas bloggers who are members of the Texas Progressive Alliance. While there's often a focus on Burnt Orange Report -- and you can read about our age & experience here -- the truth is we're just one group of dozens of active bloggers in Texas. And what we lack in age we make up for with experience.
But this isn't about BOR -- this is about the Netroots as a whole. With that said, the following is based on feedback from our TPA group - some chose to remain anonymous, so are identified as "Female/Male A/B/C/etc."
Here's the experience of Texas bloggers - in their own words:
Ted McLaughlin
I am 61 years old, but still feel 26. I am a juvenile parole officer and have worked in various aspects of law enforcement since 1976. I have a B.S. in Social Sciences from a church college (Texas Wesleyan University), but I am an atheist.
In the late sixties and early seventies, I was a hippie, and that still guides my political beliefs. I was a state delegate for Jesse Jackson twice, and attended four other state conventions as a delegate. I have been a Democratic precinct chairman in Tarrant County, and currently hold that position in Potter County.
Anna Brosovic
I'm 35 years old, a tech worker, born and raised in the Deep South by a Dixiecrat Dad. My political awakening came around the time of Iran Contra. My family was deeply effected by Reagan's economic policies, so I hated Saint Ronnie by the time he left office. I did more work than I could detail here during the 1990s.
Then the bastards stole the election in 200, and I thought, "hey, we're now a banana republic, but f*** it cause this a**hole's only getting four years." During that first summer of the Bush regime I was comforted by his low 40s approval ratings, and then of course 9/11 happened. I started my blog that day and have been railing publicly against the Bushies ever since.
With Jerome Armstrong and Aziz Poonawalla, I started the Howard Dean movement online. I've put boots on the ground or generally volunteered for at least 8 house races, 2 state senate races, 2 us house races, 2 primary/presidential campaigns, and I'm sure there will be many more in the future.
Female A
I'm 55. I was in middle management in the oil and gas industry for 12 years. I was raised by a pull yourself up by the bootstraps, conservative, single mother who used to yell, "Fornicator!" when JFK appeared on TV. She was, however, for equal rights. But, she informed me that she wouldn't help me with college because I could just get married--that worked out so well for her. She felt it was more important to help my brothers get an education so they could support their wives. Neither of them did so.
When I was 5, I became an equal right activist because I saw a tiny African American boy trying to get a drink, but he couldn't reach the water fountain. I lifted him up so he could get a drink. His mother shrieked in horror and fear, yanked him away and literally ran from the store. When my mother explained the "white" and "colored" drinking fountains, I felt a profound sense of shame.
Alexander Wolfe
I'm 34, an attorney, married with two kids. I'm half Cherokee by my dad's side, so I either am or am not a minority depending on which side you're looking at.
I am relatively inexperienced at politics. I'd say it was the rip off that was the 2000 election, combined with the continuing idiocy of this administration and Republicans in general in the face of some very serious and difficult problems, that drove me to become more partisan and ideological. And I'd say it was the trend towards easy access blogging for anybody anywhere that finally led me to start putting some of my rants online.
Female B
I'm a 46 year-old white woman, who after a politically active youth in high school and college got sucked into the necessity of being an adult and making a living. My drama production degree didn't exactly have employers pounding down my door. Eventually, I backed into a software development career, and started to relax a bit.
2000's selection enraged me. 9/11 terrified me. I got drawn in to the news, despite the gnawing feeling of helplessness that anything I could do meant any damn thing at all.
In the run up to the 2004 election, I discovered Daily Kos and Atrios, and suddenly I had a focus for my re-awakened political consciousness. I started commenting, sending money, and then writing diaries. Suddenly, instead of just helpless, unfocused rage and despair, I had a fight. I will be fighting this fight the rest of my life.
Because I'll be damned if I'm going to leave this mess for the next generation to fix.
There's much, much more to read. Click "There's more" on the link below to learn more...
This is an unofficial part of our "Shattering Blogger Stereotypes" series. The myth shattered -- that bloggers hate the traditional media. The following is a report on an extensive study I completed as part of my coursework at the JFK School of Government at Harvard University. -- Phillip
In the early twentieth century, five Russian-born Jews living in Manhattan passed out some leaflets denouncing President Woodrow Wilson. They were accused of violating the Espionage Act. They were arrested for criticizing the government, and ultimately -- in Abrams vs. the United States -- the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the arrests.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his dissent, wrote that the leaflets created no real danger, arguing instead that they embraced one of the central tenants of the constitution: a "marketplace of ideas"
[...] The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
Today, in the early twenty-first century, information consumers seek a free trade of ideas much broader than what the market has traditionally offered. Print and television journalism competes with online journalism, where electronic leaflets travel much farther than the streets of Manhattan. YouTube videos, blogs, and Facebook messages are all relevant players in today’s marketplace of ideas.
Texas’ newspapers are adapting to the new online medium in noticeably different ways, especially when it comes to political reporting. An examination of the nearly 1,000 blog posts featured on the respective political blogs of the Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, and Austin American-Statesman during the month leading up to the Texas primary shows that formal conventions of journalism often do not make their way from the paper pages to the web pages of Texas’ leading newspapers.
For those of us counting on the successful adaptation of Texas’ political reporting in the rapidly expanding realm of web-based media, the loss of formal convention may be a very, very good thing.
Introduction: About the Study
The purpose of the study wasn’t to determine which paper had the best online coverage – it was to examine what kind of coverage is out there in the first place. Reporters from each of these papers were interviewed for the original study; however, their quotes and input will not be directly attributed here, since the original study was conducted for academic purposes and to ensure their anonymity is respected.
The study examined at length the methods and attitudes of three of Texas’ major newspaper political blogs, focusing on the time period after Super Tuesday (February 6) through just before the Texas primary (March 3):
It should be noted that the Chronicle maintains several political blogs, including Texas on the Potomac, which has a national focus. For the purposes of the study, only the posts on Texas Politics, which has a Texas focus, were tracked, since most of the print reporters that cover Texas politics only blog on the Texas Politics blog. The study was completed for the Harvard Kennedy School of Government course, “Press, Politics, and Public Policy,” as taught by Professor Tom Fiedler, former Editor of the Miami Herald. As the general election approaches, similar studies will be conducted for comparison. Finding an Online Voice: The Choice between Formal and Informal Language
In 1961, Theodore White’s book, “The Making of the President: 1960” set the standard for political and campaign reporting. Ever since that time, political journalists have used White’s model – along with the very traditional “who, what, where, when, why, and how” formula – to create and sustain a formal language in their writing. The use of traditional, non-changing formal language signals a context of objectivity and authority for most readers.
However, many of Texas newspapers’ political blogs have abandoned traditional conventions in favor of a much more informal, opinion-based language. As Chart #1 shows below, the more posts that are written on Texas newspapers’ political blogs, the greater the chance that the language used will be informal.
Chart #1: Type of Language Used from 2/6 thru 3/3
Houston Chronicle
Austin American- Statesman
Dallas Morning News
Total / Average
# of total blog posts
172
304
510
986
Formal
61.6%
46.1%
23.3%
43.7%
Informal
25.0%
50.3%
71.2%
48.8%
Mixed
13.4%
3.6%
5.5%
7.5%
For the purposes of the study, formal language is considered “traditional newspaper” writing, often in 3rd-person. Informal language is considered “conversational-style” writing, which may combine first and second-person language and feature humor and/or editorializing. Mixed language-posts consists primarily of formal language but contain editorializing, humor, or a call for reader response not normally found with the use of formal language.
The Dallas Morning News reporters wrote nearly three times as many posts for their blog than their Houston Chronicle counterparts; not surprisingly, their language was much more informal. Strengthening the observed correlation, the Austin American-Statesman finished in the middle of each category.
Stereotype: Almost all bloggers are male; there are no female bloggers.
The stereotype that all bloggers are male is one of the odder, most obviously false stereotypes that pervade many conversations about the Netroots. I think it's most appropriate to tackle first, because breaking it apart breaks down many of the gender-specific roles that are unfairly assigned to bloggers.
National Scope: Huffington, Malkin, Wonkette, Gawker
Time and time again, reporters write articles that reproduce the divisions they claim to be questioning. They ask why there aren't more well-known political bloggers who are women, and refuse to mention widely-read counterexamples. They ask why the best-known women bloggers are feminist, not political, bloggers (as if feminism isn't politics), and quote women identified as feminist bloggers to make their point.
MissLaura is one of several front-page writers for DailyKos that is female. Additionally, the Executive Editor (#2) for the site -- Susan G. -- is a female. And while it may be easy to roll off names like Markos, Chris Bowers, Jerome Armstrong, Atrios, and Matt Stoller, think of all these other national bloggers you (undoubtedly) know of:
Arianna Huffington, of Huffington Post -- As MissLaura put it, Arianna is "building a freaking empire" with the HuffPo. More so than any online news magazine, Huffington Post is exploding with influence, breaking stories, and power.
Wonkette --The ultimate snark-blog, Wonkette is one of the sharpest, most consistently entertaining political blogs in the country. She's pioneered a style for countless blogs across the country (including some right here in Texas).
Elizabeth Spiers, founding editor of Gawker -- When she starts a blog, regardless of the target, people flock to the site. More importantly, like Wonkette, her style is mimicked by many but matched by few.
Michelle Malkin -- Does she drive me up the wall with her right-wing wackiness? Of course. But her columns are syndicated in newspapers across the country. There's no denying her power.
Jane Hamsher - Founder of firedoglake -- which has more visitors than almost any other national blog -- Hamsher has built one of the most responsive online communities in the country. Firedoglage has interviews with prominent candidates across the country, and their press secretary resides here in Austin.
These are just some of the hugely successful, national female bloggers I'm familiar with. If you want to learn about more, follow this link to an informative, "top-50" style rundown.
Texas Scope: Texas Kaos, In the Pink Texas, Muse, & More
Female prominence in the Netroots isn't limited to national case studies. Here in Texas, we have numerous active female bloggers that provide incredible coverage of local and national politics.
Anna Brosovic -- What can be said about Anna? She founded the Texas Progressive Alliance. She, along with Jerome Armstrong and a few others, helped start the Howard Dean movement. She's prominently featured in Nate Wilcox's new book, Netroots Rising. She's a rockstar, and she is someone all of us in the Netroots are endlessly proud of.
Texas Kaos -- Under the leadership of boadicea and TxSharon, Texas Kaos is one of the longest lasting blogs in Texas. Often covering stories we overlook, their reach to tens of thousands of political activists is important for the progressive movement in Texas.
Musings -- Led by Martha Griffin (a board member of TexBlog PAC and campaign manager for one of the hottest State House races in Texas -- Sherrie Matula vs. incumbent Rep. John Davis), Musings is a great place to read any news out of the Fort Bend and Harris County area.
Eileen Smith (In the Pink Texas and Texas Monthly's "Poll Dancing") -- After managing ITPT for years, Eileen was invited to work as online editor for TexasMonthly.com. Her posts -- often filled with biting humor, sarcasm, and cross-self-promotion -- are widely read in Texas. Often quoted in many newspaper and television reports, her influence (as much as she tries to pretend its not there) is very real.
I feel obliged to note that Burnt Orange Report, unfortunately, does not have any female bloggers writing on the front page of our site -- though it's not for lack of trying. Every time we ask for new writers, we beg for female applications. I've even cornered several female friends to write for our site. But we can't force it -- so other than a few past writers, we have no female front-page writers. Though some of our best and most active community commenters and diarists are females.
Please apply, if interested.
Conclusion: Prominent Women Bloggers Are Influential in the Netroots
There's no doubt that there still lies an imbalance of male vs. female bloggers in the Netroots. That is an imbalance that exists in many sources and places of business -- including newspaper rooms, where many "firsts" are still being cracked.
However, the imbalance is not what many would think. Female bloggers are wielding great influence in the Netroots from all angles (progressive, conservative, business, and more). The stereotype that only men blog is inaccurate, and one you shouldn't need to repeat again.
One of the most dangerous ceilings the Netroots must still shatter has nothing to do with crashing party gates or supplanting the influence of corporate lobbyists. No one seems to question our technological ability, our passion, or our talent. And while a very few are engaging in fascinating discussions of "citizen journalism" and how bloggers are redefining the medium of news reporting for the 21st century, that's unfortunately not what most people are talking about.
No -- as in most social situations since the middle school cafeteria, stereotypes rule the day.
What I learned from reading the coverage of Netroots Nation in my hometown of Austin, TX (as well as other coverage from general news reports from around the country) is that bloggers have a long way to go to shatter stereotypes that have been created and perpetuated over the last four years.
These are stereotypes that were generated, largely, by different groups that wanted to see us fail -- including Democratic insiders during the rise of Howard Dean in 2003-04, the TV talking heads on national news networks that like to editorialize without the facts, and Republicans who don't appreciate the public holding them accountable for their crimes and corruption (a reason why plenty of Democrats don't like the Netroots, either).
Some of it is our own fault -- there are characters within the netroots community that fit the caricature, as in all social circles. We all look a little like each other sometimes.
Unfortunately, this caricature is the only way bloggers are understood by many people that comprise the larger factions that interact with politics -- whether it's the press, politicians, or the public at large. Most images and imaginings perceive the "typical blogger" to be something like this:
He's a he.
He's white.
He's young and inexperienced.
He hates the traditional/mainstream media.
He doesn't operate in the "real world" -- whatever that is.
He isn't willing to compromise, and doesn't care what you think.
Obviously, there are many more superficial stereotypes, but these are the ones that are the most pressingly damaging to our efforts -- and the ones, not coincidentally, that are by far the most inaccurate.
Well, it's time to correct those stereotypes.
This week, I'll be writing a series titled "Shattering Blogger Stereotypes." It is my intention to inform everyone who reads the series about what's actually going on in the netroots, to dispel some of the more disastrous perceptions many appear to have of us, and to bring the conversation of our purpose front and center.
I hope you enjoy the series. Part 1 later today will focus on gender in the blogosphere. Be sure to check back, and as always, thanks for reading.
