Government 2.0 Part 2

Two Friday's ago I did a blog about the potential for Congress 2.0 and better ways to utilize new technologies and connect our public servants to their constituents, as well as giving constituents a better more meaningful way of contributing to government and getting involved.

An all too perfect example came to the forefront yesterday when Rep. John Culberson, Rep. Tim Ryan, and eventually Sen. Roy Blunt fought it out over the Energy Bill. Instead of doing it in real live on the floor they instead did it on Twitter.

A report Wednesday done by Micah Sifry detailed the twitter users over at TechPresidents

...a pioneer on the House floor who may just be showing the way, Rep. John Culberson of Texas who has, shockingly, been Twittering openly from floor proceedings and is even considering doing some live video-blogging to open up public awareness of what he calls "the darkest and deepest hole in Congress," the House floor.

Ellen Miller [from the Sunlight Foundation] just posted about their exchanges.

As Ellen says, "It’s refreshing to see a member of Congress who personally tweets updates about his work as a legislator, often from the House Floor. We love that he talks specifically about bills being considered in real time so we know how he is going to vote on a pending bill and why.

Culberson is also experimenting with live video-blogging, using a Nokia N95 and Qik.com. He's mulling taking us to the House floor with him, and showing us just how the sausage is made."

The biggest criticism a member has when faced with fierce opposition is the claim that he or she is "out of touch" with the district. What better way to keep in touch with one's district than by using the tubes to bring the Reps into our lives - or in the case of twitter - in the sidebar of my FireFox browser. All the while contributing to the greatest opportunity to create transparency since Andrew Jackson had a big block of cheese in the White House.

In a recent piece about Obama's technological hotness in the Atlantic it goes further to detail how a Web 2.0 Campaign can turn into Web 2.0 Government.

"Obama clearly intends to use the Web, if he is elected president, to transform governance just as he has transformed campaigning. Notably, he has spoken of conducting “online fireside chats” as president. And when one imagines how Obama’s political army, presumably intact, might be mobilized to lobby for major legislation with just a few keystrokes, it becomes possible, for a moment at least, to imagine that he might change the political culture of Washington simply by overwhelming it.

What Obama seems to promise is, at its outer limits, a participatory democracy in which the opportunities for participation have been radically expanded. He proposes creating a public, Google-like database of every federal dollar spent. He aims to post every piece of non-emergency legislation online for five days before he signs it so that Americans can comment. A White House blog—also with comments—would be a near certainty. Overseeing this new apparatus would be a chief technology officer."

Like my props to Downing Street, the Atlantic talks about citizen access to submitting petitions in the UK and continues to agree that the increased participation, communication, and transparency are virtues to a point. The insane mob it might create however they acknowledge might weigh down the efficiency - the first drawback I've really given any credibility to. But I think that the benefits outweigh the problems. Imagine the intern mass who would delight to work in the Department of Technology and sit and play on MySpace all day.... Sign me up!

The finally to the last piece is "The lesson here seems obvious enough: technology has concentrated a fair amount of political power in hubs outside Washington. But Washington has not harnessed that power successfully." To which I respond a resounding - well no shit... And I think that is what makes up the difference between the Clinton vs. Obama machine and what will become the Obama vs. McCain machines.

Campaigns that are more paranoid about losing control or more paranoid about letting people in are the top down models that we see with HRC. To be truly bottom up and truly grassroots or netroots allowing power share is key. I've been asking the same question to some of very netrootsy candidates we've had on here and they've remarked the same. When asked how they knew to do the netroots and what would they say to the techphobic they said

Darcy Bruner

"One of the biggest challenges any campaign faces is how to reach the people who support you - or who might support you, if they knew who you were. And most campaigns use some combination of mail, calling people, canvassing, radio, outreach through local newspapers, and television ads to reach people. But more and more people can be reached online, where they are emailing and reading websites. So it's silly not to try to reach people where they are. . .

Other candidates should figure out where the supporters they need are, and how to reach them, and then should act accordingly. Sometimes that will involve a lot of blog outreach. Sometimes it means using Facebook. Sometimes it may mean developing a really good email list. And nobody knows what new technologies will emerge in the next couple of years. But it's foolish not to try to reach voters where they are - because eventually the other side will."

Jim Slattery

"Kansas is a red state and for a Democrat to win I think we have to employ innovative technology and reach out to new, young voters who haven't previously been involved in the process.

I've been inspired by my two sons, both who are in their twenties, and know a lot about new technology. In addition, I enjoy talking with young people and listening to their ideas. They often have a fresh perspective to an old problem.

I think blogs/blogging/bloggers are a great way to disseminate a message quickly and develop a kind of grassroots following. Yes, it is possible to lose control of the message but often times the opposite happens and a new message develops organically. "