View Thread > Internet & Society > Technology in Politics > Perhaps I took the original question too literally . . .

Our country is currently run mostly as an oligarchic republic.  We elect leaders to make decisions for us, and they make those decision based mostly on the financial interests of who have given them money.  Most of that money comes from large corporations, but much of it comes from special interest groups.  Regardless of where the money comes from, our republican (though not necessarily Republican!) leaders are forced by the system to make policy decisions based on the financial calculations of how they can get the most money for reelection.

The beautiful possibility of a truly grassroots based campaign is that its power base is no longer the big financial supporters but, instead, the great mass of grassroots supporters.  Realistically, for the foreseeable future, political campaigns must still be driven by the growth of a financial base of support.  However, the degree to which this financial base is generated by a large, diverse group of small donors is the degree to which our republican political system becomes more democractic (though not necessarily Democratic!) and less oligarchic.  The problem with the current oligarchic system is that a relatively small number of people who happen to have a lot money wield a hugely disproportionate amount of power over our leaders' political decisions.  Increasing the number of people to whom are leaders are finanically beholden through wide scale grassroots financial support increases the number of people who wield power in the game and thus increases the democracy of the system.

A leader reliant on such support would thus have to invest heavily in mechanisms of collecting the thoughts and opinions of his huge basis of supporters.  Sitting down at a table with a few heads of corporations or special interest groups is a simple proposition.  Sitting down at the table with the 10 million people who contributed the bulk of your campaign chest is considerably more difficult.  Mostly, it consists of creating fora where those people can talk to one another and make some reasonable representation of their discussions heard by policy makers.  Technology can help a lot hear, both by facilitating large scale discussion and deliberation processes and by helping people organize into small groups of people who can meet in person.  The key is that the focus will shift from *pushing* the message of the small oligarchic ruling class class *out* to the masses through large scale media blitzes.  Instead, a grassroots based leader would have to invent ways to *pull* *in* the opinions of the masses and somehow consolidate her leaders' views into representative policy decisions.  TV ads would no longer say "we need more [or less] public health care" but instead "come participate in our nation's conversation about what to do about our health care problems".

I agree that the governance as described will need to be an extension of the campaign:    
"creating fora where those people can talk to one another and make some reasonable representation of their discussions heard by policy makers"
-- expanding the existing discussions and meetings, while dealing with strong emotions and problems of scale.  There will be limits to this of course (Oscar Wilde: the problem with Socialism is that it takes too many evenings!) but nonetheless people are hungry for community and will respond.  

I tried to go into some (maybe too much) detail about how this might work in my initial post, but in my hurry (found out about this project yesterday) and blog-centric mindset I didn't wasn't looking closely enough at the critical role of face-to-face meetings and real pavement-pounding organizing, which you cover better; though I did think some about how to pull offline folks into online discussions! 8^)

Honestly I think diversity of approaches will be the key.  Flexibility.  There are so many different responses and preferences people will have to this kind of change.  To maximize real involvement we'll have to come up with ways to elegantly crosslink topical community meetings and online discussions so that each enhances the other.  Then organize and filter the results, rinse, repeat...

In formulating my original post ("Citizen policy advisors"), I concentrated on the "social software" aspect of creating and sustaining political involvement in a (virtual) world where everybody wants to be a "co-president."  I asked myself how a President could implement structures and executive policy initiatives to make cyberparticipation meaningful in the long term, when his/her personal involvement would necessarily be limited.

I agree that, in many ways, the crosslinking of cyberinvolvement, face-to-face meetings, and traditional organizing would be the best way to maximize involvement.  But I think the task of organizing to elect a candidate differs fundamentally from stimulating meaningful longterm participation on a large scale.

The grassroots participation described in the original question probably was not as deep or expansive as some might hope.  It was probably skewed to the upper end of the educational and economic scales and did not involve minority group members in significant numbers.  The face-to-face meetings it engendered probably attracted a disproportionate number of people who already had some experience as activists or community leaders and felt confident in their ability to effect change in that type of forum.  The task of embracing a more diverse group of citizens as a meaningful element of governance would probably fall to the original participants, who might consciously strive to create a social epidemic along the lines Malcolm Gladwell discusses in "The Tipping Point."

Once in office, the President would necessarily play a much more distant role, more diffuse and less focused on a specific issue or result.  (I would hope that the President would not embrace grassroots participation primarily as a tool to exert greater influence in support of his/her legislative agenda.)    But the President's leadership could be crucial in defining such participation as a welcome and necessary element of responsible citizenship.  

I would also note that for many people, online participation alone -- minus the face-to-face components -- is the most comfortable way to lend ideas and support, as well as to influence others.  And if Internet access were more readily available, it might even turn out to provide a more egalitarian forum, minimizing the effect of lingering stereotypes around race, gender, age, and class.