FISA post-mortem, part one: personal performance

[solarbird]

I think this post-mortem is going to span a couple of posts. I could be wrong, but we'll see. I'll write them as they come to mind. This is the first, a personal-performance post-mortem.

---

One of the key aspects to any campaign of any sort in a democratic republic is the building of large-scale popular support for any side of any cause. One of the problems with the mainstream media is a continuing and callous disregard for the truth, substituting in its place a laughable expression of "balance," where any two sides of any argument are equally valid, or, in the political media, the stuffing of any reality into the same small set of basic stories the media have been telling about politics in the US for the last 30-plus years. Another is in the control by major news organisations by a rather limited set of individuals and groups who contribute so much to the political class.

The web has been touted as a necessarily replacement, or, at least, provoker of reform. And that potential is actual; it's had a real effect, though not nearly as much of one as one might have hoped as yet. Reporters - particularly the stars - are getting a lot more direct and confrontational reaction, with bloggers and the like taking apart the bullshit in their stories in ways they've not been seeing in some time - at least since the major consolidations happened. They don't like it, but so far, they don't dislike it enough - or rather are not affected by it enough - to change how they behave. C.f. the entire illegal domestic propaganda scandal, to this day as far as I know completely not covered by the television media, still by far the single largest source of news for Americans. And that made the New York Times, the embodiment of establishment print media. It's shameful, but they've successfully ignored the story to death.

There are a couple of ways the interactive, internet-based medium of blogging can create actual effect. One can build up a large direct audience (c.f. Greenwald, Sullivan, Redstate, Balloon Juice, and so on), or one can get by on a smaller core readership if you can establish your messages as memes - maybe only so many people read you, but they pick up the message, and repeat it, carrying on to others. Then at least some percentage of those people must act.

This is what I was referring to when I mentioned earlier, immediately after the FISA failure, that I do not matter. I'm quite capable of laying out the data, explaining it, and putting dots together to form a conclusion. I have a depressingly good track record at this, if I might take a moment to compliment myself. But being right is completely irrelevant in this type of situation if you can't prompt others to act with you, or, better, prompt others to prompt still other people to do so.

I have quite solidly demonstrated that I am incapable of doing either, and for that, I apologise. Yes, in the 90s, I had some success with a very small, very tightly focused mailing list that you couldn't get on if you didn't promise to pass the data along to organisations which could act on it. I was able to help shape a local media message with some of this data, and I was able to provide information to groups of of people already set up to be actors on these topics. But that was, for the most part, a collection of already-active groups who simply didn't have the intelligence-gathering capabilities I had. I've been unable to replicate that success, or build either of the two new types.

First, I've been entirely incapable of building a readership large enough to matter. Or rather, I should say, I haven't been attractive enough on these topics to build one. I've stayed at or under 350 unique hits per page now for two years, with surprisingly little fluctuation. I don't know what percentage of those viewers actually read these things, or just skim, or are just here for the flower pictures, or economics, or whatever. And a tiny, tiny percentage - I'd say somewhere on the order of 3-5% - actually take action. (This is in terms of what I really know, what people have told me, and such.) This could be a higher number, invisibly to me.

I've similarly failed to present information in such a way that causes that information to be spread online, which for these purposes is where it matters. (Talking about this with friends over beer is nice, but doesn't really advance the meme much, as it certainly dies there.) As far as I can tell, only 1-2% or so of the people reading these writings ever pass them on to anyone else; links back in my friendslist are exceedingly rare, and I don't see the readership growth I would see if this were going on substantially more frequently than I realise. In short, it's simply not happening enough to matter.

I'm more than willing to take a substantial portion of the blame here, in that I can present the data as much as I want, but I clearly have no idea how to push the psychological buttons necessary to provoke the right kinds of reaction. This doesn't surprise me, for reasons I won't get into here; suffice to say that I'm well aware of this problem.

I had, on the other hand, hoped that the facts of the matter, presented reasonably clearly and well-sourced, would be enough to convince others to act on their own. Clearly, for most people, this hasn't been the case. I can think of several possible reasons for this:

1. People think I'm making things up, panicky, or simply overreacting. I know this is true in the case of some readers. I have a long history of providing links back to my sources; I can't make up the minds of other people for them. I explain myself as best I can, but I can't overcome resistance to data in peoples' minds.
2. People in my readership understand and actively support what's going on. I again know this is true for at least some of my readers.
3. People in my readership understand what's going on, oppose it, but feel any action they could individually take is pointless. This is self-defeating, particularly since if all they do is act on their own, it's pretty much true. That's where the meme thing comes in. But I don't know what I can do about it, since, demonstrably, I am not capable of triggering relay of the data.
4. People in my readership understand what's going on, oppose it in theory, but will not be prompted to act until they feel they, themselves, are personally threatened. This is also something I know to be true for at least some portion of my readership. As I consider actions, rather than statements, the most important measure of someone's position (c.f. my distaste for the Democratic Party as an organisation), I personally interpret this as most people being basically okay with the situation as it stands. It may not be the preferred state, but it's a reasonable state.

I'm sure there are others, and I imagine some of these other reasons will be mentioned in comments. But these are the ones which I either know outright to be true, or which seem highly plausible.

In summary, the key takeaway points for me personally are:

1. I have been unable to provoke significant action with the methodology which best suits my talents.
2. I have similarly been unable to provoke propagation of data with that methodology.
3. The actions I am protesting themselves, even when well-documented, are not sufficiently important to the overwhelming majority of my readership to provoke either of these reactions.

My time spent working on these issues has not, I suppose, been completely wasted; if nothing else, I can look back at it and know that I did everything I personally could. However, I unfortunately do not see any way that I can actually fix any of these situations. I'd be a disaster at attempting to be a political leader; my largely rationalist forms of argument are nearly useless outside of geekdom and I despise the pick-your-tribe-to-pick-your-truth bullshit model of most political campaigns. Essentially, I really just don't have anywhere to go here. Or, to stay on theme, I have no forward-moving action items in this section.

Comments

[silussa.livejournal.com]

For what it may matter....I contacted both my Senators on the FISA nightmare bill. Unfortunately, I live in Florida, where even the Democrats tend to be conservative.

:(

[silussa.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I'm now contributing monthly to the ACLU, where I was already a member. I'm certain certain Republican members of my family were surprised to get THAT email.

[(Anonymous)]

apologies for anonymous posting, but sometimes the message requires it if the writer is to retain any capacity for free action in the matter.

1. as you yourself have noted, you have a fair level of silent readership. one might guess that organisers are more likely to stay silent than would activists: it is easy enough to lose effectiveness by conflating the messenger with the message (to be fair, you have maintained good separation there).

2. following from the above, there is no immediate way to track the onward movement of ideas which you, or others of like intent and action, may have raised via your journalling; not all effective readers will mention sources, as much for the protection of the sources as anything else.

3. points 1 and 2 above are of course now largely moot in this post-FISA mess era.

4. notwithstanding point 3, please consider (in the words of this anonymous source at least) that your gathering, collation and presentation of information has been useful; you are now here hearing this at least this one time.

5. so, in addition to the four possibilities you mention, I would suggest a fifth one, that readers (at least some of the ones who seldom comment) are taking the information away and acting on it. You will not know to what extent this is true.

...considered sending this backchannel, but that might sidestep the possibility of catalysing further discussion, whether here or elsewhere.

[solarbird]

I think the term "conservative" should be retired in these cases in favour of the more accurate "authoritarian."

[solarbird]

So you're saying the lurkers support me in email, then?

[cow.livejournal.com]

I agree with this thought.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Or the lurkers would support you in email if they weren't afraid the NSA would track them down and send them to Gitmo?

[solarbird]

But to add a more serious note:

Private communications, in this kind of context, are not nearly as useful as public ones. Key is that they are not discoverable: a random person won't find it. All the people who read you won't find it, and that's probably a larger number than will read email you send. (Not true in all cases, of course; just saying.) And even if the email recipient list is larger, all of the recipients of such communications are going to be people you already know are interested, and, accordingly, are going to be most likely people who already agree with you on this or already know your position and have formulated their arguments against it.

If you want to reach the unreached, you have to go with public posts, not private ones. I see people on my friendslist posting political arguments - speeches, even, occasionally - friendslocked. And every time I see another one of those posts, I think and what is the fucking point of that?

[silussa.livejournal.com]

At least one of them is pretty upset about the trend of the last few years. So I'll stick with "conservative" in their case.

But your point is well taken; there are quite a few these days that have certainly drifted back to the original reference of "conserving the power of the government".

[silussa.livejournal.com]

If I might suggest a somewhat off the wall idea....most of the more right-wing advocates I see on LJ are also podcast. At least some of which are available on Itunes.

Might be worth a thought; the software isn't difficult, I understand, nor expensive. Might work some of your music in, too.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

They can't send everybody. And they need SOME justification, still. In most of the US, anyway; I seem to recall reading earlier today that one of the Federal Appeals Courts have ruled the President can classify ANYONE as a "enemy combatant".

January, 2009 can't get here soon enough.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

Probably hiding their view from present and potential future employers. It has become common to google a prospective employee in many companies.

That said...I'm old enough to have more of a "go to hell" attitude, if they have a problem with my political views.

[solarbird]

4th Circuit Court of Appeals. I posted about it earlier.

[solarbird]

As someone who used to work radio and really enjoyed it, I really don't think I'm cut out for that sort of thing. I write well because I can revise, think, change, refine - extended monologuing is far too off-the-cuff for me to handle. But I appreciate the suggestion.

[ummdruff.livejournal.com]

You won't be put on the terrorist watchlist by commenting on this blog, by the way.

I like your writing but as long as you handcuff yourself to the "2" party system you're neutralizing yourself. Congress knows what we want; congress doesn't care what we want. Same with Obama.

Let me welcome you to the lonely but fertile world of defeatism and hopelessness. Hope is an anchor that keeps people trapped in a malignant system. Only when we admit defeat can we honestly start seeking out real solutions, if they in fact exist. People can't/won't be awoken en masse, for whatever reasons. You're not the first to try. This isn't a failing on your part.

The media isn't incompetent; the media is complicit. They don't report real news because that's not what they're for.

I agree with the tone of your posts but I feel the same way when I read Greenwald. I see an accurate diagnosis followed by old faith-based prescriptions. And year after year, nothing changes. In the words of Dennis Perrin:

"Still, I've seen and experienced enough transcendence to know that there's another way to live, but it's not going to be handed to us. And those of us who fight for it will encounter true hatred and spite, primarily from our liberal cousins, but from reactionaries as well. Too many people have deep vested interests in domination and control. As friend IOZ says, unplugging from them is the only way out. After that, the real work of honest, meaningful solidarity begins."

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/06/submission.html

[solarbird]

I like your writing but as long as you handcuff yourself to the "2" party system you're neutralizing yourself.
You. REALLY. haven't. bothered. checking. my. backposts, have you?

And, look, I don't mind. You don't need to. But if you're going to make guesses about my personal beliefs and prescriptions then you're really going to need to have some vague idea what you're talking about. Check my politics tag, find all the NEW/PARTIES/NOW posts, things like that.

[cow.livejournal.com]

Wow. Hi, you must be new here. Soda fridge and coffee machine are in the back; washrooms are down the hall to your left; and Dara's never even come close to endorsing Obama and has, in fact, been critical of the two-party system, disillusioned by the media, and noting the rise of the authoritarian streak in both parties for .. well, for longer than I've been on the internet.

I've been on the internet since I was 11.

Hi, welcome! }:D

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, that is fairly summing up what I said.

Being in touch with a few others of like mind and like propensity for background organising, I may confidently state that at least those amongst lurkers personally-known to me do pass along -- or where it makes sense respond directly on the basis of -- significant information that you have collated and thus sent forward. Journalling, in formats which you are using, has signal advantage over activist-lists in that it may reach people (like said lurkers) whose locations are not immediately known by you. That helps magnify messages' effectiveness by breaking them free of social frames which would otherwise be imposed upon them.

Having said that, I may also fairly note that some of those who quietly make use of your output may well self-silence out of concern for third-party retribution. However, as you yourself have frequently argued, we are small fry indeed, not worth harassing until or unless we fall under the microscope of the vetting process, whether by private employers, parastatal organisations, or agencies. Having many times faced that lengthy, involved and sometimes personally-lysive process, I can assure you that it produces a strong disincentive against open expression of non-mainstream opinions.

I am not sure that existence of quiet follow-ups to your pass-alongs is cause for smugness: we do live in difficult times, and smugness is premature. However, overall cultural struggle is far from over, and we may yet be surprised both for good or for ill.

It would be premature, and counter-productive, to concede defeat.

[ummdruff.livejournal.com]

Did you not just write to me in comments in another post, about lesser-evilism voting for Dems:

"Only for the Chief Executive, and for the exact and only reason I specified. And I did not say that Senator Obama would appoint better judges; I said that there's at least some reason to hope he might, as opposed to Senator McCain, who has promised repeatedly not to. With McCain, we're guaranteed more Scalias; with Obama, there is a chance we might not."

? If I misinterpreted this, pls. lemme know. I'll check your archives in the meantime.

[ummdruff.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'm reading, and I see all your links are to the likes of GG, Digby, etc., the typical "the Dems are worthless but I'm still going to give them money and my vote" crowd.

And you're sort of a policy wonk, at least on FISA. And your calls to action are calls to congresspeople. Like they care.

Re: FISA, I quoted blogger IOZ in a recent post of my own:

"It's just this evident conviction, widely shared and endlessly amplified, that a "defeat" of the "FISA bill" will represent a roadblock, a pothole, a piece of gravel on the road to the Last Exit to Panopticon . . . I mean, it would be fun and potentially profitable to sue a lot of big telecoms, but the notion that this new legislation "expands" surveillance by, what?--admitting to it; it's crazy talk, man, crazy talk."

I'm not trying to make enemies here -- I'm trying to see your angle.

[solarbird]

If you want to see my "angle," please stop drawing wild, wide, and inaccurate conclusions from brief skimmings of a few recent posts. Please stop deciding that all my "calls to action" are represented by the last stand against FISA; even this very post at least referenced media message shaping. And actually read a more substantial bit of what I've posted under the politics tag.

Alternatively, please stop making these conclusions based on inadequate data, because as cow tried to tell you (and you responded to him apparently thinking he was me; he's not), you have no idea what you're talking about, and quite frankly, I'm not in any mood to take the time to teach you.

[cow.livejournal.com]

I am not solarbird! Elves and cows are very different things.

[emmacrew.livejournal.com]

Damn, that's an awesome photo.

I'm just blinking at the previous commenter over here.

[solarbird]

Maybe wrog should explain things to him. That'd be funny.

[mathmuffin.livejournal.com]

And then there is me and maybe some others like me, who are under Hatch Act restrictions not to get involved in this political process. I could have written a letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski; unfortunately, it takes time to write a reasonable and persuasive letter and I did not make that time. I regret that, since Mikulski voted for the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 as is.

Your efforts have been keeping me informed of the concerns of many American people. Perhaps one day in my government job I will be forced to say, "Technically, this is legal. But it it unAmerican, so we will not do it." I need to build up my arguments and my courage in case that day comes. Your postings help.