Metapocalypse is an act of protest against the vituperation and invective that has permeated this site during the Presidential primary. Until there is a presumptive Democratic nominee, the author refuses to post any non-meta diaries. See this diary for details. Only you can end the Metapocalypse—Join the mehvolution!
I’ve previously written that I believe the Netroots in general, and DailyKos in particular, are about to experience a period of transformation as a result of the increased importance of online organizing to the Presidential ticket. In order for us to determine the probable course of this transformation, and possibly to affect its direction and outcome, I have decided to begin a limited series dedicated to flushing out what constitutes "Netroots Theory," and to start a broader discussion about just how we envision this community model.
Given the upheaval and reformation I think is around the corner, I feel a high level of what John Cole calls "blogosphere navel-gazing" is merited. If you aren’t terrified by the idea of so much meta in one place, I hope you’ll read on.
First, I think we need to establish a sociological definition of what DailyKos essentially is. E. Franklin Frazier, the eminent black scholar, devised a five-point definition of the ‘negro church’ in the early 1960s. His methodology was to determine what roles the church played in black society in order to paint a full picture of it. According to Frazier, the black church was:
- An agency of social control,
- A facilitator of economic cooperation,
- A provider of education,
- An arena for political activity, and
- A refuge from a hostile white world.
Frazier’s analysis thus creates a broad definition for his subject, but one that effectively encompasses all of the roles that might be played by it. Let’s try to do the same for DailyKos.
First and foremost, this is a site for writer and activist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga to publish his opinions and analyses. Or his piano compositions. Or pictures of his family. Or anything else that pops into his mind. A singular entity, "Kos," holds absolute control over the site and those using it, and though he rarely exercises his Divine Right, all subsequent traits of this community are inherently based on his guidelines for how we should interact.
Accordingly, we can determine the next few roles of this site from Kos’s own words, as listed in the FAQ:
This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.
Based on this, we can add that, in addition to being a place for Markos to publish, this is also a site for partisan advocacy (promoting the Democratic Party and its candidates), and a site for partisan reform (attempting to redirect the Democratic Party’s operations and leadership).
Methods of partisan advocacy include:
~informing other partisans about specific candidates and causes;
~hosting candidates and elected officials;
~conducting fundraising efforts for candidates and causes;
~providing opposition research and anti-Republican messaging (including through features such as Jeffrey Feldman’s "Frameshop" series);
~providing pro-Democratic messaging and encouragement;
~organizing and reporting back on actual political activities;
~posting "call-to-action" diaries and stories; and
~offering news and information about misdeeds by our political opponents, and covering laudable activities by our allies.
Community members promote partisan reform through methods such as:
~describing missteps and mistakes made by Democratic leaders;
~highlighting poor policy decisions and votes from Democratic officials;
~encouraging challenges in primaries to poorly performing elected officials;
~demonstrating the weaknesses of Democratic candidates on ideological or philosophical issues;
~enforcing accountability among party leaders and elected officials; and
~describing party procedures and practices that conflict with our values and principles.
(Neither list is exhaustive, nor is either meant to be. These are just a few examples of how this community fulfills these roles. I plan to elaborate on these roles, and attempt to provide examples of each, in subsequent editions of "Metapocalypse.")
These activities produce a few follow-up roles, including candidate evaluation (weighing the merits and weaknesses of candidates for office, especially ones involved in primaries), social networking (linking supporters of certain candidates and policy positions, including wider political reforms such as voting rights, criminal justice, etc.), and exposing new authors and internet resources to a wider audience (promoting more obscure writers and blogs, and making others aware of emerging technologies).
It’s important to note that all of these three later roles can be accomplished by the community members independent of the site administrators (though the site admins have a much heavier hand in all 6 roles). The only limitation beyond overall site functionality placed on these roles is that candidates receiving even tepid support must be Democrats or progressives in non-partisan races. Beyond that, community norms and standards are the primary governors of site conduct.
So consider this my SIX-POINT DEFINITION OF DAILYKOS:
- A platform for Markos Moulitsas
- A source for partisan advocacy
- A platform for encouraging partisan reform
- A communal resource for candidate evaluation
- A nexus of social networking
- A platform for emerging authors
Think I missed something? Disagree with the overall methodology? Just want to gripe about something else on your mind, other than the perceived shortcomings of one of our remaining candidates? See you in the comments.