Diversity: Be Specific, Dammit

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:54


I'm going to echo Jane's comments about diversity and supplement them with my own observations.  It's not enough to say that diversity is important.  The political blogosphere is political, which means you have to discuss politics, and you have to do it with specifics.

If you want to discuss diversity, you have to talk about African-American politics, including problems at the NAACP and newer vital organizations like the Ella Baker Center and ColorofChange.org.  You have to talk primaries.  That's why I covered Donna Edwards and Al Wynn last cycle, and it's why I talk about the CBC and corrupt black billionaires like Robert Johnson.  And not to play the 'why isn't everyone working on my pet issue', but doesn't it seem strange that Robert Johnson's push to use race to justify light taxes on his investment funds - after he did the same thing on the estate tax - gets no play anywhere except on a blog written by a Jewish liberal?  I don't mean to whine but, to be selfish, I want a lot more discussion of ethnic politics on the blogs so I can read about it.  I find the specifics really interesting.  And the specifics - whether AIPAC is supporting Artur Davis in Alabama or was involved in beating Cynthia McKinney - are not just important but critical for progressives.

If you want to discuss diversity, you have to talk about Latino politics.  That means Joe Baca and his awful stewardship of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the fight between the male and female members within the CHC.  You have to talk about how Latino groups like Southwest Voter failed to bump up registration rates among Hispanics last cycle after the huge immigrants rights marches, and how labor screwed up on immigration.

If you want to discuss why women are so disempowered in our political system, you have to look not only at our cultural roots but at clear examples of problematic organizational structures, such as Emily's List or NARAL.

Like it or not, politics is politics, and specifics are the whole ball game.  In Connecticut, I remember who was there with us.  It was Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, and Danny Glover, and they helped us beat Lieberman in the primary.  Maxine Waters is heroic, while Bobby Rush takes millions from AT&T to his charities and Harold Ford Jr is a contributor to Fox News and an employee of the financial service industry.

Politics is about power, and power in America cuts through race and identity.  It's a fascinating story to tell, but it has to be told if you want to make any change.
Matt Stoller :: Diversity: Be Specific, Dammit

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Diversity: Be Specific, Dammit | 26 comments
Excellent! (0.00 / 0)
Not just an excellent post, but an excellent approach to politics clearly explained.  This is what blogs are ideally suited to do: break things down to the level of specifics--Colonel Mustard, in the Kitchen, with a Rope--and connect them back to their multiple contexts.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
APAforProgress.org (4.00 / 1)
Here's a great group/site that I would like to plug, Asian Pacific Americans for Progress. On Saturday, we organized an Asian American Activist training in Chicago and had over 125 APA progressives come and get trained at the Field Museum.  It was an awesome event. (Just a few minutes walk from the Yearlykos convention.)

As you can tell from our site, we're pretty active.  We would love to be connected to the greater blog/progressive community, but really don't have the resources to do so.  We spend most of our energy trying to mobilize our own community and building the political infrastructure.

If theres's any way to work together with the "mainstream" blogosphere, we would welcome that.  But we don't even know where to begin.

email (4.00 / 1)
Read the blogs you want to talk to, link to them and comment on their stuff, and send them email when you write something relevant.

It's how all of us do it.

[ Parent ]
We have links to some of the larger blogs on our site... (0.00 / 0)
and we emailed them to be listed on their blogrolls, but we have never heard back from any of them.  Eventually, we just gave up.  In terms of minority/majority relations, at some point, you just get tired of trying to get the attention of the "mainstream" and you just work on your own thing.  That's what we're trying to do now.
[ Parent ]
blogrolls (4.00 / 1)
are way overrated.  Not much traffic derives from them, though they help.

But Matt has the right formula.  The only way a blog like Firedoglake can get to know you and get a sense for your work is if we have exposure to your thinking and work over time. 

Link to stuff on our site and it shows up on our technorati stuff, and your commentary on what we say may teach us new things.  That gets our attention.  Then we may begin to read you, link back to you, and eventually you might make the blogroll.

If any of your people can become regular commenters on our site, we can get to know you fastest that way.  I know this takes a lot of time and work, but it's how we all did it, as Matt says.  Also, you may want to read this for some ideas:

http://www.firedogla...

We get a lot of emails, a lot of blogroll requests, and we don't have time to read them all, let alone respond.  I hope you will take all this as my attempt to help you.

[ Parent ]
Or (0.00 / 0)
Link to stuff on our site and it shows up on our technorati stuff, and your commentary on what we say may teach us new things.

Or one could just go and read them without getting some sort of reciprocal link first.

That's called an "imaginative response."

Have you guys ever actually SEARCHED for new blogs that might be out there, or does that take away valuable time from the navel-gazing?  Lordy.

[ Parent ]
it's a matter of time (4.00 / 1)
there are thousands of blogs out there to read.

You're right, we could do it the way you say.  But if you rely on that, your odds of us finding you out of the thousands of blogs goes way down.  Sending us an email that you have a blog does not tell us anything, really.  As time stretched as you are, we're just as time stretched.  I wish it were easier for all of us, trust me.

I tell you all this not to try to boost our technorati ratings, though I acknowledge this could marginally be a byproduct.  We're already rated pretty well, and anyway, technorati ratings do not help us sell ads, which in part is what we need to do to make our people more than volunteers (we get shit for ad revenue and it's a problem, but it's not just our problem. I work on this problem 20 hours per week, and the rest I blog and actually do my paying job).

I am just trying to tell you how you can build up your site, honestly, so we can learn who you are and what you have to offer.

[ Parent ]
hmm (0.00 / 0)
Your logic is impeccable.  But no wonder the netroots doesn't know what it's looking for; it doesn't even have time to search!
[ Parent ]
re: searching (0.00 / 0)
we do it all the time, but you're in a bind:  the fewer people have already found you, the harder it is for us to find you. 

If you pursue the strategy I just described, you make it much easier for us to find you.

Jane managed to get to know John Amato at Crooks and Liars, and that made a big difference in helping FDL grow, along with all the other strategies she pursued, which between the two of us, Jane and I have made very public for others to copy.

I could go put up a post and link to it right now, and after your traffic bump, you'd go back to almost the level of your existing traffic.  That's like giving you a fish.  Jane and I are trying to teach people how to fish.  We think that's much more helpful.  And there's many more people out there who can help boost traffic than us.

[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
But it seems to me that if you're looking for something actually relatively unique, instead of the floods of self-referential blather about the same 7 or 8 national political subjects that 95% of bloggers in "the netroots mainstream" blog about, you'll find new blogs about unique subjects relatively quickly, all the same.

It seems to me that the instinct is to just not look for them.  And if you don't have the time to search for new blood, maybe you need to change your entire model.

[ Parent ]
Subject choice does drive traffic (0.00 / 0)
Here's the thing:  writing about subjects that do not riff of the news cycle or the hot topics, or relate to the interests of the audience out there, won't get you traffic.  We can say they should be interested, but that's not how audience dynamics work.

Does that mean you can't broaden the conversation?

No.

But you have to respect the audience, the existing "marketplace," as it were. 

Jane writes about this in her post, how she made a platform for her signature issue - choice - by working it into stories about Alito, Lieberman, Lamont, etc.  Those were all hot subjects, and she got to show the failures of NARAL national through them.

We could write about an off topic and it would not automatically generate an audience for that subject unless we related it to another angle that does interest people.  And for all that, we do invest blog space in subjects and posts that we know will not draw traffic. 

For example, we do a weekly bit from Tula Connell on labor that gets few comments and drives no traffic to us, but we do it because we believe in the importance of giving that material a platform, and because we want to help continue to build coalitions with the netroots and labor.

Does all that make sense?  If you have not read Jane's post linked by Matt up top, please check it out.  She talks about how she did this.

[ Parent ]
Understood (0.00 / 0)
But it seems to me that you're now just stuck in the same sort of time-and-commitment loop that Washington politicians are stuck in.  Kind of ironic, really... since the netroots grew up initially in response to politicians not having the time or inclination to listen to or observe what their constituents were saying.

And your explanation of why this has to be so, sounds curiously like what the politicians say (kindly, even regretfully) to their constituents.

It's good, though, that some netroots mainstreamers have become so secure and elite, that they now have the time to set up a blog like OpenLeft where they can come and lament about a lack of diversity.  :-)

[ Parent ]
an insightful point (4.00 / 1)
and not one that feels good.  But it is fundamentally true that it takes good organizing, strategy and a lot of showing up to create power and change the landscape, no matter who delivers that message.

Now, some politicians say that sort of thing as a way to excuse themselves from their responsibilities, and if you think we're doing that, well, I hope you don't, because we're working a whole lot to expand the spectrum and bring new people in, helping them get the platforms they need and trying to share what we've learned along the way without saying "you have to do it our way" or trying to dictate anything.

Really, what else would you have us do?  Citizenship is hard work, and we're all trying, at least in our part of the world, to help each other do it.

[ Parent ]
taking responsibility (0.00 / 0)
There's a skill in building up a large audience.  Pach is sharing his skills in doing so.

There are choices you have to make to get that to happen, and one of them is to meet people where they are and not where you wished they were.  You may lament the fact that the news cycle doesn't discuss issues you care about, but pretending that the news cycle is the fault of someone like Pach is counterproductive.  FDL works extremely hard to maintain a large audience and broaden the conversation.

I think you'll be much stronger if you take what he's leaving you, learn from it, amplify it, change it, and make it your own.  There's real power in what he's saying.

[ Parent ]
Understood (0.00 / 0)
But to be completely honest... y'all sound a lot like my (RINO) state senator on the realities of constituent service and his busy day.  I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe that you (or anyone you send) will serve my interests better than he would, if you're all just really playing the same game and there's no choice to do anything but.  I mean, at least I am familiar with this guy.

I mean, if you really feel like the blogosphere is not expanding or something is at a standstill or you're not "consolidating your power" or whatever, look no further than this.  The ordinary observer really doesn't see anything particularly special about what you're doing -- it looks just pretty much like what their own elected officials do, what their own news media does, and according to the same mechanism which isn't helping the country very much at this point.  You just want to take existing pieces and rearrange them somehow in a manner that might be pleasing to this or that demographic.  That's not real change of a system.

I honestly also don't know how you can have such worship of "traffic" as a basic building block of revolutionary change. (But maybe you don't want that? Perhaps the central misunderstanding here?)  "Traffic" is useful for advertising something.  Not necessarily for building real, vital networks.  You have scads of traffic on your sites, but no real relationship to the American people at large -- not even, I dare say, to the greater blogosphere which you are too exhausted to explore.

All discussion of "power" at this point is purely academic.

[ Parent ]
traffic (0.00 / 0)
is just engagement of people.  We want to reach more people to help bring about change.  This is bad now?  It provides a base for organizing and exerting influence for change.  Isn't that the goal?

And the statement: 

"Not necessarily for building real, vital networks.  You have scads of traffic on your sites, but no real relationship to the American people at large -- not even, I dare say, to the greater blogosphere which you are too exhausted to explore."

is very disrespectful to the people who do come to read us every day, though I suppose they're not real enough for you?  Your statement (not you, but your statement) is insulting and ignorant, not to much to me, but disrespectful to them.

I'll tell you what:  when you go out and do all this better than what we're doing, you can come back and lecture me on how all the work we're doing amounts to nothing.

If you seriously don't see the difference between a politician who works to raise money, get elected and stay elected, playing the lobbyist game, and what we're doing to open up the whole system, when there are no barriers to other creating blogs like ours other than the work to get it done (the stuff we've already tried to dissect for everyone and make public), then ask yourself:  are you just being intellectually lazy, or looking for an excuse to avoid taking responsibility to bring about change? 

There are only so many elected official spots, by law.  That IS a closed list.  Blogs?  Not so much.

[ Parent ]
Respect (0.00 / 0)
is very disrespectful to the people who do come to read us every day,

If so, I'm sure they'll get over it.

[ Parent ]
Hey, Matt (0.00 / 0)
I just put up a diary (my first), spurred by all this discussion of diversity in the blogosphere.  Specifically, about why the Jena Six is an issue that deserves to be covered on Open Left and I think relates very closely to some issues you've talked about in earlier posts. I hope you find it convincing or at least interesting.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
"just do it"

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
Well ... (0.00 / 0)
... small nitpick: the defeat of Cynthia McKinney hardly amounted to a great loss for the progressive movement.

While she had some issue stances that signaled good movement politics, her testy interactions w/ the Jewish community -- compounded by her reluctance to disavow the antisemitism of her father, who chaired her campaigns -- more than justified the intervention of Jewish organizations against her. In 2002, her district had the largest Jewish population in Georgia, so you can understand why AIPAC and others would get involved. (She also ticked off the district's Indian-American population. Bad move, that.)

I've written about this quite a bit. (Full disclosure, BTW: I staffed a primary campaign against her in 2004, when she got back into Congress for one last term.)

BULLSHIT! (0.00 / 0)
AIPAC has no problem with anti-Semitism, just as long as support for Israeli imperialism remains intact.  The entire Christian Zionist movement is predicated on the future genocide of the Jews, yet, not a problem!

McKinney was targetted first, then the excuses were found.  And the reasons go all the way back to her time in the GA state lege.  She has never been part of the system, in a state where the system is as strong as anywhere in the country.

Does this mean she's perfect?  No, of course not.  No one is.  But she's the kind of independent voice that's vital, when virtually everyone else is precalculated and unwilling to be the first to speak out.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Barnyard epithets aside ... (0.00 / 0)

... like I said, I've written about this quite a bit -- and I have a good ten years of experience as a resident of her district to back those observations up with. You? (And as Matt said in the main post, be specific. Statements like:


McKinney was targetted first, then the excuses were found.  And the reasons go all the way back to her time in the GA state lege.

... ≠ a convincing rebuttal.)


[ Parent ]
I'll be specific (0.00 / 0)
If you want to create a diverse, multiracial group, then the top leadership has to be diverse and multiracial.  It's that simple.  Look, creating a diverse organization does not have to be your goal.  If people of color want to create people of color sites that's fine.  If white liberals, want to create white liberal sites, that's fine too.  But if diversity is your goal, power in the organization has to be in the hands of a diverse group.
what is the organization here. . . (0.00 / 0)
of the progressive blogosphere?

Who's in charge and how is that measured?

It seems a lot of these discussion focus around who is or is not a blogger, or what is the netroots, and who is in charge, and although I write at one of the more well knwon liberal blogs, I sure as hell don't know who's in charge.  Seems, still, like no one, though there are networks of influence and influential people. 

Those people do a lot of reaching out, but there's no structure to "appoint" or "designate" these leaders.  It's all organic, and it comes from building an audience and making contacts with others in the blogosphere.

[ Parent ]
It's not that hard to create a diverse leadership group (0.00 / 0)
You correctly point out that there are two issues here.  First, the lack of diversity in the leadership of particular blogs or online communities.  Second, the lack of diversity in the progressive blogosphere.  I was writing about the issue of diversity in specific blogs and communities -- a much easier challenge and one for which each blog/community should be responsible and accountable.
I don't understand what this means (0.00 / 0)
"Politics is about power, and power in America cuts through race and identity."

Can you elaborate? Are you saying power is "colorblind?" Because that might be a little tough to take for the people in New Orleans.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

Diversity: Be Specific, Dammit | 26 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox