Please Revise...

What We Talk About When We Talk About Women in Politics

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:03:00 -0400

Inspired by an excellent series of panels and events organized by Women in Toronto Politics (creep them at @WiTOpoli or their network at #WiTOpoli) and my own work contributing to the Academy of the Impossible’s Campaign School series (creep us at @impossibledotws or #CampaignSchool), I have spent a good measure of the past few weeks thinking about the shape of pushes to attract and engage women in the political process.

These attempts are not limited to encouraging women to seek political office but extend to a variety of other forms of participation ranging from activism and community-organizing to journalism and agenda-setting.

There have been several excellent recaps of the core themes discussed at each of the WiTOpoli events held so far, and they come highly recommended. What follows are a few supplemental concepts that I’d submit as relevant moving forward.

AVOID UNDERSTATING GENDER

There is a myth of systemic parity in matters of gender that seems to be attracting less scrutiny than ever before. It is unclear whether the intention is decidedly sinister, perhaps instead driven by a combination of impatient optimism and an attempt to highlight the contribution of trailblazers that have inarguably shattered walls and ceilings for women in many facets of life.

Regardless of the motives involved, people are increasingly going to argue that we are living in the 21^st century and women have all the same opportunities that men do to participate in any political activity they desire.

That is simply not true. Don’t let them get away with it.

AVOID OVERSTATING GENDER

Women can transform politics. They can make Council more conciliatory. They can make compelling cases for “women’s issues” like childcare and education.

They can do all these things, sure. But women also have every right to treat the political process with the same level of contempt and paranoia as the current political establishment does. It is not womankind’s job to transform politics, solve perpetual conflict, or nurture western society though adolescence.

WOMEN ARE NOT ALL THE SAME

Without a doubt, eye-rolls-per-minute peak whenever anyone tries to make a general statement about what women think/feel/know/bring. Being clear that women are individuals with different and conflicting concerns and approaches encourages engagement efforts to radiate evenly across age, geography, socioeconomic status, and ethnic/religious identification.

The simple act of starting sentences with “A woman could…” instead of “Women can…” has been anecdotally shown to lower a room’s EPM by up to 86%.

KEEP PARTISANSHIP OUT OF IT

During the first WiTOpoli panel, an exchange arose ending in a statement somewhere along the lines of “What if we end up with a bunch of Nunziatas?”

The question prompted chuckles, but perhaps shouldn’t have. I want my niece or a co-worker to feel comfortable running for office regardless of her politics or approach. It is perfectly reasonable for ideology to inform debates about gender and vice versa, but that discussion shouldn’t take place at the front door.

HOW DO WE MEASURE SUCCESS?

This point is contentious, and arguments are made for both tangible and intangible metrics.

Some say it should be measured by gender parity among elected officials; others prefer parity among initial candidates. Some suggest that success should be measured in the financial infrastructure that women have access to; others in perceptions of the internal and external stigmas surrounding them.

The obvious conclusion is that everyone examines what constitutes success through different lenses and, for the sake of making headway though the widest range of channels possible, the celebration of different parties’ pets and passions should probably be encouraged.

WHAT ARE MEN TO DO?

It is likely lost on no one that this post is being written by a man (a SWM at that), and I think it is worthwhile to be clear about the level of humility with which many of us venture a contribution to this discussion.

So what were all the dudes in the audience thinking about WiTOpoli?

No idea. Feel free to ask them. If pressed, I’d venture that we wanted to learn, interact, and show commitment to a process that we feel connected to.

We weren’t there because we thought our presence legitimized or enabled anything. We were there because we’re as tired of dealing with dim, shallow patriarchs as anyone else.

So. ….what’s next?

Love how CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield goes after Obama For...

Wed, 16 May 2012 08:31:38 -0400

Love how CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield goes after Obama For America Campaign National Press Secretary Ben LaBolt here.

WEDNESDAY RECAP: GAYS, GUNS, AND GEEZERS

Wed, 09 May 2012 09:08:00 -0400

A couple interesting things happened in the US last night, with a range of presidential primaries, senatorial primaries and ballot measures taking place in several states.

A couple notes:

NORTH CAROLINA

You have no doubt heard about the passage of North Carolina’s constitutional amendment solidifying the state’s stance against gay relationships. What is significant about the measure is that same-sex marriage was actually already illegal in the state, and what voters enshrined into the State’s constitution was much more significant.

The language of the bill not only goes further than marriage, banning same-sex civil unions, but also changes the way that the State recognizes a range of existing heterosexual domestic partnerships including those affected by child custody agreements, domestic violence, and other similar conditions.

But don’t be too hard on North Carolinians; if anything they were late to the party. North Carolina was actually the only Southern state remaining to not have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the books. It becomes the 30th US State with a similar provision in its constitution, compared with six states (and DC) where gay marriage is currently legal.

INDIANA

36 years as a US Senator wasn’t enough to save Dick Lugar from the wrath of the Tea Party. Yes, that still exists. Senator Lugar was defeated in his Republican primary last night by state treasurer Richard Mourdock, meaning that if he wants to run to keep his Senate seat in November, he will have to do so as an independent candidate. Lugar was such an institution in his home state that Democrats stopped running candidates against him; in 2006, he was re-elected with 87% of the vote.

Mr. Mourdock’s victory, funded in large part by the National Rifle Association and Dick Armey’s Tea Party group Freedom Works, is the most recent in a wave of very conservative challengers overtaking more moderate Republican incumbents across the country. Think Rick Scott in Florida or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Regardless of who Democrats put up in November, the dynamics of this Senate race will be fascinating to follow.

WISCONSIN

Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker has become a national figure over the past year after starting a very public crusade against collective bargaining in his state upon assuming office in 2010. Earlier this year, labour unions and Democrats managed to collect enough signatures to force a vote to recall the Governor from office and, yesterday, they picked their candidate to run against him.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barret finally got the call after a crowded and contentious nomination process that seems to have stripped a significant amount of momentum from the recall effort. Despite very low approval ratings for the incumbent, most still consider this a toss-up with about a month left to go. The national attention that Walker’ policies have attracted has in many ways turned this race into a national proxy for the fall, so expect lots of out-of-state cash here.

Visual Researcher’s Note: The person pictured above is a different Scott Walker, it was just too cool an image not to include.

Further Visual Researcher’s Note: Also, no, that is not Beck.

DID PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FALLON SEGMENT VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS?

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:27:41 -0400

Over at Breitbart.com, Ben Shapiro argues that President Obama violated equal-time provisions in US campaign finance law when he appeared in a popular “Slow-Jam the News” segment on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon Tuesday.

The President appeared on the program as part of a week-long college tour designed to drum up support for a vote to extend current student loan rates at 3.4%. Otherwise, the rates would be set to double over the summer.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner has called a vote for Friday, and has structured language to have the cost of the extension covered from Obama’s infamous Affordable Care Act.

In his post, Shapiro argues that because the segment does not fit into one of the four exceptions of equal-time provisions for broadcasters (a bona fide newscast, a bona fide news interview, a bona fide news documentary, on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events), NBC should face fines from the Federal Communications Commission and “Mitt Romney should be given equal time, and an equally sycophantic propaganda piece by Fallon.”

I am in many ways sympathetic to the argument that the actual SJTN segment, taken in isolation from the “bona fine news interview” that preceded it, falls outside of these exceptions. Unfortunately for Shapiro, precedent suggests that the FCC would not weigh in on this, and if they did, would conclude that no rules were broken. It it disingenuous for Shapiro to interpret the wording of the provisions without considering their prior applicability.

What irked me most about his reporting however, was the inclusion of any mention of Mitt Romney. Remember, Mitt Romney is only a stated candidate for the Presidency of the United States and has not yet earned the nomination of the party through which he filed.

Under Shapiro’s logic, these are the a list of people who should also be allowed to slow jam with Jimmy in the coming days:

Ron Paul (Candidate, Republican Party)
Darcy Richardson (Candidate, Democratic Party)
Jim Rogers (Candidate, Democratic Party)
Randall Terry (Candidate, Democratic Party)
John Wolfe, Jr. (Candidate, Democratic Party)
Rocky Anderson (Candidate, Americans Elect / Justice Party)
Laurence Kotlikoff (Candidate, Americans Elect)
Buddy Roemer (Candidate, Americans Elect / Reform Party USA)
Merlin Miller (Candidate, American Third Position Party)
Tom Hoefling (Nominee, America’s Party)
Jim Duensing (Nominee, Boston Tea Party)
Virgil Goode (Nominee, Constitution Party)
Stephen Durham (Nominee, Freedom Socialist Party)
Roseanne Barr (Candidate, Green Party)
Kent Mesplay (Candidate, Green Party)
Gary Johnson (Candidate, Libertarian Party)
Carl Person (Candidate, Libertarian Party)
Sam Sloan (Candidate, Libertarian Party)
Bill Still (Candidate, Libertarian Party)
R. Lee Wrights (Candidate, Libertarian Party)
Tom Stevens (Nominee, Objectivist Party)
Peta Lindsay (Nominee, Party for Socialism and Liberation)
Jack Fellure (Nominee, Prohibition Party)
Andre Barnett (Nominee, Reform Party USA)
Jerry White (Nominee, Socialist Equality Party)
Stewart Alexander (Nominee, Socialist Party USA)
Lee Abramson (Candidate, Independent)
Randy Blythe (Candidate, Independent)
Robert “Naked Cowboy” Burck (Candidate, Independent)
Terry Jones (Candidate, Independent)
Joe Schriner (Candidate, Independent)

So, no.

As a good complement to the premiere episode of Academy of the...

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:09:04 -0400

As a good complement to the premiere episode of Academy of the Impossible’s Campaign School podcast, watch Chuck Todd preview state-by-state Electoral College scenarios for the 2012 Presidential Election.

ARIZONA: WHERE LIFE BEGINS BEFORE …IT EXISTS Arizona has...

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:16:00 -0400

ARIZONA: WHERE LIFE BEGINS BEFORE …IT EXISTS

Arizona has become a magnet for controversial, often bizarre legislation under first-term Republican Governor Jan Brewer. The trend gelled after the introduction of SB-1070 (more commonly cited as Arizona’s “Papers Please” law), a bill which made it a misdemeanor for an illegal alien to be in the state without identification.

The law not only forced police into the awkward position of employing systematic racial profiling in their daily processes, but also made it a detainable offense for any pseudo-latin-looking person to interact with police without being able to prove their citizenship on the spot.

This week, after page eight of the innocuous-sounding HB-2036 passed the State legislature, Arizona is in the spotlight once again.

Of particular note in the above clip from MSNBC’s Now with Alex Wagner is the scrumptiously dry outrage of Patricia Murphy and former RNC Chair Michael Steele using the phrase “vaginal outcomes.”

To be clear, the discussion in the clip is not complete. The bill is technically correct to define gestation as beginning at “egg drop;” indeed medical professionals already use this timetable to define the length of a pregnancy.

What is different about this particular piece of legislation is that it shifts away from a conception trigger to a gestation trigger which, when combined with pseudo-scientific findings that fetuses “feel pain” after 20 weeks, allows lawmakers to chip the legal window for an abortion to a startling 18 weeks.

Yikes.

Anatomy of an Apology

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:52:38 -0400

This week, prolific Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen came under fire for comments she made on Anderson Cooper’s CNN program about Mitt Romney’s wife Ann. Rosen suggested that Mrs. Romney could not be in touch with the economic struggles of women based on the fact that she had spent her adult life as a stay-at-home mother, and had therefore “never worked a day in her life.”

The comments were (rightly) controversial, setting off a firestorm on Twitter and other politico-heavy forums. In fact, at one point yesterday, Ann Romney was even out-trending both President Obama and Justin Bieber on the network.

I think many would be willing to chalk this up to a verbal gaffe rather than a silly opinion; Mrs. Rosen has been a good asset to Democrats on issues affecting women in the past. Rosen did however not help herself by publishing a rather scrappy post on HuffPo shortly after the comments went viral.

One thing that was remarkable, however, was Rosen’s eventual apology.

This is what public (non)apologies in the media almost always look like: “I regret making those remarks and apologize to anyone who may have been offended.”

This was Mrs. Rosen’s apology: “I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended.”

Big difference. Good on Rosen.

The Romney campaign even got a nice perk out of the brouhaha: Ann Romney signed up for a Twitter account in order to get in on the fun. Her handle now has over 30 000 followers, and stands to be a valuable asset moving forward.

HuffPo’s Sam Stein elicits an epic awkward pause on...

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:42:00 -0400

HuffPo’s Sam Stein elicits an *epic* awkward pause on Romney conference call.

The gaffe shouldn’t be read as any indication of whether Romney supports or opposes the law, which promotes gender-based pay equity and was the first bill Obama passed as President. The staffer clearly did not know Mr. Romney’s position on the bill, and was right not to hazard one.

A fair critique, however, is that with a massive and public gender gap (ABC/WaPo has Obama up by 20 points among female voters) haunting the Romney campaign, there is no excuse not to have been prepared for that question.

FOR FUN: SUPER TUESDAY

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:32:00 -0500

Super Tuesday, giving ten states their say in this year’s Republican Party Presidential nomination process, goes tonight. Primaries are being held in Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, Oklahoma and Tennessee, and caucuses in Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska.

Ohio and Tennessee are likely the only contests up for grabs this evening, so I will skip the predictions/presumptions model and pick a winner in each state. Also, stay tuned for a post on (spoiler alert!) what Mitt Romney will have to do to have a change in November.

OHIO: Romney by 3 or 4 points.

GEORGIA: Gingrich easily carries home state.

MASSACHUSETTS: Romney carries home state, garnering 60%+.

VERMONT: Romney easily.

VIRGINIA: Only Romney and Paul on ballot here, Romney over 60%.

OKLAHOMA: Romney squeaks past Santorum. Within a point or two.

TENNESSEE: Only true three-way race. If both Gingrich and Santorum are up above 30%, Romney wins. Santorum could take state if enough Gingrich supporters defect late.

IDAHO: Meh. Romney.

NORTH DAKOTA: Meh. Romney.

ALASKA: Meh. Ron Paul has a good shot.

Kansas, Mississippi, Hawaii, and Alabama all go next week.

FOR FUN: MICHIGAN PRIMARY PREDICTIONS

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:22:00 -0500

Big night tonight for both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum as the Republican Presidential race sweeps though the Great Lake State.

FIRST, THE PREDICTIONS:

Romney 39

Santorum 35

Paul 16

Gingrich 10

SECOND, THE PRESUMPTIONS:

Michigan is a funny state, and another where members of any party can vote in a primary.

Santorum’s campaign is now running robocalls urging Democrats to vote for him in order to “send a message to Romney,” although they have so far declined to quantify what “message” that would represent. If the argument is that Dems think they would have a harder time running against Romney in a general election, it seems a pretty cynical plea. I would be surprised if the dynamic had a huge impact on tonight’s result.

Both candidates have not had great weeks, succumbing to gaffes that feed existing narratives about their candidacies.

Romney followed up an odd description of his connection to Michigan’s natural beauty with an everyman-pilgrimage to Daytona. There, he deflected his casual NASCAR fandom by citing friendships with several team owners (*communicatons director’s head explodes*). Perhaps more striking was his attempt to downplay his wife’s multiple Cadillacs by implying that she needed one for each of their homes. Not too on message for a candidate struggling to wave down from the penthouse.

These kinds of statements, retaining cohesion with previous remarks about firing people, corporate personhood, and “illegals,” are indicative of a candidate who has difficulty integrating coms advice into his stump. In a primary this is an inconvenience. In a general election, a liability.

More substantively, Romney’s well publicized opposition to the auto bailout has given him trouble among Wolverines. Most agree that the policy succeeded in minimizing damage to a core American industry, and polling shows strong support for the Bush-backed bailout even among Michigan Republicans. Unfortunately for Romney, a sensitivity towards accusations of flip-flopping made it unwise to temper his position when prompted.

Santorum, who has worked a good mixture of blue-collar, manufacturing-centric populism and passionate social conservatism in previous states, entered Michigan in surprising condition. Fresh from good showings in a few Midwest beauty-contests and swallowing receding support for Romney and Gingrich, Santorum actually looked like a good bet in Michigan over the last two weeks.

He too would suffer from several verbal lapses however, including repeatedly highlighting a startling stance on birth control, bringing way too much process-related jargon into the Arizona Debate, and suggesting that striving for post-secondary education for your child was “snob[ish].” Eek.

All in all, it looks to be a tough evening for both frontrunners: Romney would have to win by 6 or 7 points to declare any sort of victory in a state he should have carried by 15+. Unfortunately for his campaign, he seems unlikely to do so.

As for Santorum, the optics are still not good. The two-week gap between previous contests and this Michigan Primary artificially broadened his momentum, making a finish above 35% (which is theoretically a superb result for him in Michigan) seem disappointing so long as Romney finishes ahead of him. If Santorum squeaks out a victory, however, his coms team has more to run with than Romney’s.

As for the second tier candidates, Gingrich has carved his niche as the only true neo-conservative left standing and maintains reasonable support from hawkish primary voters.

In Ron Paul’s case, I could literally copy and paste this from any previous post: The man polls at 15% among virtually any group any place any time. Michigan, with a good number of moderate pacifists and anti-corporatists, gives him a good base.

It should be noted that Arizona also votes today, though since no candidates other than Romney are competing there (large Mormon population) it didn’t need all that much dissection. Prediction would be Romney 44, Santorum 27, Gingrich 15, Paul 14.

Super Tuesday goes March 6, featuring caucuses in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota, and primaries in Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. Fun!

For Fun: Florida Primary Predictions

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:31:28 -0500

PREDICTION:

ROMNEY 44 GINGRICH 30 PAUL 13 SANTORUM 12

EXPLAINER:

ROMNEY 44

Romney emerges from Florida bruised nationally but arguably stronger within his party. The Gingrich scare, which is by no means over, has drawn establishment tongues and money to his side. Though neither Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio could afford to endorse Romney in their home states, their overall approval was implicit.

Somewhat surprising is Romney’s support among Latino primary voters, considering his hard-line positions on illegal immigration and border security. His team will be hoping that Hispanic Republicans can sell Romney’s appeal to their independent and Democratic compadres in November.

If I were advising Romney, I would not have him use the word “Gingrich” at all in the month of February. If he is to win his party’s nomination (I’d now put the likelihood at 65%), he should do it on Obama’s back, not Newt’s. This provides a natural transition from convention to campaign, and gives his staffers (just ask the New York Times) some much-needed time to finesse his economic message.

GINGRICH 30

Florida is the first of the GOP Primary states that operates outside regional or demographic microcosms. In many ways it is the first true test for political campaigns; you cannot win the state with bus tours and hand-shaking alone.

Ad buys, particularly from the Romney camp and his 100% completely unaffiliated super-PAC, have approached $20 million. And, much like in Iowa earlier this year, Gingrich seems unable to stay on message when being prodded.

Two sub-par debate performances (one with a no-audience-reaction stipulation, the other with an puzzlingly pro-Romney crowd) didn’t help Gingrich, and his suite of 1%-type attacks on Romney fell flat in a state that elected Rick Scott just over a year ago.

Gingrich, often noted for his vindictiveness and sense of ego, will remain in the mix through the convention, but likely under no illusion that he will be the Republican nominee for President. His goal now is probably to tear off chunks of Romney as substitutes for the fresh gashes in is own legacy.

With lots of southern states and states with proportional splitting of delegates remaining, yet another comeback is not impossible. After all, only 5% of delegates have so far been assigned.

PAUL 13

Again, Ron Paul could get 15% of the vote in wet-Tshirt contest he didn’t even enter. In a state that only allows registered Republicans to vote in GOP Primaries, his numbers drop slightly.

SANTORUM 12

Santorum spent much of his Florida campaign at home, caring for his young daughter who was hospitalized with pneumonia. Santorum, often criticized for bastardizing the phrase “family values,” should be commended for his decision to do so.

It is worth noting that (if my predictions hold) this is the first time that the sum of Santorum and Gingrich’s totals are below that of Romney. It seems this might be the right time for Santorum to bow out, as his loss of momentum can flow though narratives of choosing family over ambition. If I were him, I would do so without immediately endorsing either candidate.

On to the February vacuum.

insertimage: Concerned Iguana Decided to start a sub-blog of...

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:34:25 -0500

insertimage:

Concerned Iguana

Decided to start a sub-blog of memes and images. You’ll know which ones are originals because they won’t be all that funny.

For Fun: South Carolina Primary Predictions

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:28:43 -0500

PREDICTION:

GINGRICH 37 ROMNEY 34 SANTORUM 14 PAUL 14 CAIN 1

EXPLAINER:

GINGRICH 37

Newt has momentum. At one point in December, he was carrying the state by over 10 points in a significantly more fractured field. Though he plummeted after a brutal Iowa effort, the propensity of conditional votes is there.

Obviously the resurfacing allegations from his ex-wife (adultery, requesting open marriage, etc.) do not help Gingrich in densely religious South Carolina. But his campaign’s efforts to diffuse the issue by turning it back on the press is smart strategy. Deep South paranoia about the media is in many ways as visceral as guns or gays.

ROMNEY 34

Mitt had a rough go here, but stayed on message though behemoth ad spending by Winning our Future, the SuperPAC that doesn’t coordinate with Gingrich. At all. But sketchiness on releasing his tax records dampened his support late, including a dismal response in last night’s CNN Debate.

The issue is a bit of a perfect storm for rival campaigns. On the one hand, it emphasizes one of his greatest weaknesses: the perception that he is a flesh-and-blood caricature of a 1%er. On the other, it nibbles away at his greatest strength: perceived electability. Voters are now worried that Romney is hiding something in his records (which, in all likelihood, he isn’t) that could sink him after he has already secured the nomination.

A quick note on this. A couple people have suggested to me that it was a mistake for Romney not to release his tax records right away. I disagree.

There is no doubt that Romney will have to release the records eventually, if not in these primaries then ahead of the general. If I were advising Romney, I would rather take the time to walk my candidate through every single line of those documents and make sure he can answer any media question the way I want him to before I release them. If it costs him ten points in South Carolina, fine. But trouble explaining salty portions of hastily released tax documents would have much more significant consequences now and in November.

SANTORUM 14

Santorum had a strong, scrappy performance in both debates and remains the only choice for true Evangelicals. Though Rick Perry endorsed Gingrich on his way out of the race yesterday, the last few weeks of the Texas governor’s campaign were focused on the religious base (social issues, Iran hawkishness, etc). As such, I would expect many Perry supporters to move to Santorum, probably splitting 50-50 Santorum-Gingrich. Looking forward, I would be surprised if Santorum has the money or support behind the curtain to last until Florida.

PAUL 14

Ron Paul could poll at 15% in a nursery. He has a solid following that doesn’t actually care who wins the GOP nomination. Paul will stay in the race until the end, and will not run as a third party candidate. There. I just saved you a drink or two.

CAIN 1

Stephen Colbert, whose ongoing meta-comedy art project has him jazz-handing though the politics of his home state, has suggested people use a write-in for Cain as a way to vote for his “candidacy.” I don’t actually expect he will break 1%, but we can all dream.

Speaking of drink wagers, I definitely recall betting a politico friend in October that Cain would be long gone by South Carolina. This better not count.

Should be a fun night.

"Defining" Public Relations

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:03:00 -0500

It appears that the PR field is attempting to get out in front of a crisis of its own.

A friend recently directed me to the website of the Public Relations Society of America, who have undertaken an initiative to develop contemporary language to describe their field. They have branded their project Public Relations Defined.

The group has just released three proposed definitions, and asked for comments:

Definition No. 1:

Public relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually-beneficial relationships and achieve results.

Definition No. 2:

Public relations is a strategic communication process that develops and maintains mutually-beneficial relationships between organizations and their key publics.

Definition No. 3:

Public relations is the engagement between organizations and individuals to achieve mutual understanding and realize strategic goals.

Some comments:

Each of the definitions themselves are, in a sense, classic PR. They nimbly toggle between precise and imprecise language, positive and negative connotation, and over- and de-emphasization, steering sentences through disorienting chicanes designed to disguise and absorb meaning (Early bias alert: I absolutely love the stuff).

The first is by far the worst offender, guilty of both peripherous language and a rather dubious “ethics” postulate. I am not the type to rail against PR as universal agent of sinister manipulation, but the drafters thickly ignore that virtually anything can be seen as unethical to someone. Is a pro managing alcohol, cosmetic, or automotive accounts no longer participating in Public Relations?

Definitions 2 and 3 are less offensive, but remain difficult to endorse.

A broad critique is that they seem to only define *successful* public relations dynamics, rather than speak to the field as a whole. The liberty would be akin to defining gambling as “Winning money through structured wagers.” Yes, the quibble can be easily negated by penciling an “attempts to” into the right spot, but its presence within the current language really does limit its applicability.

Similarly, in theorizing a definition more in tune with contemporary trends in the industry, it seems odd for the drafters to have canonized a presumption that organizations still have set and exclusive “key publics” to watch over. On second thought, probably best not to get me started on the suitability of the term “key publics” in the first place.

Perhaps most problematic, however, is the “mutually-beneficial relationship” designation present to some degree in all three proposals. That language is all kinds of funky.

The big question is obvious: What is meant my mutually-beneficial? Who gets to define it and when? The answer is clearly debatable, which is why I might discourage its inclusion in what is intended as a succinct statement.

My take would be that despite a new focus on engagement and exchange, the field of Public Relations remains largely unidirectional. Yes, PR firms essentially mediate relationships between multiple parties. But only one is paying them. And while any strategy worth its salt provides stability by balancing the interests of all involved, what agencies bill for is expertise in moving the fulcrum as close to their employer as possible. Suggesting otherwise is insincere.

At best, therefore, “mutually-beneficial” can be read as a redundant buzzword, and should be cut. At worst, it suggests a curious inability among PR professionals to step back from the language of their profession and concisely define their role.

All this to say that if I were forced to pick one definition from the list, it would be number 3. But if my reason for doing so is that it seems to lend the least precision to what it attempts to define, surely we can do better.

The Internet as Civic Right

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:49:00 -0500

In a neat op-ed, Vint Cerf argues that we can’t rationalize internet access as a human right.

On that I think I agree with him. The designation of human rights should be reserved for core tenets that permit basic health, basic safety, and basic agency.

My agreement ends, however, with Mr. Cerf’s implication that internet access should also not be considered a civic right. My objection here is to the premise, not the reality. To my knowledge, there is no jurisdiction that recognizes web access in this way, and in that sense Mr. Cerf’s analysis is correct.

But civic rights, unlike human rights, are not static or universal. They are bound by borders, real and imagined.

My civic rights as a Canadian are different from those of a Luxembourger or a Singaporean. And one of those rights is the ability of citizens to review, redact, and reinforce the laws that govern them.

If a nation decides that it wants a reasonable standard of internet access to be one of the base opportunities that it guarantees its citizens (and catalyzes legislation to cement it), those ideals instantly become a recognized civic right of that society. I reject the contention that the fact that it hasn’t yet happened means that it can’t, or shouldn’t.

For Fun: Iowa Caucus Predictions

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:58:00 -0500

Sometimes the internet delivers, like when you are looking for an image of an elephant made of corn.

Alas, the big day is here! The fabled Iowa caucuses meet today in what constitutes the first delegate-designator of the Republican presidential nomination process. I will let Google explain the goofy (and, yes, often perplexing) caucus tradition in Iowa and other states. Results are likely around 8pm ET. Just be sure not to Google the word “Santorum” at work…

First, the predictions:

Santorum 34

Romney 24

Paul 18

Perry 8

Gingrich 7

Bachmann 7

Huntsman 2

Second, the presumptions:

Evangelicals retain the balance of power in Iowa. When Mike Huckabee won with 34% support in 2008 (eventual nominee John McCain was just under 15%, if memory serves), it was because his campaign gained momentum at just the right time (helped largely by the collapse of Fred Thompson, seen as the other potential Evangelical-approved candidate). Unfortunately for Huckabee, bad advice to stump in notoriously un-religious New Hampshire and take South Carolina for granted ensured that the symbolic victory would yield nothing but a weekly program on the Fox News Channel.

Santorum’s prospects follow a similar narrative, wherein the collapse of an inflated Gingrich campaign leaves a large, socially-conservative voting block without a candidate. The main difference between 2012 and 2008 is that today’s race has several candidates (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann) competing for the evangelical vote instead of the singular Huckabee. With each of those other campaigns sputtering (Perry still has a lot of money, mind you), Santorum seems the logical release valve.

In this sense, the at times startlingly socially conservative Santorum seems to have peaked at the right time. In a delegate-poor but momentum-rich state like Iowa, Evangelicals tend to be interested in sending a message to the rest of the country that christian ideals remain important. The specific candidate, often, is unimportant.

Moreso, the caucus process, wherein groups of people are lured to a specific candidate’s corner of a library or gymnasium and eventually head-counted, is significantly more conducive to the influence of momentum and crowd psychology than a traditional secret ballot.

In essence, come caucus time, most Evangelical voters won’t care about the specifics of Santorum’s position on, say, capital gains. They will simply look for the largest crowd among the Evangelical-acceptable candidates, and coalesce.

So what does a Santorum win mean, broadly? Well, nothing. If I were advising him, I would recommend he skip New Hampshire entirely and focus on South Carolina. Losing there would mean an even-earlier end to his campaign.

As for the other candidates, Iowa offers little. Paul remains burdened by a fanatical following with a cement ceiling. Perry and Bachmann peaked months early, and have never recovered from gaffe-filled campaigns. The same goes for Gingrich, who has been thrashed so vitriolically during Iowans’ commercial breaks that he actually seemed to decry post-Citizens United politics this week (!). Apparently there is also some elitist/socialist candidate named Jon Huntsman in the mix, though he will have to finish above 25% in New Hampshire to have enough money to persevere.

Which leaves Mitt Romney. The presumptive nominee, who rarely polls above 25% just about anywhere, was a victim of poor advice in framing the Iowa contest, and the result could hurt him nationally. In the fall, Romney’s camp had smartly avoided getting drawn into the Iowa fray, allowing them to downplay his predictable 25% tally (good for a tight 1st, 2nd, or 3rd depending on how fractured the Evangelical vote would end up) with an “our resources were directed elsewhere, we are looking ahead to other states” message.

But this week Romney found himself caught up in the seduction of the cornfields, even going so far as to promise a win this evening. The optics are now not good. Before, a win would have been seen as a huge upset and a loss a respectable showing. Now, anything short of 30% support will be difficult to spin positively.

2011: The Birth of e-Populism

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:20:00 -0500

If you run in circles anything like mine, you may have noticed that you spent a surprising amount of time discussing the concept of openness in 2011.

Perhaps it was in the context of participation in a theorized open government, the incremental mainstreaming of open coding practices on mobile devices, or the protection of the Internet as an open, globally governed asset.

Many noted how heavily the press’ love affair (or, perhaps, lust affair) with various Occupy movements (previously discussed here) drew on narratives of transparent governance and tactical inclusion.

Indeed openness and its thematic siblings—transparency, participation, agency, access, and adaptability—seem to have resurfaced in popular discourse over the past year, perhaps rejuvenated by their apparent compatibility with emerging digital spaces and platforms. If their contemporary connotation could be grouped under a single rhetorical umbrella, we might call it e-populism.

But for every few engaging discussions on the topic this year, we were invariably caught in a deeply frustrating one. Geeky gabbers are all too familiar with these conversations: political strategy as causal apathizer; cultural policy as subsidy pit; Google as mind-controller. Doubling back on themselves in slow motion, they unfold like drunken stumbles.

For discussions of these e-populist ideas, the consensus meta-trope seems to be chaos. Many express apprehension about the future security of their identity or personal data online. Others fear the dismantling of existing business models or affronts to competitive advantage.

These arguments eventually prophesize the implosion of agency laws (privacy, intellectual property, etc.), transforming our prized civic superhighways into unmediated freeways of joy-riding hackers, activists, spammers, pirates, nihilists, redditors, and (of course) teens.

The natural extension of this reasoning is an eventual overcompensation of governance, taming these out-of-control institutions with shadowy new totalitarian agencies of oppression and sedation.

And presto! Our feared-but-fetishized digitopian (term coined, to be explained elsewhere) future is realized. Then, the hook: “So, you see, embracing openness and transparency today will only lead a more constrained future!” As with any discussion based in meta-trope, the offender reclines in satisfaction as their argument settles to fill the simple, smooth contours of its wrapping.

As cringe-inducing as such an analysis might be, the stigma persists. At its core is the presumption that e-populism is about replacing order with chaos. In reality, proponents are more interested in its potential as a mechanism to reconcile what remains the defining characteristic of modern society. E-populism, it seems, actually represents an attempt to manage fragmentation.

It is fairly uncontroversial to state that our societies have become less isolated and more fragmented over the last century. Airplanes and sprawl have fragmented our geographies. Scheduled labour and telephones have expanded our social behaviours and groups. Libraries and cable television have allowed our leisure to differ from our neighbour’s. Oh, and then came that Internet thingy.

All the while, these same technologies have made us more broadly connected to one another, at once de-isolating the group and fragmenting the individual. As the trend accelerates, notions of openness, access, and transparency become key tools in navigating these increasingly complex matrices of identity.

Examine the issue in the context of curation, for instance. Yes, it was easily among the most overused terms of 2011, but in a sense that focus is warranted. Almost by definition, a fragmented landscape requires curation, organizing and assessing people, issues, and content and funneling desirable elements to interested parties.

The concept of curation should also not be understood too narrowly. Yes museums, aggregators, and influence leaders curate, but the basic process is more universal.

Parliament functions by aggregating the fragmented and conflicting positions of its constituents through elections, lobbies, movements, and local pressures, filtering them through committees and pilots, and proposing legislation that they hope citizens will find valuable.

Similar dynamics govern the private sector. Businesses curate a suite of goods and services based on a fragmented set of consumer needs and opinions. Based on the dynamics of their market, they drop, add, and adapt products that balance their own interests against those of their consumers.

As much of this process of curation moves from rooms of humans to lines of code, however, e-populist concerns become increasingly relevant to our ability to continue to define these surroundings.

Apple’s iTunes store, for instance, curates a diverse suite of music, AV content, books and applications intended to accommodate the needs of a highly fragmented global audience. When one disagrees with their decision not to distribute an “undesirable” application (Grooveshark, say) or digitally limit the ability to use a purchased e-book file, they are really objecting to a lack of openness in Apple’s curation processes.

Similarly, if we agree that Parliaments of all compositions should have not only the duty but the desire to craft responsive and representative policies for the constituents they serve, the incorporation of tech-enabled tools that allow for consultation, participation, and recourse should be be easily argued.

Perhaps most urgently, if we agree that an open, global Internet guides the promise of the planet described in our children’s storybooks, the spirit of collaboration, efficiency, and innovation entrenched in discussions of open software and facilitated access should be prioritized.

Before these discussions can occur, however, the myth of e-populism as enabler of chaos must be deflated.

Chaos bubbles in cauldrons of incompatibility, duplication, and perceived isolation. What notions of openness, participation, access and adaptability promote is a new way of approaching an increasingly fragmented society. More specifically, they espouse prolonged individual agency in how we choose to organize the world around us.

De-isolated fragmentation offers citizens and consumers a previously inconceivable volume of content and connectivity. But in order to be properly leveraged, the engines of curation must remain open, accessible, and responsive.

Bring on 2012.

On Herman Cain

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:18:00 -0500

Herman Cain’s audacity is remarkable.

Last month, speaking broadly of Occupy-type rhetoric, he railed that “if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”

Now, standing on his head to paint a credible allegation of sustained infidelity as transactional aid to a (secret) friend, this: “I’m a softy, and I feel sorry for people when they get in deep financial trouble, especially given this economy and people being out of work.”

Incredible.

That said, if Cain stays the course he should be glad that the media firestorm over a consensual act of infidelity has diluted discussion of far more serious allegations of unwanted sexual harassment and, yes, assault on several women that had previously dominated. With all this information drifting though most every content stream (yes, even conservative ones), the fact that Cain continues to out-poll someone like Jon Huntsman in key states is appalling.

I suppose the bottom line is that if your coms team is thinking “Thank balls our candidate had that affair outed!”, you were probably never that great a candidate, husband, or man to begin with.

An objectively boss poster.

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:15:26 -0500

An objectively boss poster.

Android Surpasses 50% Smartphone Market Share

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:45:00 -0500

New data reported by MobileSyrup sees Google’s Android OS reaching a 52.5% share of the smartphone market in 3Q11. This doubles that same share only a year ago.

Only about 1.5% of the difference came at the expense of iOS products. Taking into account Apple being between releases during this period, the slight drop should be seen as a fairly strong showing.

Most of Android’s gains were propelled by a twenty point drop among Symbian devices, spurred in part by Nokia’s efforts to move away from the sputtering OS coupled with a broader decline in Nokia device share.

As Symbian fizzles, many expect Android to suck up the brunt their remaining 17% of the market. Although Nokia has committed to the Windows Phone platform for upcoming releases, the manufacturer will likely be forced to enter the Android market as uptake for Microsoft’s OS goes from lacking to unsustainable.

On the device share side, year-over-year numbers saw Nokia, LG, and RIM (especially considering the barrage of new BB devices released in 3Q11) underperform, while Apple, HTC, and Chinese newcomer ZTE showed steady growth.

Samsung, despite a modest gain in share and units shipped, saw their actual smartphone sales triple to 24 million units, easily outselling Apple’s 17 million. With the recent release of the iPhone 4S and a slew of new HTC and Nokia devices, however, Samsung (now the world’s leading smartphone manufacturer) can expect more competition in 4Q11.

Please Revise...

What We Talk About When We Talk About Women in Politics

Love how CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield goes after Obama For...

WEDNESDAY RECAP: GAYS, GUNS, AND GEEZERS

DID PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FALLON SEGMENT VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS?

As a good complement to the premiere episode of Academy of the...

ARIZONA: WHERE LIFE BEGINS BEFORE …IT EXISTS Arizona has...

Anatomy of an Apology

HuffPo’s Sam Stein elicits an *epic* awkward pause on...

FOR FUN: SUPER TUESDAY

FOR FUN: MICHIGAN PRIMARY PREDICTIONS

For Fun: Florida Primary Predictions

insertimage: Concerned Iguana Decided to start a sub-blog of...

For Fun: South Carolina Primary Predictions

"Defining" Public Relations

Definition No. 1:

Definition No. 2:

Definition No. 3:

The Internet as Civic Right

For Fun: Iowa Caucus Predictions

2011: The Birth of e-Populism

On Herman Cain

An objectively boss poster.

Android Surpasses 50% Smartphone Market Share

HuffPo’s Sam Stein elicits an epic awkward pause on...