The convergence of social media and progressive causes is very exciting to me; I see enormous potential to leverage social media for social change. Even as far back as 2000, I used social media as an essential building block of a successful local activist campaign (in fact, I discuss this in my latest book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet,co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson).

I think one of the huge mistakes Obama made was to let go of the massive organizing via social media during the campaign—a piece of the campaign that may well have given him the edge both in the primaries and in the general election, and certainly a big part of mobilizing the youth vote. Actively using those tools in two-way communication would have helped energize his base, counterweighted the Tea Baggers, and provided momentum to implement the deep change he was elected to provide. In the months between the election and inauguration, Obama put out a groundbreaking initiative to get input from us. But that fizzled quickly, and I for one never got a sense that anyone was actually reading the feedback.

Yet it’s so clear that social media can be a force for social change! We’ve seen it in so many parts of the public discourse!

Although they are brilliant organizers, Obama, Axelrod, and the rest of his team missed this opportunity. They saw social media as a very effective way to reach new audiences, but not a way to build organizations focused on real change…and not as a method of communication from the people to the honchos.

Not too late to change this! If they build out their own networks, really listen to feedback, and piggyback on people with large viral followings (such as Rachel Maddow), this could still be a major influencing factor in maintaining Democratic control in the 2010 elections.

Social Media: A Tool for Social Change is a post from: Principled Profit

I may get smeared for this as Van Jones was, but let me say that I find it disgraceful that Van Jones was the target of a smear campaign and was forced out as Obama’s Green jobs person. He was one of the few genuine progressive voices in a sea of “moderate-centrists” who would have been considered quite far to the right a few decades back.

What were Jones’ “crimes”?

* He called for an investigation into possible government foreknowledge about 9/11. It’s pretty clear that elements within the U.S. government had advance knowledge that something was brewing (even George W. Bush was briefed on this the month before the attack, as Condoleezza Rice admitted in her May 19, 2004 testimony in front of the 9/11 investigation commission), and many respected scholars such as David Ray Griffin have widely circulated hypotheses of U.S. government involvement. My own view is that the U.S. saw the attack coming and decided for its own purposes to let the attack occur (our Reichstag fire, if you will)–but were not directly involved. Why is it unreasonable to ask for an investigation?

* He used an unfortunate metaphor to describe his radicalization in the aftermath of the acquittal verdict in the Rodney King beating case:

By August, I was a Communist,” he says in the article, describing his sense of radicalization at the time.

* He said that Republican strong-arm legislators who managed to force through legislation even when short of a super-majority in the Senate were “assholes.” How is this any worse than commentator Glenn Beck, who led the charge against Jones, calling Obama a racist, or
George W. Bush, when he was Governor of Texas, threatening a legislator with “I’m going to kick your butt if you don’t go along with me.”. And if you listen to it in context, the subtext was that Democrats are too gentlemanly to play this kind of hardball, and that’s why they can’t get their agenda enacted. This, unfortunately, is patently obvious to observers of the current political scene.

Glenn Beck, this is the latest in a long line of despicable things you’ve done. You may feel smug now, but you’re the one whose conscience will bother you–not Van Jones.

Van Jones Resigns. Glenn Beck, You’ve Done the Country a Disservice is a post from: Principled Profit

My friend Elsom Eldridge has a nice article about how to avoid becoming “Social Media Roadkill.” And I agree with almost everything he says.

Almost everything. With my usual focus on transparency, here’s what I disagree with (emphasis added):

Be personable but don’t give people a reason to dislike you. Mention your dog or your kids so that consumers see you in a dimensional way; skip over religion and politics where you are sure to make enemies no matter what you say.

This was my response:
On the whole, good advice–but I think it’s possible to succeed in social media without hiding your politics. As long as you don’t promote them in an offensive way. I’ve had spirited but friendly debates on political issues for years via social media. My politics are part of who I am, and it would be a blow against integrity to hide them.

I find that most people respect my stances, even when they disagree. And I am careful to challenge views while not attacking the person who holds those views, to keep the debate positive, to avoid namecalling or other forms of dumping.

Some of the people I disagree with strongly about politics have in fact sent me clients, endorsed my books, and had long, complex off-list explorations with me about our points of agreement and disagreement. I am seen as a friendly, helpful, and yes, opinionated person.

Shel Horowitz, award-winning author of Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First

Should You Be Open About Polarizing Interests? is a post from: Principled Profit

From liberal Democrat State Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Massachusetts to Chen Shui-bian, the former President of Taiwan, there’s been another spate of politicians caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Some of these people, like Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, have had positions of public trust for decades.

Isn’t it time we looked at this as a society? Not just in the U.S., but around the world. There’s got to be a way to govern that doesn’t put so much temptation in front of our politicians to abuse their trust and their power.

What Is It About Politicians and Corruption? is a post from: Principled Profit