MoveOn was founded by businessmen who wanted to shore up the center against progressives and rightists. Initially, it supported moderate to conservative Democrats, the kind who supported the Iraq War.

It later teamed up with some others, and sought to assume a progressive, peace-oriented persona. But it has always been very establishment at the core. What it has done, with some success, is co-opt people with peace and progressive tendencies into their movement which exists to protect the establishment.

On one of the key Iraq War funding votes, it lobbied for continued funding of the war. It has never been against other wars or militarism. Currently its main effort is to support a Presidential candidate who has steadily called for escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and also advocates increasing the bloated military budget and increasing the size of the active duty armed forces.

I think it is one of the most effective forces opposed to Christian values in America today.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | July 29, 2008 8:25 PM

MoveOn is a bizarre amalgam of what both Bill and Allison describe. On its face, it is an advocacy group for Democratic interests. However, its membership tends to be extremely ideological.

Further, the group takes money to advocate for various causes. Google, for example, paid money to MoveOn to advocate for net neutrality legislation.

As an organization, MoveOn has perfected the craft of leveraging grassroots credibility to disseminate talking points. Don't get me wrong, they are not the only ones to engage in this practice. But they have elevated the art form, so to speak.

As far as online advocacy goes, it will be interesting to see how Twitter develops. Twitter is an intimidating vehicle, even for an aggressive social media participant.

If anyone can make it work, it is probably MoveOn, but I wonder if there won't be a backlash here. Organizations such as MoveOn rely on the mentality that what the news media conveys is true, even if it is online.

Twitter, along with other next-step social media outlets, rely on permission marketing to establish credibility. As such, it has the ability to combine the credibility of third party activism with the intimacy of a door knocking campaign.

On the flip side, online advocacy has the potential to be turned into a cosmic game of telephone. If the message is read entirely through the lens of the credibility of the messenger, doesn't that defeat the very purpose of grassroots involvement?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 30, 2008 12:00 AM

Just my two cents' worth here: when Duane asks "Do politicians take mass e-mails seriously?," I would answer that generally, they do not, unless they are in extremely high numbers (and even then, it's often marginal in their decisions, despite MoveOn's "congratulations, you did it" followups).

I have signed onto an occasional MoveOn petition, but would like to remind readers that if they really want to send their own Congressperson or senator a message, picking up the phone and talking with the his/her staff is the best way. That constituent call goes a lot further. Even better, fax a letter. Yes, it takes time, but it pays to advocate on fewer issues while going more in-depth on the ones you do.

Posted by: I and I | July 30, 2008 10:01 AM

I and I makes a good point about "grass roots" advocacy. If it's true grass roots, politicians do tend to pay attention, particularly if it's something that is local to their district or state. Most of these people let their representative know in town-hall meetings, through personal, self-written emails and letters and phone calls. They definitely get the message.

There's little scarier to a Congressman or Senator than a group of motivated constituents that get people angry at them about a local issue. It can sink a re-election.

However, as others have pointed out, moveon.org isn't a true grass roots organization and it don't bother with local issues. It generally focuses on national issues and is run from the top down. When Congressmen and their staff see hundreds of "form letter" emails come into their office generated by moveon.org or a similar partisan entity on the right or the left opposing something they're doing they usually go to the bottom of the pile or in the trash. They know it's usually from a bunch of people that aren't going to vote for them anyway.

So to answer Duane's questions - 1) No, politicians generally don't take mass email campaigns seriously from organizations like moveon.org; 2) I can't answer the second question because I don't participate in these types of groups; and 3) isn't this already taking place?

Posted by: Eric | July 30, 2008 3:41 PM

And just another little thing: if you do send a letter to the Washington office send it by fax. If you send it by snail mail, it will take weeks to get to your lawmaker's office, due to the new mail inspection requirements resulting from the anthrax attacks.

Posted by: I and I | July 30, 2008 5:23 PM