I just finished reading "Capitalism 3.0: Reclaiming the Commons" by Peter Barnes.   I think the concepts and policies laid out in the book can help the Democratic party "upgrade" its worldview, its approach to public policy, and the language it uses (and its Republican opponents use) to talk about them to the American people.  

In doing so, it could also accelerate and solidify the political realignment necessary to implement real solutions to the problems that plague our country and the world.  At its core is the fundamental realization that "we're all in this together" and that our current capitalist system dangerously ignores that reality, as evidenced by the growing negative impacts it is having on our economy, environment, democracy and culture.

Below I've included an extended excerpt from the Preface of the book.  Before that, I'm provided links to a list of blog posts on this subject by Barnes, the Amazon page for the book, and an online pdf version of the book available under a Creative Commons license.  

In my view, anyone seriously interested in issues like global warming, economic fairness, healthcare and political reform, and in Democratic political strategy and political realignment, should read at least some of this:

http://onthecommons.org/peterbarnes  
http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-3-0-Rec laiming-Commons-Currents/dp/1576753611
http://onthecommons.org/files/Capitalism _3.0_Peter_Barnes.pdf

The second-to-last paragraph in the Preface made me think that the book may be especially timely following the 2006 election:

Fortunately, corporations only dominate government most of the time; every once in a while, they lose their grip. So it's possible to imagine that the next time corporate dominance ebbs, government--acting on behalf of commoners--swiftly fortifies the commons. It assigns new property rights to commons trusts, builds commons infrastructure, and spawns a new class of genuine co-owners. When corporations regain political dominance, as they inevitably will, they can't undo the new system. The  commons now has safeguards and stakeholders; it's entrenched for the long haul. And in time, corporations accept the commons as their business partner. They find they can still make profits, plan farther ahead, and even become more globally competitive.

If we're at or approaching one of those periods in which there's an ebbing of corporate dominance--and I believe we may very well be--then Barnes' book is all the more timely and important.  I encourage you to read the excerpt below the fold and then go read the book and/or some of Barnes' blog posts.

We don't want to fight media battles in the 2008 election and beyond on the terrain that Rove has largely mastered, and which I'd argue is inherently unfriendly to the raising of political consciousness (though it is pretty well suited for consciousness-lowering).

As the dominant media companies are realizing, the video industry--whether they like it or not--has begun an accelerating migration to the Internet.  I'd argue that the progressive netroots, and its favored candidates and issues, are uniquely well positioned to become LEADERS in this web-based, "hard-to-control in top-down ways" video environment.  There are already signs of this (e.g., all the political stuff on YouTube), but I'd like to see a more focused and coordinated effort--and I'd like to see it start right after the election.

Toward that end, I've been talking with a company that will soon launch their second generation of web-based video technology, which I think is very impressive and well suited for use by the progressive movement.  And, importantly, the company's CEO has a genuine desire to help the progressive movement use the technology to achieve its political goals, and is willing to put some effort and resources into making that happen.  

I hope to set up an online "webinar" shortly after next month's election, in which the company's CEO will demonstrate its new technology and answer questions about it.  My hope is that the webinar will be attended by key actors and "influencers" within the progressive netroots (including bloggers, as well as staffers and strategists for progressive candidates and organizations, the DNC, etc.).   Following the webinar, I'd like to help create some sort of "steering committee" (presumably including at least some webinar attendees) that would work together to facilitate an expanding integration and proliferation of video production and distribution systems within the progressive netroots and its allies among candidates and political organizations.

If anyone has suggestions about who I should invite to this webinar, please send me a note at mitchipd@yahoo.com.

As I read the Adwatch threads, I see lots of valuable insights on messaging strategy expressed, much of it revolving around an Iraq-centered "accountability" theme.  As we move through the Katrina and 9/11 anniversaries (and as Mickey Mouse morphs into Karl Rove before our eyes) in the run up to a historic election, I can't help but think we should try to take this evolving pool of "commentary" to the next level in the weeks ahead.

I suggest we create an "Adwrite" tag and page in which threads are based on posts that include scripts (or parts of scripts) for 30-60 second "generic" Democratic campaign ads.  Posters would write a diary entry that includes their proposed ad copy, with some explanation of why they wrote what they wrote, how and where it might be used, etc., and maybe inviting comments and help to improve certain aspects of it.

Comments could take the form of critiques and/or edited versions of the original.  If someone edited an original script enough to convince them that their edited version merited its own thread (particularly if the first thread got long and varied and covered lots of topics other than their suggested edits), they might post their edited version as a separate diary entry, so it could receive focused feedback.  If that's the case, it'd be nice if in their post they credited the person whose original script they had edited.  This can help us track threads of editing, which might prove useful, and it would also "give credit where credit is due" in terms of contributions to the process.

A few other thoughts on the evolution and role of Adwatch, extracted from comments in various Adwatch threads:

Maybe a version of Adwatch can be done for direct mail using flickr...take digital photos of the key parts of the mailing (as clear as possible)and post them on flickr.com, then do the same other steps that we're now doing for video ads on YouTube.  If both the video ad and direct mail piece are tagged with the same candidate's name (and also ad watch) they could be reviewed together, as part of the same campaign messaging strategy, and both could be integrated into the more structured Adwatch system described in my prior post (http://mydd.com/story/2006/9/6/114745/67 00).  We might want to include "video" and "mail" as tags to distinguish the two in terms of sorting, searching, etc.

We might include a separate Adwatch page with posts on general "advertising strategy," which maybe also could be done via tagging.   This might attract people with expertise in this area to add their posts to this "ad strategy" page, which could help the rest of us become better ad reviewers, and add to MyDD's collective body of generic and campaign-specific wisdom related to campaign advertising.

Another idea I remember reading in somebody's comment was to include a poll in each Adwatch post.  I don't know what the site's polling capabilities are, but what I'd like to see is:

Below are some thoughts on how we might add more structure to the Adwatch project in ways that could add value in this election cycle, in post-election analysis of what worked, what didn't and why, and also in future election cycles.

The basic idea is to create one or more of the following, which would include links to and from each other and to/from other web pages.  Some of the information on these different page-types would be duplicative, which could save time and effort.  I think the duplication could be valuable, by accommodating different user purposes (e.g., to evaluate and compare specific campaigns, or to evaluate and compare specific ad-creators.)

1.  An Adwatch "ad creator listing" page with a consolidated list of the creators of 2006 campaign ads, including some basic (and sortable) information on these ad-creating entities.

2.  A dedicated Adwatch web page for each ad-creating entity active in 2006 campaigns.

3.  A page with a consolidated Adwatch listing of House and Senate (and other?) 2006 campaigns, including some basic (and sortable) information on each campaign.

4.  A dedicated Adwatch web page for specific House and Senate 06 campaigns

In my post yesterday I said:

In the wake of the Lamont victory, I'd love to see the Democratic party find a way to put their "strong, clear and smart" leaders at the forefront of the media battle for the hearts and minds (and attention) of Americans.  I'm not really sure what that means in terms of specific strategies or execution steps, but I have a feeling it relates to the growing power of the netroots, including the use of video (and audio and photos), which MyDD and others have started to use in ever-larger and more effective doses.

Today I want to follow that somewhat vague notion with a more specific suggestion that the netroots launch a media campaign built around what I call "Democratic Vision and Values" videos.  Here's my rationale:

As I watch the aftermath of the CT Senate primary and the latest terror alert/scare, I find myself thinking about the political (and symbolic) role and significance of Wes Clark, who recently had an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal.  The key words that come to mind are STRONG (as in "four star general that led a war, shown impressive physical courage, and regularly debates the forces of darkness in the media Fox holes") CLEAR (as in "clear vision" and "clear, direct and honest communication") and "smart" (as in top of his class at West Point).  These words connect to a few other key words: "safety and security."

Several things seem most salient to me in terms of how most Americans view the current political reality and, to a large extent, their more personal spheres of life.  One is the pretty overwhelming evidence that the Bush Administration has been a dismal failure on many fronts, probably most vividly and significantly with regard to Iraq and Katrina.  Another is the sense that many Americans seem to have that things are fundamentally going in the wrong direction with regard to the economy, healthcare, education, infrastructure (including the Internet), the budget deficit, and other important domestic issues related to money and priorities.  These are all tied together by a number of threads, including the financial strain the Iraq war is placing on every level of government, our economy, our actual homeland security, and far too many American families and businesses.

Related to both of these and, of course, to "terrorism," is the "fear factor" that has been so massively manipulated by the Bush Administration (and which will probably be influenced in ways unknown to me by the new Oliver Stone movie, which I haven't seen yet).

Related in some ways to all this is Sterling Newberry's great piece published recently at Truthout, which I highly recommend.

Cross-posted from IP Democracy:

PBS tech columnist Robert Cringely has penned an intriguing (and I think important) piece called "If we build it they will come: It's time to own our own last mile."  It's apparently based on conversations he's had with Bob Frankston, who years ago wrote the VisiCalc program (which Cringely describes as "the first killer app") and who last year authored an essay entitled "Connectivity is a Utility."  Cringely describes Frankston as "one of the smartest people I speak to."

To Bob Frankston's way of thinking [it] all comes down to who owns the infrastructure. The phone and cable companies own the wire outside our homes but we own the wire inside...Frankston [says] "We should pay for our wires in our communities just like we pay for the wires in our homes."

...The Internet has been a huge success to date specifically because nobody much controls the electrons. This is as opposed to services like broadcasting where some perceived scarcity of spectrum allowed governments to determine who could give or sell us entertainment and information. The ISPs (by which I mean telcos and cable companies) would very much like to go back to that sort of system, where they, not you, are the provider and determinant of what bits are good bits and what bits are bad.  No thanks.

..."We have an alternative model in the road system: The roads themselves are funded as infrastructure because the value is from having the road system as a whole, not the roads in isolation. You don't put a meter on each driveway..."

Roads are mainly financed by taxes, but there's also another approach that could be used, instead of, or in tandem with a tax-financed system.  You might call it a "last mile cooperative," or a "fiber condominium."