(Originally published in Greater Democracy)

Did we lose something bigger in 2004 than the election? This thought has been nagging me a lot recently as I work with various people gearing up for the 2006 elections. Leading up to 2004, there were so many people who had been told that they have the power, that they could go out act on their own without asking permission from some campaign, and it would make a difference. I went ahead and organized a flash mob 3000 miles from my house.

In May 2003, Joe Trippi wrote, ”The other thing that is needed -- is a campaign organization that gets it -- or at least tries to get it. One of the other reasons I think this has not happened before is that every political campaign I have ever been in is built on a top-down military structure -- there is a general at the top of the campaign -- and all orders flow down -- with almost no interaction. This is a disaster. This kind of structure will suffocate the storm not fuel it. Campaigns abhor chaos -- and to most campaigns built on the old top-down model -- that is what the net represents -- chaos.”

Less than a year later, at the 2004 Politics Online Conference David Weinberg and Markos Moulitas debated Zack Exley and Phil Hendon about the role of centralization and decentralization of political campaigns. Weinberger had a spectacular rant which he wrote abouthere, “Zack made an impressive, coherent case for the power of centralized control, while admitting that decentralized community-forming does have a role. But, to win the damn election, we need to be as disciplined as the Republicans, he says. I don't disagree with that, but I also see benefits to campaigns allowing and encouraging decentralized, bottom-up self-organization: It creates enthusiasm that then can lead to action. And, without it, campaigns tend to become top-down machines marketing a product or brand to us "consumers." I guess I ranted a bit about this during my five minutes. I was up to my demographic earlobes with all the talk of "consumers," "marketing campaigns," "branding," and, most of all, "messages." I told them that they were debasing our democracy.”

Now, I’m talking with people in different campaigns about the 2006 season. I keep hearing people talk about needing to check things with their campaign or media consultants. I watch Deval Patrick move from exhorting us to ‘believe again’ to becoming ‘no ordinary leader’. I watch John DeStefano move from exhorting us to ‘expect more’ to saying ‘we can do better’.

Well, we can do better. We can do better by embracing all the chaotic disorganized authenticity that spills out in spite of the best efforts of polished media consultants. We can do better by telling supporters, go out, spread the word, tell people why you think your candidate is the best, and forget any canned talking points.

We can do better by returning democracy to the people.

Now don’t get me wrong. There is a need for centralized efforts. There is a need for media consultants to help candidates get their message out more effectively. It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is a both/and proposition.

As for me, I’ll learn what I can from media consultants, I’ll see if I can teach them a little about the beauty of chaotic online chatter and then I’ll go out and say what I feel, and part of what I feel right now is a longing for people that embrace Will Roger’s style of being a Democrat.