Washington 2.0: Citizenship 2.0?

"Over the last two years, the Obama campaign built another "Wikipedia" of citizenship."

This quote is from today's WashingtonPost feature by Danielle Allen.

There is a lot of discussion these days about how the Founding Fathers would feel about the way the country is being run. One thing is for sure...they would probably fit in better with the Obama camp. As Danielle writes: "But the Internet has eradicated barriers of geography, enabling much more effective factional organization than the Founders could have imagined." Did they imagine citizenship would reach this level of participation? Call it Wikipolitics, call it crowd sourcing, sharing, e-shouting, call if whatever you like. One thing is becoming clear, it is not just a passing phase with politicos.

Just the other day I got a note on the progress of the Grassroots Inaugural Ball that is being thrown in DC the night before the inauguration. I have to say I was impressed. It is no small task to raise at least $75K to rent out the Ronald Reagan Building Ballroom, throw a huge party and then head to camp out on the mall at the crack of dawn. These people are dedicated, and I applaud them. The only way we are going to keep this progress going is to stay involved and demand good governance.

As Danielle states, "Now, however, we are at a turning point. We've finally reached something of a left-right equilibrium in the dramatic restructuring of the public sphere that has been underway for the past decade. Against this background, on Nov. 4 the Obama campaign sent an e-mail to supporters from the president-elect signaling aspirations to convert the campaign's success with social networking technologies into a tool not merely for winning but for good governance."

Good governance comes with transparency, lessening the digital divide and rewarding involvement by the everyday citizen. Grassroots is a word that has been revived in our vocabularly. Let's keep it alive and well.

Washington 2.0 Series - Can We Revolutionize Governance?

I have been feverishly following the discussions coming out of Washington surrounding President-Elect Obama's desire to use technology to benefit the citizen under his new administration.

We hear talk about making government more transparent and more connected. How will this work exactly? Will it give us a Web 2.0 bulletin board of sorts to convey our thoughts and concerns on governance issues?


The President-Elect stated that he will put government data online and make it available in universal formats. Does that mean .pdf files or open source software?

Will citizens now be invited to the virtual table to discuss dollars spent and programs pending?

One of the concerns surrounding to this idea is accessibility and availability of broadband throughout the nation. With recent discussions and developments around freeing up the spectrum previously occupied by analog TV signals, I wonder if we will see more smart phones introduced as tools to stay in touch. We in Washington benefit from the Dulles Corridor effect not to mention the power of the blackberry on the Hill. Are the days of a staffer sending canned responses in letter form to constituents long gone? Are you required to have a .com to hear back from a .gov? What will this mean for the .org who wants to get their issue in front of a Representative? Will government representatives work to develop iPhone apps tailored to deliver updates directly to their constituents?

We were all amazed at the grassroots movement brought about through the simplicity of Web 2.0 technology, but what does this mean for all those with profiles on my.barackobama.com? Will the White House utilize Change.gov to capture the passion and participation of these netizens? What will become of all the Facebook groups and pages?

I personally think that any social network or communication channel where people can continue the discussion and stay involved is a good thing. Education on issues was my biggest battle cry during this election. I am proud of the participation levels in this city and other states, but I think we could still work on getting people educated on what they are voting on. How many people actually read the propositions in California and all that was behind them? It scares me to think that people went into the ballot box with limited knowledge of local candidates and amendments, propositions and stances. My goal in using Facebook's share feature was to educate my friends and family on issues during this election. Was it persuasive? I may never know. It did however, always keep people involved in the discussion.

The question remains how the President-Elect and his team will harness the energy of millions who utilized the social networks to stay engaged. As Howard Dean stated, "He changed all the rules." What do you do with 10 million names and contacts collected during the campaign? Do these people become your ground troops to propagate your message as you move through your first term? These communication vehicles through Change.gov, MyBo and Facebook can circumvent the media and skip the spin.

This may deflate the No-Spin Zone appeal of cable news personalities who make their living on delivering information in their own way. Sorry Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly, but would that be such a bad thing? When the digital generation receives updates or messages from candidates, they can quickly Google, Wikipedia and Facebook the issues to find out all sides of the story. Then, they will make an educated and informed decision and post their decision on their Facebook status. Viral knowledge sharing is a good thing for governance issues.

So, can we revolutionize governance via Web 2.0? Can we continue to create virtual movements whereby we self-organize from the comfort of our own keyboard? Can our Facebook status messages be used as a collective outcry against policy? Does crowd sourcing and knowledge sharing play a role in the new government? As Ms. Palin would say..."You betcha." I would challenge the government to look to models put forth by companies like IBM, who holds annual "jams" where hundreds of thousands of employees and clients share ideas and thoughts around themes of innovation to solve world problems and close the change gap.

Maybe the President-Elect will work to institute something similar whereby technology allows us all to be actively involved in a government that is once again of the people, by the people and for the people...thank you President Lincoln for those wonderful words. If you could only see us now. YES WE CAN!

To Change Washington, Move Out?

Not sure where the time has gone these past few months. Oh wait, it has been consumed by economic crisis, debates and election coverage. Living in Washington, I get a lot of friends asking me "What is the problem with Washington? How is this economic rescue plan really going to work? Are these politicians serious?" I assure them, I have no insider information and I am reading the same articles and editorials as the rest of America.

One editorial that stuck out to me was a NYTimes Opinion piece that appeared on September 9th. Simply titled, To Change Washington, Move Out, this piece made some interesting recommendations for "real change" in Washington. The main idea - decentralize the executive branch government. The article discusses how top heavy Washington is, possibly plagued by its own bureaucracy. It also attacks the cost of living for us Washingtonians. Does it really chase away talent from our town?

Don't get me wrong, I do think that the cost of living in the district is pretty high, but I don't know of talented people who when offered the job they want, stop and say, "I just don't think this is going to work out - the cost of living is too high here." Let's be honest, they will happily take the job and move out to the Virginia suburbs to save a buck or two.

The author makes another interesting suggestion - move the IRS to New Orleans and DEA to Michigan. He also offers up Homeland Security and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I wonder if the government would be willing to take on this telecommuting challenge. These agencies might have to finally consider upgrading their information technology, networks and bandwidth capabilities. This move would be a great start in the Government 2.0 movement.

More transparency, less bureaucracy and of course job creation in areas that need it. It would be great if the government entered into a partnership with Cisco or IBM to properly wire towns to host government agencies. Since most work is done now on computers, e-mail and the Web, would it really take that much change? Training could be virtual, performance review meetings can be hosted through telepresence suites, and reporting can be pushed via web portals. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Let's see if the next administration takes a bite of the idea. Does anyone else like this idea?