A Pragmatic Optimism

Recently I've been falling into what I call a "critical trap". Too much critique with too little construction. Its an easy path for me, but not one I'd like to follow. Critique is a useful tool when wielded wisely, but in a society where "critical theory" is a serious academic pursuit and newspapers employ thousands of "critics" its a tool that used far too often. I might be a pragmatic mofo, but ultimately I'm an optimist. I have a faith that we as humans can solve more problems then we create. I don't think it will be easy, but I know it can be done.

As a pragmatic optimist their is a blinder style of optimism that grates on me badly. In the tech/culture world it manifests itself frequently as a blind faith that the internet tech will make the world a better more open place. I would agree that its possible that it might, but think it will take massive effort and serious insight to make it happen. Blind optimism to me is a trap, a lazy path that promotes technology only to allow that tech to be co-opted by the power hungry. And I've taken criticizing that "blind" optimism. In reality though, blind or not the optimism is energy that should be focused towards the issues at hand. The issue of how. How do we build a better world? How do we use technology to build a better world?

The case of Howard Dean and fundraising provides a telling example. Every serious candidate for US president has a system set up for people to donate money online. But only Howard Dean is using it to raise serious money. How? By working like a mofo and figuring out how to really make the system work. Just putting up a web page that allows people to donate $20 with their credit card does not mean people will use it. Bob Graham is not raking in the dollars via his donation page. Howard Dean is. How? By making people feel like they are getting their money's worth.

In old school fundraising (well from the past decade or two), most donations where on the $1000-$2000 level. But people don't just give $2000 and get nothing back. They get a dinner with the candidate. Odds are they'll only get to shake the candidates hand, snap a photo and then sit down at a table with a bunch of other donors. Doesn't sound like much, but its actually a great deal. Networking with other wealthy individuals generally leads to more wealth and power. A photo of you with a prominent politician impresses clients and employees, it puts the donor in a position of power. Its not a bad deal if you have the $2000.

Now if you give $200 to Bob Graham online, what do you get? A thank you email most likely, plus some mailings asking for more money I'd guess. Not very exciting. Probably not getting your money's worth. Give $200 to Howard Dean online and its a bit different. You feel like you are part of a community. You feel like you can communicate with Dean online. His people read your comments on his blog. If you have a website they make you feel like they value it. They have opened up a channel of communications with you. And communications with a potential president of the US is damn valuable. You feel like you get your monies worth.

The Dean online communications set up takes serious effort to set up and maintain. Its hard work keeping things updated and staying on top of the world of the web. It takes time and skilled manpower. And it took real insight and experimentation by Dean's team to make it work. A blind optimist would argue that the internet will revolutionize online fundraising by enabling smaller donations. And as it turns out it did. But it took crazy hard work. Only one candidate has managed to make the system work right. The rest have all the tech set up, but don't know how to use it. They are not using the web pragmatically, they are not testing and experimenting with the form to make things happen. And make no mistake, it takes tremendous energy to make things happen.

So yeah, we can improve the world. But its going to be a hard job, and its up to us to figure out how its done.