Jon Henke's blog post, "New Guards," is one of the most important pieces I've read regarding the next stage of the Revolution of which we fight. You need to read Henke's post before digging in to this series.

Henke accurately notes how the Left effectively uses its online infrastructure to provide three things to progressive candidates: Messaging, Money, Mobilization.

Henke concludes that the Rightosphere can catch up, but it's going to take, among other things, a changing of the "guards." He writes:

The Right can accomplish the same thing, but it cannot start on third base. The Right has to develop the gravitational pull before it tries to pull the political system into its orbit. That may be complicated, but I don't believe it is actually difficult to do. However, it is not something that can be done simply by funding more of the same Old Guards. If the Right is to do something about the current long train of abuses and bad government, it must, to borrow from the Declaration of Independence, "provide new Guards".

After reading Henke's post, I was immediately reminded of the first blog post I wrote announcing the launch of this group blog where I said:

One thing which has become increasingly clear to me and many others is that the Republican Party - the establishment - has failed to effectively engage and embrace Web 2.0 strategies. While the Internet has grown rapidly, the Party apparatus and its top officials are operating in a disconnected, Web 0.5 world. The result is that our message is failing to penetrate the modern world where millions of independent voters and modern Republicans spend a majority of their time.

It was true a year ago when I said it and to some degree is still true today. Some colleagues in the politics + technology liken pointing to the deficiencies in the Right's online effort as unhelpful. Constantly harping on the issue would indeed be hurtful to the overall effort, but sometimes it simply makes sense to take a step back, analyze the effort, note areas of success and those needing improvement, and move on. That is what this series seeks to accomplish.

WHY MOVEON MATTERS

There are many elements on the Left which comprise what is referred to as the "Netroots" that are making an impact that I won't be discussing in this piece. Some of these include Talking Points Memo (especially TPMuckraker), Huffington Post (Off The Bus), ActBlue, Media Matters, Kos-FiredogLake-MyDD-OpenLeft, Brave New Films, etc.

However, the focus of this article is to discuss MoveOn in the sense that it is making the largest impact on the space and is trying to be replicated on our side of the aisle.

* MoveOn [501(c)4 & PAC] *

To be sure, MoveOn is the most convincing force which is making a difference on the Left. It contributes more than any other political operation to Henke's three M's: messaging, money and mobilization.

Ironically, MoveOn is not a competitor to activism organizations on the Right. It's members would never cross-over to support an organization on the Right. Indeed, it's market is vertical with a defined niche and audience. Indicative of this is the fact that for as long as I can remember they have been saying they have more than 3.2 million members - the organization's growth is static - at least for now.

In my opinion, MoveOn's success is due to several factors.

1. First, MoveOn is a brand encompassing a "family of organizations" that includes both a political arm (MoveOn.org Political Action) and a non-profit arm (MoveOn.org Civic Action / 501(c)4). This yields it the legal leverage it needs to do whatever it wants (take massive donations through its 501(c)4 for use on "education and advocacy" and pay costly operational expenses, and use its PAC to play in political races, make contributions to candidates it supports, and raise money from its membership for those candidates.

2. Its large membership is extremely wired, active, can afford to drink fancy coffee drinks, and loves being a part of MoveOn because they constantly put points on the board.

3. MoveOn has always been an organic effort which focuses on member initiatives. They branded MoveOn from the beginning as an inclusive, member-driven community of grassroots activists coordinated by a nimble team instead of being a staff-heavy, top-down operation. That's important.

For example, pay close attention to the messaging in the smart deployment of a DonationTube highlighting their accomplishments in 2007:

The take-away from this video is that you, the member, are "MoveOn." It is the passengers riding the bus, and not the bus driver, who are responsible for helping change the political landscape and forwarding their liberal agenda. Organizations on the Right would be wise to honestly shift more control over their efforts to its community. Doing so would leverage a stronger, more cohesive team approach.

4. Their emails and online campaigns are thoughtful, interesting, and effective even to the outside observer like TechRepublican. Yeah, this point seems obvious, but it's not obvious to everyone given the fact that I'm constantly barraged by email newsletters on a Friday at 7 PM that I never read.

So where is the Right's MoveOn? Are the "New Guards" already on the scene? Which organization will get the formula right for the Right? The answer is not an easy one but we can take a close look at some of the competing forces trying to be the one.

To do so, I'm going to take a broad look at many of the entities on the Right -- some old, some new -- which are all working independently on the Right to help further, generally, Right-leaning efforts.

Parts II and III will be available soon.

Why do you think MoveOn is successful?

* Read part II of the New Guards series, "The Players."
* Read part III of the New Guards series, "An Empowered Rightosphere

It’s been a fun past couple of weeks. I’ve taken quite a bit of heat about everything from loosely identifying people I casually know as a “friend” or “colleague” when they clearly were not, to being personally attacked as a self-promoter, and assailed for defending Ron Paul’s “fringe” supporters. I’ve addressed all of those criticisms over the past few days in previous posts. If you haven’t been following the blogroversy (and want to), the National Journal’s Danny Glover has a full wrap-up of the discussion with links to the posts.

I won’t address those attacks further. Read through everything and deduce what you will. I’m moving on from the discussion and I’m hopeful they’ll do the same. I will say that I appreciate those who have commented, blogged, IM’d, facebooked, emailed or called privately to express their support for me. Trust me, the “25-Percent Rule” continues to apply.

However, there is one last piece of this puzzle which I want to address and that is my relationship with Google as it relates to the MoveOn.org/Senator Susan Collins’ AdWords controversy. A campaign aide for Senator Collins, Lance Dutson, focuses much of his distaste for me over this issue and his accusations require a response.

Lance and others have argued that the Google/MoveOn controversy was ideologically-driven by Google. In other words it was assumed that Google is a Left-leaning organization and the company wanted to “help” MoveOn.org by pulling down the ads in question.

Lance’s concern and skepticism about Google’s political leanings is widely held and should be taken more seriously by Google. And I’ve long-held a similar concern.

In March of this year, I wrote an essay detailing my concerns with Google/YouTube getting heavily involved in the political sphere. Further, I’ve asked a top Google executive about how they plan to truly be “neutral” over content in the political sphere (YouTube video via Josue Sierra here).

And let’s not forget that it was the campaign that I was working on in 2006 which was the target of Google’s Political Action Committee, NetPAC, which was funding our opponent – whose campaign was practicing the antithesis of an effective online campaign strategy - while our campaign aggressively utilized Google’s services to help disseminate our campaign's message.

(More after the jump)