While we take issue with the article’s characterization of certain specific groups, some of which are both very effective and very sound, the overall reality as it regards the Beltway Establishment is both quite as described and worse than most understand.  It is not incapable of being cleaned up:  indeed, the Tea Party is beginning to do exactly that, and our Project would add greatly to that reformation.  It is just that much of this establishment, however ideologically conservative, stands foursquare in the way of the very reforms most needed.

It’s time to clean house, folks.

We’ve reposted the article in full below.

Conservatives, Cronyism and Cowardice

By Dr. Jay Golub, founder of Urban Elephants - 08/04/11 11:02 AM ET

Over the past decade, the left has built a shadow infrastructure that was originally designed to counter the right’s think tanks that have been around for the last thirty years. This infrastructure has evolved into a well-funded, well-coordinated behemoth that now pounces on dissenters using tech, the courts and the media as powerful weapons in America’s political war.

The left has been so successful in this endeavor, that most on the right are now scared that anything they say or do in the political realm can readily be publicized and demagogued as extremist, racist, sexist or anti-working-class/women/elderly. This comprehensive slash-and-burn approach has won the left important elections, killed pro-market legislation/ballot initiatives and defied the rule of law time and time again. In response to this mounting force that is glaringly eating their lunch, organizations of the right hold vapid Ronald Reagan 100th birthday celebrations, cling to talk radio and pump out white papers that no one reads.

So why haven’t conservatives created a similar aggressive structure as the left? The answer is simple: The cozy conservative establishment.

We are not talking about the members of Congress or other elected officials, but conservative think tanks, consultants and foundations in Washington, D.C. and scattered throughout the country (Read: Heritage, CATO, CEI, AEI, and whoever in flyover country they like). These groups’ standard official function is to “advance conservative economic and social principles,” but given the political and cultural landscape it’s become patently obvious they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

Instead of being held to any metric of genuine measurable success, their (aging) principals hold mutual admiration society conferences and talk in a vacuum, partying with their grant administrators and controlling how resources are distributed and spent to protect their sweetheart gig. This is often accomplished through an incestuous scheme of being on each other’s Boards of Directors in order to make sure that only their cronies receive funding and granting large consulting contracts to their friends with whom they have influence and control.

If these groups were at all effective, no doubt the liberal media or other watchdog groups would investigate further and likely find this malfeasance; however, the New York Times and MSNBC are more than happy to let conservatives continue to waste millions of precious resources on another study, white paper or forum that has no chance of reaching the millions of Americans looking for better solutions to the problems facing our nation and no chance of changing the direction of policy at the state or federal level.

To this end, how does a navy blazer-and-khaki organization unseasoned in political warfare “educate” a legislator who, 1) Doesn’t care what they think; 2) Is owned by lobbyists; 3) Doesn’t have a spine; or 4) Is having the time of his life and not interested in details or the greater good?

Well, they certainly don’t succeed if the style and substance of their teaching methods are never heard outside of tight conservative D.C. circles and inane think tank forums. Just one brief glance at the success of the Tea Party movement (highlighted by the effect it is having on the debt limit debate going on in our nation’s Capitol today) demonstrates the value and effectiveness of novel approaches and aggressive action.

When new groups are formed on the right, they are told by those “in the know” to go to Washington to meet everyone. This has one purpose: to get the group under the purview of the establishment. Once in the fold, consultants who have a monopoly on the market take over to purge whatever resources are available for themselves and their friends until all is spent and they move on the next unsuspecting newbie.

The left does not operate this way. Groups like MoveOn.org have been so successful for two reasons: they stayed away from Washington and the Beltway culture and they have benefactors who are less concerned about themselves and protecting their lot and more interested in bringing about radical changes to the country. And they have been successful. Although I am not trying to pick on any one group, Heritage has 264 employees and ten fundraisers nationally. What are they succeeding at these days?

The right has a standard belief that everyone is inherently good, that the left wants to play by the same rules, have fair elections and negotiate in good faith. This is in no way an accurate description of the situation at hand. Until conservatives come to grips with what they are up against and understand that the left will not give up and will use every tactic possible to achieve their goals, they will continue to lose battle after battle. Public sentiment and elections matter.

Today, America is seeing what happens when someone who has never managed anything is elected to be the leader of the free world. This is why it is critical that the Right puts in place vibrant and aggressive structures behind the scenes that are free from the establishment in D.C. that will stop talking about problems and start doing something about them.

Dr. Jay Golub is a New York-based writer and the founder of Urban Elephants.

Republican campaigns have long concentrated political power in a dated, ineffective vacuum that has not served the party’s supporters well. A new organizational voice has emerged, one that hails from outside the Beltway and has a digital core. The vanguard of political technology has a new name and it is Rod Martin. Funders should take notice.

We couldn’t agree more.

Read the story here.

Groups such as the TheVanguard.org, headed by the visionary Dr. Rod Martin, have emerged to challenge MoveOn as a genuinely potent platform for center-right e-activism and fundraising.

True enough; but there is still vastly more to be done, and the Right’s “powers that be” simply do not get tech.  The Left, of course, has put tens of millions of dollars behind an ever-widening circle of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, from MoveOn’s Wes Boyd to the Obama campaign’s (and Facebook co-founder) Chris Hughes.  Meantime, the GOP builds $3 million websites that do nothing and generally keeps hiring the same Beltway consultants who do their direct mail and TV to go head to head with Silicon Valley visionaries.

Indeed, the Right’s best tech efforts de jour are sites like the Daily Caller and Andrew Breitbart’s various properties.  But political journalism is no more a substitute for political organizing and fundraising on the internet than it was in the old world of the 20th century.

One wonders why that’s such a hard concept for some to grasp.

Read the Daily Caller story here.