Breitbart.com: The Vision of Andrew Breitbart

Andrew Breitbart started his career under the guidance of Matt Drudge.  Both were similar in their natural ability to harness the pulse of society and present it in a way that is nearly impossible to duplicate.  Both, based on their work, seem to have been very similar in their political beliefs.  That being, as Breitbart has said:

"a Reagan conservative, with libertarian sympathies" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart

Breitbart had big plans for Breitbart.com before his death.  It was to be, like the various websites that were merged into it (BigJournalism, Big Hollywood, etc.).  One of those components, Big government was launched with Mike Flynn, of Reason Foundation (a libertarian leaning organization) as editor-in-chief.

BigGovernment and the other associated websites had, as their biggest success, the drive and ability to expose secrets, past dealings, hypocrisy and failings of government, fraudulent or otherwise in addition to bringing to light the the ills of media and other organizations that act in concert with various big government actors.

When the TEA party burst on the scene, Breitbart was there.  And he was a major supporter and purveyor of their message of small government.  He, like the TEA party, certainly must have understood that the message alone was not enough to be effective.  The message must be a means to advance influence, not an end.

The message must be used to advance ideals.  This is done by building a coalition of support.  In 2010, the Breitbart supported TEA party utilized the masses of conservatives that held their economic and government beliefs, but also utilized the republican party and libertarians to deliver and build support for this message.  Such massive ground level support coupled with the reach of the republican party and fueled by the bad taste of Obamacare saw a large scale victory for the small government movement in the House and Senate wins for republicans, many of them TEA party affiliated, and a renewed national focus on limiting government size and control.

That was a major win, but it was just one battle in a large war.  That "war" the Breitbart was fighting was against Big Government, Big Journalism and Big Hollywood.  What these groups have in common is a progressive, liberal mindset with progressive, liberal goals.  They were the "enemy".  And those that fought the march toward bigger government and cozier relationships between government and media were "allies".

Organizations from CPAC to GOProud to Reason Foundation all supported and were supported by Andrew Breitbart.

At the time of his death, Breitbart was preparing for, arguably, the biggest battle in that "war".   The fight against the election campaign of Barack Obama.

Breitbart.com and those that continued to carry the torch of Andrew Breitbart took this task head on.  And while it didn't succeed (and might have been more successful had Andrew been involved) they were focused and stuck to his goals and vision.

And while folks like Ben Shapiro are spot on in terms of their gun rights arguments, much effort must be put in to keeping that Breitbart from slipping.  Since the election, more and more attention has been focused on battles against allies, rather than the main enemy groups.  Rather than drawing attention to the failings of democrats and big government liberals and progressives, a portion of the focus has been moved to republican leaders, folks like Karl Rove, and, just today, a negative article about Rand Paul, an ally with heavy support from the libertarian and TEA party factions of the wide tent of Breitbart supporters.

I don't think that the vision of Andrew Breitbart has been lost, but the current situation requires a strengthening of focus.  It needs to be understood that the republican party, the TEA party and the libertarian party represent large groups of supporters of the Breitbart message.  That support is a necessary means for more effectively achieving the goal of smaller government.

Those potential allies have not made it easy on the Breitbart team.  Certainly the tactics of Karl Rove and even John Bohner have been harmful.  But the solution should be to embrace and "use", for lack of a better word, those people and their supporters to build bridges and coalitions of support for common goals.

The same goes for Rand Paul.  His foreign policy, while not completely in line with the conservative leaning folks, is one in line with smaller government.

Breitbart.com is a very powerful and wide-reaching messaging tool, but that messaging and vision must create alliances, even with those who have made alliance difficult, if the goal is to succeed in reigning in government growth and spending.  That vision is alive and well and in a position to act in a very positive way if managed properly and used to build a strong force for small government and its many, massive benefits to liberty, freedom and quality of life.  The Breitbart message is a key player in the transition to smaller government and must succeed.