The Washington Post just published a smart op-ed by Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org. The thrust of it:

“[Obama must] decide whether he’ll be the first president to actually engage millions of real people, via the Internet, to govern and set the compass of the country. It’s easier to roll out webby gimmicks — everyone can submit a name for the First Puppy! — than to serve as organizer in chief. But embracing connected politics may be the only road to the kind of transformation that Obama promised and that many in the country expect.”

I’ve always found the phrase “organizer in chief” particularly compelling. It evokes a vision of grassroots, bottom-up power. Obama projected this brand during the campaign, to stunningly powerful effect. Eli’s op-ed asks, can the realities of his administration match up to that brand?

Let’s assume that Obama actually believes in bottom-up politics; or at least sees the political efficacy of embracing it. (That’s a huge assumption, but let’s go there, for argument’s sake.) If so, how would that translate into “online” governance? Would web-enable democracy actually work?

The devil, as always, is in the details. Will more technically proficient Internet users seize disproportionate power? Will the mechanisms of online democracy unfairly shape the outcomes? Where will money, raw power and lobbyists find the loopholes to exploit?

Despite the possible pitfalls, its hard to imagine an online governance system that performs worse than Washington does now. Would you rather have a couple database geeks skew an online poll, or big pharma lobbyists write our healthcare policy?

I don’t believe DC is fatally broken; but it’ll take a lot of reform to make it functional. Obama has the momentum to strike out with a bold, web-based reform. He should capitalize on that momentum and turn Change.gov into an experimenting ground for true online governance.