One of the main activities Open Left has been engaged in during its two years of existence is working to hold Democratic candidates and elected officials accountable for conservative, anti-constituent actions. Last June, Mike Lux had some very smart things to say about holding politicians accountable, which helps clarify exactly what progressive accountability entails. Specifically, it is about building the power to deny politicians things they really value, unless their behavior falls within a range you deem acceptable:
For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected and passing legislation they want to pass (although there might be a few other smaller things some politicians might care about). Unless you have the ability and willingness to mess with a politician in a serious way on either of those things, I don't think you can hold them accountable. I don't think saying bad things about them holds them accountable, I don't think holding a protest holds them accountable, I don't think starting a petition holds them accountable- unless it is affecting their ability to win an election or pass legislation.
I think this is exactly right. To help further clarify this thought, consider for a moment that many ways in which the Obama administration is able to hold politicians accountable should those politicians act in a way that the administration deems unacceptable.
Here are just some of the ways that the Obama administration can hold politicians and organizations accountable:
Provide or withhold email support: The Obama campaign is still in possession of an email list with somewhere between ten and twenty million members. It can, or not use, this email list to support or oppose a candidate during his or her re-election campaign in 2010. Use of the email list can be made contingent upon support for the administration's agenda.
Provide or withhold surrogates: The Obama administration is also able to send, or not send, a wide variety of surrogates to hold in-district events, or speak at campaign rallies, for members of Congress during 2009 and 2010. The administration could send, or not send, cabinet secretaries, Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden, or President Obama himself. Republicans who have been particularly irritating, or Democrats who have been particularly supportive, of the administration's agenda could see these figures holding events and rallies in their districts.
Raise or lower administration priorities: The Obama administration has made public support for things like "cramdown" and the Employee Free Choice Act clear. However, it also hasn't made either of these efforts a legislative priority, as SEIU's Andy Stern recently complained in regards to EFCA. Raising or lowering the legislative priority of a given effort can be made contingent on support for the administration in other areas.
Appointments: Obviously, appointments within the administration can be made dependent upon support for the administration in other areas. Additionally, people who politicians or organizations support for administration appointments can also be made dependant, either partially or entirely, upon the support for the administration from those politicians or organizations.
Provide or withhold budget support: Perhaps most important of all, the administration can hold members of Congress in line through fear of retribution when it comes to funding projects in the district of a given member of Congress. If Democrats voice opposition to the administration from either the right or the left, they can see funding to in-district programs either cut or reduced. All members of Congress, whether they are threatened for re-election or not, are afraid of this, as such projects are often the hallmarks of their careers in Congress. The Obama administration has a huge amount of influence over the $3.5+ trillion federal budget, and thus use this fear of retribution quite effectively.
In fact, it can use this fear without even threatening to use it, as even the potential threat of losing in-district funding can weigh heavily on members of Congress who are considering opposing the President. From what I understand, this is a major concern for many members of Congress who would favor a special prosecutor for torture investigations, but who are afraid to do so without the explicit support of a special prosecutor from the administration. It is possible that the President's new warming to a special prosecutor will now embolden action among members of Congress.
The Obama administration is an extreme example of accountability potential, because it has more power than anything else in politics right now. However, it is still a useful example, because it allows you to think through the many ways that it can bend politicians to its will through fear of administration retribution and / or the desire of support from the administration.
It is from this same framework that progressive activists must consider their own accountability efforts. What are the ways in which we can deny politicians something they desire should their behavior fall out of what we consider to be an acceptable range? While we lack anything comparable to the power of the Obama administration, we do have fundraising, media buzz, and volunteer activism as assets. The more of these assets that we can build, the more effective our accountability work will become.
