(Also, be sure to check out Matt's post just below this - promoted by Chris Bowers)
I'm going to chime in on the discussion about 2008 presidential candidates and the blogosphere that Chris weighed in on over the weekend.
Obviously, this is a post in which letting people know up front that I have chosen a candidate to support is relevant (in fact, it's the point). So: I support Barack Obama in 2008, and I'm supporting him as part of an independent grass-roots PAC in California called Vote Hope. This is the latest in my years of experience in electoral and movement politics, including working on the Dean campaign, dozens of state and local races, and being in meetings with Jesse Jackson.
I think Chris was brave to raise this issue, and I thank him for it. Difficult conversations are important, and I admire Chris, and the blogosphere in general, for the willingness to have them.
Chris ended up exploring the issue from a personal level rather than trying to speak about the blogosphere as a whole, and reading through the discussions sparked by his post, that feels like a valuable lesson. While it is tempting to try to analyze the progressive blogosphere in terms of a single voting bloc, that's just not the reality of what's happening in the blogosphere. People who are active in this sector of the movement come to it from very different perspectives, and it has gotten large enough now that it would be unreasonable to expect widespread agreement on one candidate.
However, there are some important questions I think we should be asking ourselves. Chris asked a few over the weekend, and Matt asked some different ones last week. Given that my lens is much more from a broad, progressive movement-building perspective than a "netroots" perspective, my main question is: What is the role of candidates in movement-building?
|
| We can get distracted trying to find one "movement candidate" at this stage of movement-building we are in, as many of the commenters on Matt's post above noted. Our multi-issue progressive movement has simply not yet had the kind of funding or organizational leadership that it needs to develop and converge on the ideas, grow the membership, nurture the leaders and strengthen the communication channels that we would need for it to be possible for us to have one "movement candidate" right now. And yet almost everyone agrees that this presidential primary is an important moment in our movement. So where does that leave us for 2008?
I believe that in this nascent stage of movement-building, candidates can help us. They are like tools. Or the way I like to think of it, like planets in a solar system that we can slingshot around to make our collective movement stronger: bigger, more cohesive, and with a more clear set of values and governing principles. This is the essence of why, as a movement activist, I have deliberately chosen to take sides in this primary.
One example of this concept is the Jesse Jackson primary campaigns in the 1980s, which were absolutely a vehicle for movement-building. One of my co-workers at Vote Hope, in reflecting on his involvement in those campaigns, said the draw for him was not the personal qualities of candidate Jesse Jackson. It was about the idea of a movement based on the politics of a multi-racial coalition that would fight for the "desperate, the dammed, the disinherited, the disrespected, and the despised," as Jesse laid out in his 1984 Democratic convention speech. This was movement-building because Jackson didn't just talk about that constituency; it was one of the rare times in history where someone tried to organize that constituency into an electoral force. It was a merging of the ideals of the Civil Rights Movement and an electoral campaign for real power, and it was an incredibly moving notion for people.
Many folks in my generation and on the blogs had a similar kind of experience getting involved with Howard Dean. For me, it was not about Dean himself -- there were plenty of things about his personality and some of his positions that I worried about. But the idea of "You Have the Power" was incredibly motivating and quite transformational for me. While I clearly came of political age through the Dean campaign, many of the people who have been most influential on my thinking about movement-building, and who I am now working with around the Obama candidacy, came of political age through the Jackson campaigns. I have found that there is a really interesting confluence of thinking that happens when you bring people together, across generations, who have had these different perspectives.
In this context, I feel good about sharing my reasons for the side I am taking in this primary, just as Chris shared his for staying neutral.In terms of movement-building, there are two things I care about most. One is getting more people involved in the concept of politics. There are just way too many people who are inherently progressive, but who are completely detached from politics, except maybe voting -- largely uninformed -- on Election Day. I am most concerned about young people and people of color being involved, which brings me to my second point: the moral center I discussed in my post last week. During this primary cycle, I want us to try to better define the underlying principles and narrative (not a laundry list of policies or issues) that can unite our winning, multi-racial progressive coalition.
To the first point, there is simply an incredible amount of people power surrounding Obama right now. And the fact that the enormous crowds and massive small donor base are so diverse, racially and across generations, makes getting on board with Obama feel like being a part of something larger than yourself. You will see that reflected in many of the diaries that went up when people participated in the Walk for Change in June (this is one of my favorites). Additionally, one of the things that comes out of campaigns is the development of activists, organizers and elected leaders for the next 20 years. Barbara Lee came out of Shirley Chisolm's campaign for example, and Paul Wellstone was Jackson's Minnesota campaign director. The people who are active in campaigns in 2008 will make up the pool from which our future progressive leadership is going to come, which is why I think it's critical to relate to it.
The second point has to do with how and why I suspect it is that Obama is catching on. Why has he been the one to combine both large and small donor backing with super-sized people power? The answer, I think, lies in Obama's ability to tell the story of progressive America. He accomplishes this both in his speeches and other campaign tactics but also simply through the story of his life. Electorally, this matters greatly, because one of the keys to the conservative movement's ongoing strengths has been their ability to define and reinforce narratives.
At a deeper level, one of the big ideas that underlies Obama's message is interdependence, or solidarity, which I believe is an incredibly important principle for the progressive movement. A main thrust of Obama's message, and one that he says in every speech I have seen him give, is the concept that "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper," that "we all have a stake in each other." Part of the power I see here, from my perspective of wanting to build a multi-racial coalition, is it's the only principle that deeply unites both the environmental movement (which is largely white in leadership) and the social justice movement (largely led by people of color). John Muir said: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." Martin Luther King, Jr. said: "All life is interrelated. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality; tied in a single garment of destiny." In talking about solidarity in a way that is clearly connecting with people, I think Obama is helping to make the case for our worldview. We know we're on to something when the right wing attacks, right? Tucker Carlson helped crystalize this for me last week when he ridiculed Obama for taking on this message.
Finally, there is significance in the fact that the PAC I am working on right now is called "Vote Hope" and not "Vote Obama." We believe in the importance of building up infrastructure that is tied to the energy of candidates (including those at the local, state and regional levels), but that is long-term, and doesn't end when the campaign does. A large base of supporters can be very valuable in helping to hold candidates accountable once they are elected and begin governing. But that power diminishes without the infrastructure on a local and state level to support it. A viable candidate may always choose to focus on getting elected. It's our job to do the rest of the hard work.
Again, these are my own personal reflections, and I think it would be great to hear from people who are supporting a different candidate, on how they are using that candidate to help strengthen and build the movement. I'm making mine here, but it does not mean I discount others. Movement-building is not a zero-sum game. Much of the conversation on the blogs thus far has lacked that analysis, which I think has led to some of the confusion and frustration by those who are observing and participating in this conversation.
I will also say that I think there are other parts of Obama's narrative that I don't see as particularly helpful to movement-building, but that I think are part of his campaign's tactics to win an election. This is precisely why I see candidates and campaigns as tools for movement activists, as opposed to "the movement" itself.
I have a dear friend who is an organizer and local Democratic Party leader in California, who has not taken sides as strongly as I have, and it has led to many heated debates between us. But I respect him for what he plans to do in the meantime, which is to volunteer for both candidates he sees as capable of pushing the movement forward (in his case, Obama and Edwards).
My point in bringing this up is, there is a difference between staying neutral in terms of an endorsement, but being involved in all the campaigns that you think can help push the movement forward, and just staying out of it. My organizer friend is doing it by contributing to the on-the-ground work in his community. Bloggers like Chris and Matt, Atrios and the folks at Firedog Lake and the Huffington Post are doing it by writing about all the candidates and trying to push them to better progressive positions, which I think is great.
What I don't think is great, and what I think is potentially dangerous, is people who are just sitting on the sidelines, and it can be a fine line. I see things like, "I don't have a dog in this hunt," from prominent bloggers, and that worries me. This is also why I take issue with bloggers who I hear say they don't want to get involved with anyone now because they are waiting for Gore to get in the race. My response is, how is waiting for Gore to get in the race strengthening the movement? And how can you let this incredible moment for organizing pass you by as you wait?
A better approach, I would argue, is to find a planet or two to slingshot around. That is what the movement needs from you right now. |
STATE BLOGS
