I've been trying to make a fairly basic (and tremendously un-original) point for a couple of weeks now, without encountering a whole lot of success in doing so. The point is this: If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
This tired old truism is just as applicable for activists enraged with Obama as it is for Obama himself. And it's also just the tip of a pretty massive iceberg as well.
Starting with the tip, for the moemnt, pointing out the fact that this is a stupid plan:
(1) Dump the Democrats.
(2) ???
(3) Progressive victory!
Is not an argument to STFU and never think again, as some folks would have it. What I'm arguing for is not any one particular strategy. Rather, I'm arguing against a genre of strategies--Underpants Gnome strategies with a bit fat "???" where all the thinking should be.
Now, I have said that I favor building "para-party" structures--meaning multi-issue organizing structures capable of engaging in long-term organizing that builds power independent of existing party structures. But I haven't written a whole lot of detail about them. That's partly because I think there are plenty of different ways that this can be done. And some of what's involved is likely to have been tried before, with mixed success, meaning that broad-brush descriptions are likely to have plenty that's wrong with them as well. For example, IMHO, neither running primary challenges to Democrats in and of itself, nor trying to build a national third party makes much sense. There are limits to both these strategies that can make them catastrophic wastes of time despite initial appearances to the contrary. But this doesn't mean there's no point in ever running a primary challenge, or in working to build a state-level third party. One has to be very specific about the sorts of barriers on faces, and then seek to adapt accordingly.
Dogmatically dismissing criticisms that you don't like, just because you don't like them is not a helpful way to argue. It doesn't help build anything, except for illusions.
And with that in mind, I want to republish a comment made by Bruce Dixon, very late in the life-cycle of the comment thread of "The opportunity costs of Underpants Gnome politics". Bruce's comment is valuable for a number of reasons. First, because it introduced a harsh dose of reality into a conversation that was virtually overwhelmed by wish-fulfillment fantasy. Second, because the reality it introduced was the product of an enormous amount of activists' efforts over they years, and paying attention to that reality is a way of demonstrating respect for fellow progressive activists, their work and their struggles. And without respecting them, we can never respect ourselves, and without self-respect we can never succeed. But it's also valuable because it just might be wrong in some respects, and yet still hold a great deal of value for us--much as well-though-out scientific theories are valuable, even if they're ultimately supplanted, because they help push our thinking forward. But read it first, and then I'll have a bit more to say. Here's Bruce:
I began with the thought of how much better Maddow's show would be if she relied on Digby regularly instead of Anna Marie Cox. Then I thought of something even better, from a movement-building point of view. What if she drew on a much wider range of blogging talent for critical perspectives, helping to raise the visibility of a wide range of progressive voices? Why not a daily bloggers panel to discuss a particular issue? It would be pretty easy to scan for top posts on a subject any given day, and select participants to present their views.
My preference would be for a larger panel of five participants, but to do that right would require too much time out of a one hour show. Simple solution to that--give Rachel two hours. But until then, I'll take a panel of three bloggers, every day, and not just the same three every time. In fact, I'd say no repeats in any one week.
But that's just one idea. I'm sure there are others out there. What would you suggest as a way to make the Rachel Maddow show a stronger vehicle for advancing progressive politics?
Quoted with permission from an email discussion on Obama's political style, as based on David Sirota's post on the ghettoization of progressives in the appointment process, Pastor Dan of Street Prophets said the following, opened with a quote from a previous post of his:
I think this might be the right moment to introduce a useful distinction between political movements and communities:
The former is always goal- and often status-oriented; movements are driven toward particular ends, usually by large personalities, if not big egos. They require a great deal of coordination which almost inevitably turns into a desire for lockstep-action.
Communities, on the other hand, are focused on persons and the relationships they manifest. Movements succeed when they accomplish their objectives, but communities succeed when they nurture the members they have - and when they expand their circle. Movements are short- (or at least limited-) term and transactional, communities play the long game and are transformative.
Obama's genius has been to figure out a way to create community - and to make it trump the ideological conservative movement. (Also, to be fair, he was able to figure out a way to convert the communities he built into a partisan movement that launched him to the White House.)
A certain part of what we've been struggling with ..., I believe, is that many of us are movement types. But Obama's not - when push comes to shove, he's a community guy. This is why he chooses some baffling moves, such as not horsewhipping Joe Lieberman or populating his cabinet with centrists, rather than progressives. He's playing a game of incremental change, one that requires a steady expansion of coalitions. Not to beat a dead horse too badly, it's also why Obama has always been strong among religious voters. Anybody who's spent time in a religious community knows that the art of life in a group like that is to do what you can with the people you have, even when they piss you off.
Anyway, take it for what it's worth. I name it because this is what ... progressives at large are going to be banging their heads on the wall over until they get it figured out. Obama's shifting the political paradigm in ways that we're not going to fully understand until years later.
I have admired Pastor Dan's writing and community-building efforts within the blogosphere for years and it pains me to disagree with him. But except for his saying that we probably won't know the full impact of the coming administration for years, that's just good sense, disagree I must.
If you look to the right side of this page, you'll see that we link to exactly two Republican blogs: The Next Right and Patrick Ruffini. I'll give you one guess as to what both of those sites have in common. Okay, it's Patrick Ruffini. For those of who don't know him, Patrick is the guy who used to run the online division at the RNC and then left that to go run it for Giuliani. Since then, he's started his own consulting firm and has also launched The Next Right with a few collabortators. The goal of the site is to try and use data in interesting ways to make positive and normative statements about the trajectory of the GOP coalition. It usually makes for a great read, and I heartily recommend it to anyone.
This morning, however, I read a post from Patrick that was just dead wrong, and disappointingly so.
STATE BLOGS
