I keep forgetting to let everyone know about this, so apologies for the timing, but this weekend is Rootscamp. If you're in DC (or live nearby) I highly recommend coming down. It's put on by the New Organizing Institute (the same organization that sponsored in part my trip to work on No On 1 in Maine), a key cog of progressive infrastructure. They do lots of good webinars Chris and I have been on, media trainings in which I've participated, and provide funding streams for bloggers and online activists who couldn't otherwise do their work.
Rootscamp is an "un-conference" where you come and organize discussions about pretty much anything progressively political. Some of the best minds in progressive politics are there talking about everything from online activism to labor-led field operations to e-mail copywriting to Latino organizing to low-dollar fundraising and more. Every year I learn a dozen new things.
I'm co-leading a few discussions, including one with a few of my fellow organizers on the ground in Maine regarding the No On 1 blogger team and a model of offline/online collaboration.
Registration is just $10 and, I'm told, is still open. More info and a list of attendees is here. Even if you can only come for a half-day, it's worth it. Hope to see you there.
As many of you know, I've been writing about the marriage equality ballot initiative in Maine for some time. I've been writing about this campaign not only because I care as a gay man, but because I care about the broader progressive movement.
As I wrote here, I think a win or loss in Maine will have a profound impact on the LGBT movement. A loss will mean the right-wing is batting 1.000 on marriage initiatives since 2004- through constitutional amendments, Prop 8, and now this. It gives the haters something to go back to their right-wing funders with, it shapes the media narrative that the country isn't "ready" for gay marriage. And it means couples will remain second-class citizens.
But I also think it will impact non-LGBT progressives. Here's why:
I often hear the theory that issue movements are disconnected- that a win or loss on marriage equality has nothing to do with, say, a win or loss on climate change. Ergo, the straight individual living outside of Maine won't be impacted by what happens in Maine. I don't think that's true.
The conservative movement is very interconnected. The right-wing foundation which funds anti-LGBT orgs also funds clean coal "studies", right-wing press outlets, and more. A win on any of these issues keeps right-wing money flowing overall, while defeats help to interrupt right-wing resources in other areas. Resources won't dry up, as there will always be die-hard activists, but they can lessen if there are across-the-board losses for conservatives on health care this fall, on marriage in Maine, on cap-and-trade later this year.
For our side, if we string losses together on issue after issue, it becomes demoralizing. It's demoralizing to movement activists as well as to many donors and foundations. Doubtful? Think of how many people you know who said they haven't felt so inspired- or even voted- since Kennedy in 1980, or McGovern in 1972, or even Kennedy in 1960, until Barack Obama. Winning and losing matters, and it matters across a multi-issue plain.
Because I believe in this inter-connectedness, and the critical nature Maine plays in a movement of which OpenLeft is a part, I'm going to travel to Maine next month to blog on the ground about the campaign. I'm traveling in conjunction with the New Organizing Institute's National LGBT Blogger and Citizen Journalist Initiative, another critical part of our movement. I'll be doing video interviews with key folks on the ground- including campaign staff, bloggers, traditional media, activists, and even a right-winger or two. I'll be talking to local voters, and sending back lessons on the politics of marriage equality, something we're going to be looking at here in DC very soon. I'm also hoping to explore how the campaign impacts progressives across the country, and shed a little light on Maine politics, including our favorite senior Senator there.
For this, I need to ask for your help.
As you know, such a venture has expenses, I'd like to ask for your support to help cover travel expenses (the rest will go to OpenLeft projects). I assure you that your dollars will be going to generating quality, interesting daily content here at OpenLeft on the Maine campaign, as well as instructive and productive lessons on our progressive movement overall. Between coming to the finish line on health care next month, getting a view from on the ground in Maine, and continuing to build an inside-outside progressive movement, I guarantee OpenLeft will be in its element.
(Properly, this should be an instance of Open Left's "right of reply" given the earlier diary for Green Lantern. But it's more than that, so take a serious read, even if I do get a special "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer" thrill out of doing this. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
In the New Organizing Institute's mock election, I endorsed Wonder Woman for her high-quality policy positions. This election is a fun exercise, but also illustrates a very serious issue in the way progressives interact with candidates and campaigns.
Government can be annoying. It makes you pay file complicated forms and pay money in the springtime, it sometimes closes your subway station or park for an investigation, and if you park in an illegal spot, it sometimes gives you a ticket.
The fact that government can be annoying is a big force fueling the ongoing anti-"big government" conservative movement. After all, more often the ways most people interact personally with government is of these annoying varieties, making the argument that we should just abolish it pretty appealing.
But we progressives know that government also plays an important role in making our society safer, better, freer, and more sustainable. (Besides, private sector companies can be just as annoying - just try scheduling a cable service call.) We know where we stand on health care or warrantless wiretapping, but how do we react when a new issue comes along, one we know nothing about, and where government is being a little annoying?
Do we automatically jump on a populist-sounding position if it works against broader social goals? More importantly, do we want our elected officials grabbing the easy sound bite, or do we want candidates who take the time to learn about issues and figure out a real progressive position?
This issue came to the forefront during the New Organizing Institute election, where organizers are learning to run campaigns by running mock campaigns for comic superheroes. An interest group called for the campaigns to take a seemingly populist position that's actually the opposite of a good environmental policy. Four of the campaigns jumped right on board, trying to outdo each other in how loudly they could call for this change.
Three others resisted the urge. And one, Wonder Woman, did the opposite: they took some serious time to contact local activists, and learn about this and other issues, and formulate their policy positions. Their platform isn't just based on a quick, cursory read of issues, but on real research. And, given that this is just a mock election, that's an impressive amount of policy outreach.
The New Organizing Institute is a vital piece of progressive infrastructure, training a new generation of online organizers.
Each summer they have an intense one-week "Boot Camp" which, in addition to many daily trainings, includes a mock election run by teams organizers over the course of the week. This year's election featured super heros running for DC mayor.
STATE BLOGS
