Open Left

Four Points (4.00 / 1)

You don't post that often, Mike, but, boy, when you do....

(1) I agree wholeheartedly with your first point about non-exclusivity.  In fact, I think it's a given that any theory of change worth it's salt must be a theory of change about how the different enumerated strategies fit together, what's most important, how it relates to the other elements, etc.

For me, #6 is the most important of those you have listed (though see #4 below), simply because it's what ensures that we can keep moving forward with the other strategies, and not end up getting sidelined.

(2) The theory of change for one problem need not be the theory of change for another problem.  As you note, there are differences in how hard problems are.  There are also differences in the obstacles and things in our favor when it comes to the hard problems, so it follows that the relationship of the elements involved may be different from one issue/problem to another.

Thus, I am willing to argue about what's the most important element on a case-by-case basis, even though I think the answer is the same across the board.

(3) This also impacts the question of timelines, and incremental steps moving us forward in various different ways.  The viability of state-level programs as demonstrations for building on, for example, may make a lot more sense for one problem than for another, even if in theory it seems equally useful for all.  

(4) I would add one more theory of change into the mix, and that's the counter-hegemonic Gramscian "culture war"/"war of position".  This is not the same thing as the more amorphous "6. The more powerful progressive movement theory.", although it's certainly compatible with it, and gives it a more concrete form, as well as higher ambitions than others might envision.

What distinguishes it is key elements such as a focus on institution-building, intra- and inter-institutional organizing, messaging, high-level coordination, long-range planning, funding and strategizing, etc.  

Everything I said in #s 1-3 applies to this as well.  Understood properly, the Gramscian "culture war" encompasses all the rest, but inevitably people will lose sight of this, so it's a good idea from the get-go to avoid presenting it as "the" solution.

In order to preserve the importance of all the elements, and the importance of diverse critical perspectives, even though I see them all subsumed under a Gramscian approach, it's important to avoid having it overshadow the others in a way that routinizes our thinking about them.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 15:40:21 PM CDT

Another way to look at it (4.00 / 1)

I would add another (perhaps simpler?) theory (or is it just a strategy?) of change that I think fits in nicely with yours, and with "The more powerful progressive movement theory."

It was quite a while ago but Chris had a really important post  (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1809) on positive feedback loops. Basically, policies to pursue that strengthen the ability to further push progressive policy. One aspect of the culture war in action. I followed up with a diary that compiled the many ideas people offered in the comments (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1826).

I don't think it's a theory of change all by itself, but it certainly helps us understand where we should prioritize, and what we can sacrifice and what we can't in the inevitable compromises we're forced to make. That's why amnesty, er, "a path to citizenship" is so damn important, and why the EFCA should be our number 1 priority.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 00:31:06 AM CDT

[ Parent | ]