Messianic

Because I’m very into organizing and mobilization, half of me is totally blown away by this effort - in a good way.  Because I’m a wary skeptic of those with power, the other half of me is totally blown away by this effort - NOT in a good way.  I highlight mostly the parts that give me pause, so READ THE WHOLE THING.

dday over at Hullabaloo on “The Obama Party”:

On Saturday, in over 100 locations across the country, the Obama Vote for Change campaign will roll out with kickoff events all over the country designed to register and mobilize voters. At the event I’ll be attending in South Los Angeles, the goal is to register 2,000 new voters in one afternoon. Multiply that out and you have 200,000 voters registered by one campaign in a single day. And that’s only the beginning. Marc Ambinder has caught on to just how seismic this summer has the potential of being.

…

There’s nothing shadowy about this - it’s an extension of what the Obama campaign has been doing since he entered the race. He’s building a new Democratic infrastructure, regimenting it under his brand, and enlisting new technologies and more sophisticated voter contacting techniques to turn it from a normal GOTV effort into a lasting movement. The short-term goal is to increase voter turnout by such a degree that Republicans will wither in November, not just from a swamp of cash but a flood of numbers. The long-term goal is to subvert the traditional structures of the Democratic Party since the early 1990s, subvert the nascent structures that the progressive movement has been building since the late 1990s, and build a parallel structure, under his brand, that will become the new power center in American politics. …

However, despite his calls that change always occurs from the bottom up, these structures are very much being created and controlled from the top down.  In a laudable piece by Matt Stoller, and not just because he quotes me, he discusses how Obama is consolidating the elements of the party and streamlining the message.

Obama has created a number of significant infrastructure pieces through his campaign, displacing traditional groups the way he promised he would by signaling the end of the old politics of division and partisanship.

“Voter Registration: Obama has launched a 50 state registration drive [...] I have heard from several sources that the Obama campaign is sending out signals to donors, specifically at last weekend’s Democracy Alliance convention, to stop giving to outside groups, including America Votes. The campaign also circulated negative press reports about Women’s Voices Women’s Vote, implying voter suppression.

Obama Organizing Fellows: These are unpaid positions, and they will be used to do field organizing, message, and helping to “continue to build the movement”. This is pure leadership development, though it continues the class-based diminution of talent by refusing to pay, a problem outlined in Crashing the Gates.”

…

I’m also told, though I can’t confirm, that Obama campaign has also subtly encouraged donors to not fund groups like VoteVets and Progressive Media. These groups fall under the ’same old Washington politics’ which he wants to avoid, a partisan gunslinging contest he explicitly advocates against.

…

The figures in an Obama Administration will likely be core figures within the party for the next 20 years. The next generation will be characterized, as Chris Bowers perceives, with a set of more technocratic, good-government advocates, policy types who have a command of their specific bailiwicks, rather than the corporate-friendly DLC types of recent yore. Neither of these are necessarily progressive, but I’d consider the former group, motivated by policy over politics, far more palatable.

…
Still, outside amplifiers are going to be needed to enact Obama’s agenda. There’s a myth that progressive groups like MoveOn would dry up without a lightning rod like Bush to oppose but I don’t think that’s true. People aren’t only mad with Bush but really are seeking legitimate solutions and will get excited about them. If Obama is shutting out these organizers who are positioned to help him put through those solutions, can he possibly build a parallel movement big enough to combat the institutional barriers in Washington? I actually think it’s possible he can, but the more important question is this: what happens the first time that an agenda item fails, when Congress suddenly finds its backbone and starts acting like an independent branch of government again, when a media which loves to raise heroes only to trash them engages in that familiar cycle, when Obama experiences a legislative loss? It’s bound to happen, and the question is how he’ll keep together his movement, built on his image, without outside help? I appreciate the washing away of the Clintonite strain at the top of the party, which I think is out of step with the historical moment, so much so that Hillary Clinton has spent three months running away from it. But wresting away ALL the power and consolidating it is I think a misunderstanding of how inside and outside groups can be mutually reinforcing and part of a more vibrant cultural and political movement, and how the culture is moving toward more decentralized, more viral, looser networks to organize. Obama’s movement, based on unity and hope, is working because politics is of the moment, a fad, Paris Hilton. To sustain that, you must institutionalize engagement, civic participation, awareness and action, even in a non-horse race year, as a necessary facet of citizenship. And there’s no reason to shut down reinforcing progressive structures that can keep it fun and interesting and vital.

We are not yet here to stay. The progressive organizations, the advocacy groups, even the blogosphere may be ephemeral if it doesn’t sustain itself. If the flow of money keeps moving in only one direction, less people will be able to continue the work (I hate that Obama isn’t paying his organizing fellows, perpetuating that myth of “psychic income” and barring entire classes of people from the process).

The down side of “unity,” to say the least.  Was there nothing good worth salvaging in the old?

And as a student of urban planning and politics, beware the ascendancy of “technocratic, good-government” types.  These are the folks who advocate for city managers over machine politics, or non-partisan elections.  It all sounds good in theory, but generally those in minority groups or neighborhoods lose out from such consolidations, as their unique voices and needs that - for better and worse - are more likely to be heard in partisan politics (via access to machines pols, for ex) where sh*t gets fought out and deals get done, get drowned out in the quest for consolidated managerial efficiency conducted behind closed doors.  But what do I know, I’m just a conflict theorist at heart.