creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
3 Feb 2012
When It Comes to Education Technology, Trust, But Verify

The release of Apple's computer-based textbooks last month had the usual technology triumphalists buzzing. … Read More.

27 Jan 2012
The Economic Normalcy Bias

In 1977, two Boeing 747s collided on an airstrip in the Canary Islands. According to accident investigators, … Read More.

20 Jan 2012
Our Selective Definition of Bigotry

If they have any value at all anymore, presidential election campaigns at least remain larger-than-life … Read More.

A Party Is Not a Movement

Share Comment

The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive "movement" have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one.

Though the 2006 and 2008 elections were billed as progressive movement successes, the story behind them highlights a longer-term failure. During those contests, most leaders of Washington's major labor, environmental, antiwar and anti-poverty groups spent millions of dollars on a party endeavor — specifically, on electing a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. In the process, many groups subverted their own movement agendas in the name of electoral unity.

The effort involved a sleight of hand. These groups begged their grassroots members — janitors, soccer moms, veterans and other "regular folks" — to cough up small-dollar contributions in return for the promise of movement pressure on both parties' politicians. Simultaneously, these groups went to dot-com and Wall Street millionaires asking them to chip in big checks in exchange for advocacy that did not offend those fat cats' Democratic politician friends (or those millionaires' economic privilege).

This wasn't totally dishonest. Many groups sincerely believed that Democratic Party promotion was key to progressive movement causes. And anyway, during the Bush era, many of those causes automatically helped Democrats by indicting Republicans.

But after the 2008 election, the strategy's bankruptcy is undeniable.

As we now see, union dues underwrote Democratic leaders who today obstruct serious labor law reform and ignore past promises to fix NAFTA. Green groups' resources elected a government that pretends sham "cap and trade" bills represent environmental progress. Health care groups promising to push a single-payer system got a president not only dropping his own single-payer promises, but also backing off a "public option" to compete with private insurance.

And antiwar funding delivered a Congress that refuses to stop financing the Iraq mess, and an administration preparing to escalate the Afghanistan conflict.

Of course, frustrated progressives might be able to forgive the groups who promised different results, had these post-election failures prompted course corrections.

For example, had the left's preeminent groups responded to Democrats' health care capitulations by immediately announcing campaigns against these Democrats, progressives could feel confident that these groups were back to prioritizing a movement agenda. Likewise, had the big antiwar organizations reacted to Obama's Afghanistan escalation plans with promises of electoral retribution, we would know those organizations were steadfastly loyal to their antiwar brand.

But that hasn't happened. Despite Democrats’ health care retreat, many major progressive groups spent the summer cheering them on, afraid to lose access and, thus, Beltway status. Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Moveon.org has "yet to take a clear position on Afghanistan" while VoteVets' leader all but genuflected to Obama, saying, "People (read: professional political operatives) do not want to take on the administration."

In this vacuum, movement building has been left to underfunded (but stunningly successful) projects like Firedoglake.com, Democracy for America, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and local organizations. And that's the lesson: True grassroots movements that deliver concrete legislative results are not steered by marble-columned institutions, wealthy benefactors or celebrity politicians — and they are rarely ever run from Washington. They are almost always far-flung efforts by those organized around real-world results — those who don't care about party conventions, congressional cocktail parties or White House soirees they were never invited to in the first place.

Only when enough progressives realize that truism will any movement — and any change — finally commence.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
You are absolutely right to point out that a party is not a movement. The voters are so used to thinking in terms of the two-party system that they feel anyone so foolish as to vote for a candidite outside the sacred two is either a traitor or (their favorite epithet) an idiot. I have even read suggestions by frustrated voters that if we must have a third party that it should rise out of political moderates as it might then attract spporters of both traditional parties. When did anything innovative ever rise come from an unimaginative "moderate?"
Somehow out of all the disappointment and disillusionment of members of both parties who are insightful enough to see that our very survival as a nation depends on breaking the old mold and striking off in bold new directions to accommodate the needs of a 21st Century democracy, a genuine movement may arise. That, at least is my hope. Voters delude themslves into thinking change is even possible when the two parties claim different priorities but actually offer the same realities. What is so desperately needed in leaders today is that "vision thing." That's what fires up a movement.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Joanna Garrett
Fri Sep 4, 2009 7:28 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
David Sirota
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 6 Feb 2012
Bill O'Reilly
Bill O'ReillyUpdated 4 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 4 Feb 2012

8 Feb 2008 The Democrats' Class War

23 Apr 2010 Clinton's Contrition

4 Jun 2010 From Shared Sacrifice to Hedonism