On the surface, Al Giordano’s takedown of Chris Bowers in on point. Bowers certainly exaggerated the silence emanating from Team Obama when it comes to providing direction to the millions of Obama supporters on his mailing list. Team Obama has provided specific advice and guidance for his supporters on how they can help build support for passing the stimulus bill. When Bowers wrote:
What does President Obama want his supporters to do? For that matter, what does President Obama want the American people to do? We are in the midst of a major crisis right now, and shown time and time again that we are willing to take action to help remedy the problem. Millions, tens of millions, of people feel incredibly frustrated, trapped even, and are unsure what to do next. While they are ready to act, someone needs to make the ask. Right now, the person to make the ask is President Obama, but he isn’t doing it. What does President Obama want us to do? The silence is deafening.
…he was simply wrong. Moreover, Obama spelled out his argument (again) in this morning’s Washington Post. But that’s not the end of the story. For Bowers, the issue isn’t whether or not to support passage of the stimulus bill, but figuring out just exactly what President Obama wants in the stimulus bill. What amendments does he support and what amendments does he oppose? What is essential and what is negotiable? How are Obama’s minions supposed to know what to advocate if they are not provided with better guidance?
Giordano glosses over this point as he explains how Organizing for America is proceeding and why they are proceeding in that way. Giordano’s insights into organizing are incredibly valuable and accurate, but they don’t address Bowers’ concerns. And there are issues of concern that Bowers did not raise in this particular piece but which have been obviously disturbing the whole OpenLeft team since early on in the primaries.
Chief among them is what to do when activism and organizing goals are at odds or differ in priorities with the Obama administration and/or the Democratic Congress. Giordano, rightfully, emphasizes the feedback loop features of Organizing for America which allow members to influence policy and priorities. But Bowers is more concerned with what to do when that influence is ignored or rejected.
Left-wing activism isn’t synonymous with the Obama administration or the Democratic Party, and it is not desirable that all left-wing activism be absorbed into the Organizing for America borg. Moreover, Organizing for America is just getting started and will always remain somewhat of a lumbering beast. The blogosphere is much more nimble and prepared to act and mobilize at a moment’s notice. Rallying opposition to an unanticipated amendment or tactic is something that requires an alacrity Organizing for America is likely to lack.
And, in addition, it’s simply not in the nature of the blogosphere to docilely wait for direction from on high before expressing its own opinions and taking its own actions. There is a constitutional mistrust of the idea that organizing and advocacy should be brought under the Organizing for America umbrella. That mistrust leads to a minimization of the value and symbiotic feedback potential of what David Plouffe is building (a point Giordano attempts to remind about time and time again). But potential and value aside, there will remain differences of opinion and we should want it no other way. It’s all well and good for Obama supporters to make clear that they place a high priority on marijuana decriminalization or renegotiating NAFTA, but when those opinions are not respected or prioritized, that cannot be the end of the story.
What this comes down to is two different philosophical positions. One position sees the way forward as pushing for change through traditional activism (in an Internet age) by directing donations, providing free media, mobilizing Congressional contacts, and emphasizing message. The other position sees the way forward in building synergistic citizen/government organizing structures that, by their very nature, will carry forward a more perfect, populist, and progressive agenda.
I am decidedly in the latter (Giordano) camp. But I don’t kid myself that Organizing for America is a cure-all. It will remain primarily focused on passing Obama’s agenda and getting him reelected. I share Giordano’s faith that it will eventually change what is politically possible by injecting a truer sense of the will of the people into the political process. But it will still be used to advance Obama’s interests even when he is, for good or ill, bucking the will of his movement. And that places limitations on its usefulness.
To get back to Bowers’ point, does Obama want to reduce the size of the stimulus package, or not? Does he support any of the proposed amendments, or not? He’s told his supporters how and why to support the passage of the bill, but he hasn’t given them the finer grained direction to influence the construction of the bill. I think that’s what caused Bowers’ frustration.
I suspect that Obama is being purposely opaque about what kind of final stimulus package he really wants.
By remaining vague, he can claim victory so long as some kind of package eventually gets passed. Moreover, this approach allows him to remain flexible.
I recognize the frustration of not knowing what Obama really wants, but frankly, I’m not sure it really matters in determining what kind of pressure the left should try to generate. It already seems clear to me that Obama is willing to compromise and, for lack of a better word, is a “pragmatist.” Whatever his ideals may be, he is going to react to pressures, and probably get pulled in whichever direction the pressure is the greatest.
If you can think for yourself… You don’t need to be in any camp. I know you address this issue, I am just reiterating the reality of the left.
Find your ally on each particular issue and kick it ’til it’s done either way – win or lose. Then pick your next issue and allies.
MoveOn was a decent group until they started ignoring the original idea of doing what the members supported. Even when I disagreed with positions, in the beginning, they were mass supported one’s. Then they became just another top down group abusing their numbers for their leaders agenda.
I’ll take individual ideas, causes, materials from groups or other Bloggers… But I am never joining another one again.
The last thing I want to see is another “Markos” (reagan republican) legitimized just because thousands show up to his site to read almost anything but his personal political views.
I don’t understand why blogger/activists/whatever they call themselves NEED guidance from Obama on what they should be blogging/activisming/whatever with respect to the content of the bill. They know what issues are important to them and they should be educating and advocating for those issues as it relates to that specific bill.
I suspect that, as usual, this has to do less with getting a good bill passed than it does with getting CREDIT for getting a good bill passed. If Obama provided direction to you for your activism and that activism worked then you can take credit for achieving that objective and demand some recognition. If you just choose something that’s important to you, get active and your activism works, but the powers that be never cared about that issue – you don’t get any credit.
Politics is all about building your political capital and one way to do it is by getting credit for good ideas. It always helps if you are sure that the thing you are working on is seen as a good idea by those ‘that count’. I actually don’t object to that system, as corrupt as it may sometimes be.
The guidance is required so they aren’t working at cross purposes (like the Joe Lieberman issue for example). That doesn’t help anyone.
“The other position sees the way forward in building synergistic citizen/government organizing structures that, by their very nature, will carry forward a more perfect, populist, and progressive agenda.”
But that doesn’t even make any sense. Almost anyone who goes into politics gets corrupted really fast. Besides, while we are busy doing that the world is crumbling so why can’t we do both?
I guess I’d also add that otherwise (i.e. not the Bowers specifics) there is a certain powerless feeling that results.
Giordano and OpenLeft. Al was even harder on David Sirota. I really appreciated that MyDD was a strong Clinton supporter. And by the same token I appreciate that Al takes no prisoners in his defense of Obama. And I am glad that OpenLeft and Agonist and Ian Welsh at FireDogLake do not hold back in their criticism of Obama.
Hmmmm. Now where am I going to place Booman?
I would call booman a pragmatic idealist.
It’s not as if Bowers is either organizing effectively or producing a coherent critique. All OpenLeft does is echo MSM rumors and disinformation.
Bowers just continues tarnishing what’s left of his reputation. I wonder if he is aware how much of a laughingstock he’s become.