John Edwards and community organizing
Discussion list for COMM-ORG
colist at comm-org.wisc.edu
Mon Oct 22 11:54:27 CDT 2007
[ed: thanks to Holly for continuing the discussion.]
From: Holly Hickson <andivy2 at yahoo.com>
I think the fear of conflict issue is an important one. His Obama's
handlers are likely a counterbalance to his organizer's instincts. They
fear stereotypes of Obama as an angry Black man, and don't trust the
general public to be moved by him. I wonder what would happen if Obama
, early on, bput together a triumvirate on individuals that had it all:
Richardson's international saavy and passion, Edwards' feel for the
impoverished, and, by the way, his roots in the South, and Obama
heading the ticket? If they could come out as a tour de force, the
momentum would likely permanently shift. The combination of forces
and voices would end politics as usual and we could hear the
military/industrial/congressional complex shaking all across the
country. There would be room in the trio for a more aggressive
approach to the mess in Iraq, and a space for amazing creativity with
just a little less individualism? Too naive? probably.
Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
> --------
> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
> --------
>
> [ed: thanks to Don for continuing the conversation.]
>
> From: "Don Floyd" <dfloyddekalb at earthlink.net>
>
>
> In the "world as it should be", our enemies would be exiled to the moon
> every time we won an issue: "There, now we won't have to fight them again!"
>
> In the "world as it is", whether we win or lose on a particular issue, we
> most likely will meet those same players on the field again.
>
> One key indicator of organizing progress is the ability to turn those
> former enemies into allies, or at least overpower them (win them over) more
> easily than before. Sometimes, the winning strategy IS to "all get along
> and make this country better".
>
> David's criticism of Obama as "anti-conflict" reveals a popular, but rather
> simple, understanding of organizing ("fighting the man, "taking it to the
> streets", etc.) that is merely a "Hollywood cowboy" image of the complex
> work that good organizing entails. It's a viewpoint often found right
> alongside the idea that organized money is always the enemy.
>
> Don Floyd
> 815-751-5621
>
>
>
>
>
> Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
>
>> --------
>> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
>> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
>> --------
>>
>> [ed: thanks to Andy for continuing the discussion. To pick up on a
>> point he raises, what would a political campaign look like if it were
>> built on community organizing principles?]
>>
>> From: "David Chavis" <DChavis at capablecommunity.com>
>>
>>
>> And to hopefully continue this positively and without getting into who
>> to vote for. It seems to me that much of what people see in Obama and
>> Clinton is making history by who they are and not clearly what they
>> would do. As Andy wisely writes, you can never tell where a social
>> movement will come from, but it is particularly difficult to see it here
>> in this race. Obama's campaign most of all bewilders me. What about his
>> campaign, policies, messaging, etc. reflects his community organizer
>> background? His main issue and message is, simply stated, that we
>> should all get along and make this country better. I won't debate that,
>> but it not the stuff that historically characterize social movements or
>> community organizing. The practically of his approach, frankly is
>> dubious to me because if he is true to roots on the issues, there are
>> organized money and people who will fight him. Is his message even
>> antithetical to organizing and social movements (i.e. the anti-conflict
>> message and the focus on an individual personality over the collective
>> and the issues)?
>>
>>
>> I can't avoid one commentary, sorry. What disappoints me the most is
>> that he is capitalizing on the fear of/great discomfort with conflict.
>> This is well documented and research among the middle class, especially
>> under 35 age group, not the frustration and anger of the disadvantaged.
>> This is the same strategy that brought in Gov Schwarzenegger. I am not
>> comparing their politics or virtues, just message. It would be a great
>> day for America if Obama was President, but whether he is all everyone
>> likes to think he is, is my question.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --------
>>> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
>>> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
>>> --------
>>>
>>> [ed: thanks to Andy for continuing the discussion.]
>>>
>>> From: "Andrew Mott" <andymott at communitylearningproject.org>
>>>
>>> These are such familiar issues -- national electoral or legislative work vs
>>> local organizing, longterm investment in social movement building or quick
>>> fix. I must say that -- after more than 40 years of working for community
>>> and social change in the US -- I have concluded that there is no one right
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> My personal bedrock commitment is to long-term organizing and doing
>>> everything possible to stimulate a mass movement on issues of poverty, race
>>> and power in the US or to be ready to support one which may emerge in an
>>> entirely unexpected way (as do most mass movements).
>>>
>>> However, when given the chance to elect a former community organizer and
>>> civil rights lawyer who is brilliant and charismatic, can appeal across
>>> divisive lines, and appears to have what our country needs most -- the
>>> ability to engage and educate people and perhaps fundamentally change public
>>> opinion -- I am for doing everything possible to get him elected.
>>>
>>> Obama offers three other absolutely unique and critical assets --
>>> * His family background is truly international -- Asian as well as
>>> African and American -- and includes Moslems as well as Christians. That's
>>> an incredible asset at this moment in US history.
>>> * Electing an African-American President would be such a breakthrough
>>> for this country, directly addressing our greatest divide and providing
>>> great inspiration for young Black men whose crisis is almost genocidal,
>>> immigrants facing discrimination and great hardship, and all the rest of us
>>> who have struggled so hard to make progress on these issues and start a new
>>> chapter.
>>> * He opposed the war from the beginning with the kind of clarity and
>>> decisiveness we desperately need.
>>>
>>> He doesn't offer a quick fix, but we have seen before how much difference
>>> one person, especially a President, can make for good or for ill.
>>>
>>> Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
>>>> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
>>>> --------
>>>>
>>>> [ed: thanks to Adam for continuing the conversation.]
>>>>
>>>> From: Adam Flint <flint at igc.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is SO true, and not only in the U.S. Savvy movement leaders in the
>>>> groups I work with in Latin America are often torn by this trade off.
>>>> If they devote resources and organizing energy to elections, even of one
>>>> of their own, will it really acheive their goals more efficiently than
>>>> devoting those resources to movement building? Particularly since, once
>>>> in office, their candidates often are prisoners of systems and
>>>> structures that mute the influence of the movement or the electorate.
>>>>
>>>> I think here, where community and progressive organizing is weak and
>>>> without any effective national expression (beyond single issues) many
>>>> fool themselves into thinking that there will be some shorter-term 'bang
>>>> for the buck' by electoral organizing rather than the hard clog of
>>>> movement building. The religious right (RR) learned from their mistakes
>>>> in that regard with Nixon AND Reagan, either of whom really cared much
>>>> about their cores issues, and focused more on movement building until
>>>> they had a golden opportunity with GWB. Unlike all the others, he
>>>> appointed movement ideologs and loyalists throughout his cabinet and the
>>>> federal bureacracy, and siphoned millions to the organizations of the
>>>> religious right through his policy priorities. A good thing for them,
>>>> as by all accounts, including that of some of their most noted leaders,
>>>> the R. R. was on life support by 2000. They pretty much lost the
>>>> 'culture waes' (though in some parts of the U.S their rear guard actions
>>>> are pretty convincing, and its only through 'effective fundraising' and
>>>> their people in goverment that they continue to have a powerful effect
>>>> on our lives.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your preceptive intervention.
>>>>
>>>> -Adam Flint
>>>>
>>>> Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --------
>>>>> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
>>>>> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
>>>>> --------
>>>>>
>>>>> [ed: thanks to Larry for continuing the discussion.]
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Larry Yates <lamaryates at igc.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest that Mr. Floyd and "Professor Dreier" are looking at two
>>>>> different aspects of organizing reality. Or to put it differently (and
>>>>> it's really against my nature to say this) they are both right, and it's
>>>>> just a misunderstanding
>>>>>
>>>>> On the one hand, agreeding with Don Floyd, yes, we need to have
>>>>> organized money (and organized research and organized legal structures
>>>>> and organized technology) as well as organized people. Or to put it
>>>>> differently, organized people need to put their hands to whatever tools
>>>>> will help them do the job without distracting them from their goals. And
>>>>> money is certainly a key tool that we ignore or fail to use effectively
>>>>> at our peril.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, it seems to me Peter Dreier was just saying that the
>>>>> fundamental fact of organizing is organized people vs. organized money
>>>>> and privilege. Organized money and privilege tend to keep power
>>>>> relations as they are (or more so), and organized people tend (we hope)
>>>>> to make them more just and open.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps some of the confusion comes from relating organizing and
>>>>> political campaigns. To what real degree are Obama, Edwards, Kucinich or
>>>>> Ron Paul, (selecting perhaps the most ideologically motivating
>>>>> candidates( and those working with them, organizing? It seems to me that
>>>>> 90% of what they do is focussed on building a short-term effort totally
>>>>> dependent on the good behavior of one person, on influencing how the
>>>>> media covers them, and on the accumulation and expenditure of lots of
>>>>> money that is not accountable to any collective organized body.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I question whether the success or failure of major electoral
>>>>> campaigns is all that dependent on anything we can really call
>>>>> organizing, except at the last stage with GOTV (Get Out the Vote) work.
>>>>> I also don't see campaigns as having any real interest in building any
>>>>> lasting resources, which it seems to me is fundamental to organizing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not trying to moralize. Just as we have to deal with money to
>>>>> organize, we, at least as individuals, have to deal in one way or
>>>>> another with political campaigns in order to have some influence over
>>>>> our elected officials. I prefer elections to monarchy. But I think we
>>>>> get rather easily confused between organizing and political campaigns,
>>>>> and that there may be less overlap between the two than we tend to think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry Yates
>>>>> VOP Valley Organizer
>>>>> P.O. Box 245
>>>>> Maurertown VA 22644
>>>>> 540 436 3432
>>>>> llyates at shentel.net
>>>>> www.virginia-organizing.org
>>>>> Personal website: http://www.user.shentel.net/llyates/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
>>>>>> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ed: Thanks to Don for raising these issues. I would like to point us
>>>>>> to the issues he raises for community organizing, and try to avoid
>>>>>> having a candidate debate. Is the rule both organized people and
>>>>>> organized money?]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Don Floyd" <dfloyddekalb at earthlink.net>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >From Dreier's piece: "...it seems that only Edwards has absorbed the
>>>>>> cardinal rule of organizing: it requires organized people to beat organized
>>>>>> money."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know where this "cardinal rule" comes from. When I was in the work,
>>>>>> the only "organizers" I knew who mouthed lines like that were the liberal
>>>>>> do-gooders, too afraid of power to build their own organized money. Real
>>>>>> organizers build BOTH organized people AND organized money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Edwards has always seemed like one of those former organizers--often rich,
>>>>>> liberal white kids who want to play at being organizers, but end up losing
>>>>>> and screwing the folks because they can't stand the tension of building
>>>>>> real power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Dreier ignores the fact that Obama is the only trained and
>>>>>> experienced community organizer in the field, and that he and his team are
>>>>>> organizing both people and money very well, much better than Edwards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don Floyd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
>>>>>>> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>> "Peter Dreier" <dreier at oxy.edu>
>>>>>>> Date:
>>>>>>> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:02:22 -0700
>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>> "Peter Dreier" <dreier at oxy.edu>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today's HuffingtonPost carries my piece, "John Edwards - Organizer in
>>>>>>> Chief," about last night's Democratic debate and Edwards' understanding
>>>>>>> that grassroots organizing is critical to achieve real health care
>>>>>>> reform and other goals.
>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/john-edwards-organizer_b_66146.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>> _____________________________________
>>>>>>> Peter Dreier
>>>>>>> Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics
>>>>>>> Chair, Urban & Environmental Policy Program
>>>>>>> Occidental College
>>>>>>> 1600 Campus Road
>>>>>>> Los Angeles, CA 90041
>>>>>>> Phone: (323) 259-2913
>>>>>>> FAX: (323) 259-2734
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Colist maillist - send messages to Colist at comm-org.wisc.edu
>
> To change your subscription, go to http://comm-org.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/colist
>
> All messages are archived at http://comm-org.wisc.edu/pipermail/colist/
>
> Please contact original message authors to request permission to forward messages.
>
>
More information about the Colist
mailing list