|
Organizing in the Obama Years: A
Progressive Moment or a New Progressive Era?Peter Dreier, Occidental
College
dreier@oxy.edu
Contents
Introduction Insiders and Outsiders: America’s
Organizing Tradition Organizing and the Obama Campaign
America
Discusses Organizing The Backlash
The Revival of Community Organizing
Labor-Community Ties
The Left's Fragmented Mosaic
Rebuilding a
Progressive Movement Seizing the Opportunity
References Note
About the Author
Was the 2008 election a brief liberal interlude in an otherwise
conservative era, or was it a turning point in American politics, ushering
in a new wave of progressive politics, a realignment that could last for at
least a generation?
We won’t know the answer for years, just as it was impossible to
know in 1932 if FDR’s election was simply a short-term repudiation of
Herbert Hoover or the start of something new and important -- what later
became known as the New Deal coalition, which lasted for more than three
decades.
What we know already is that if Barack Obama has any chance to be
a transformational President, it will require a powerful progressive
movement that aligns itself with, but isn’t controlled by, the young
president and progressive forces in Congress. There is plenty of evidence
that Americans want a more activist government to address the problems of
economic insecurity, health care, the environment, and U.S. military
intervention in Iraq and elsewhere. To win universal health care, labor law
reform, or legislation to reduce global warming – and to stimulate the
troubled economy to promote shared prosperity and green jobs -- President
Obama will confront fierce resistance from powerful forces. For example,
talking during the campaign about the need to forge a new energy policy,
Obama explained, "I know how hard it will be to bring about change. Exxon
Mobil made $11 billion this past quarter. They don't want to give up their
profits easily."
The character of the next era is yet to be defined. Obama's
election has restored hope in America’s potential, but presidents can’t
change the course of the country on their own. That’s what movements do.
For the first time in history, Americans elected a former community
organizer as their President. Obama is going to need all those
organizing skills to be an effective leader. To achieve a progressive
agenda, Obama will have to win over some reluctant Democrats and a few
moderate Republicans. Like FDR, Obama must use his bully pulpit to
inspire and educate Americans to help move the country in a new
direction. But also like FDR, Obama will also need to get the ground
troops mobilized, in key states and Congressional districts, to put
pressure on members who might otherwise sit on the fence.
Big business will try to undermine any change that threatens their
profits and power. The President will need to use his or her bully
pulpit to highlight the issues, shape public opinion, cajole moderate
Democrats and Republicans, and, importantly, encourage people to
mobilize at the grassroots level.
But from the outset, the Obama campaign recognized that winning the
election on November 4 was only the first stage of a broader crusade to
help change America. They understood the importance of transforming the
electoral campaign into a grassroots movement.
In addition to the unions, community groups, environmental
organizations, women’s groups, and other groups that helped catapult
Obama and other Democrats to victory, the Obama campaign hired thousands
of organizers who helped mobilize millions of people, many of whom had
never been politically involved before. Political campaigns frequently
promise to sustain the momentum after election day, but they rarely do.
The lists of volunteers, email addresses, donors, and other key
ingredients get lost or put on the shelf until the next election, when
the campaign almost starts from scratch. For months after the campaign,
key Obama staffers and volunteers discussed how to keep that group of
people engaged. They held forums and house meetings, and internet
discussions, debating whether the form an independent nonprofit group or
to bring the campaign apparatus inside the Democratic Party. (Hamburger
and Wallsten 2008).
They discussed a number of key questions involved in shifting gears
from an electoral campaign to governing coalition. Can they turn
campaign volunteers into ongoing community activists? Can they keep many
of those organizers employed to sustain and expand the political base
that catapulted Obama and Congressional Democrats into office? Can they
keep the fragmented mosaic of issue-oriented activists from breaking off
into their separate silos, each pursuing their own agendas? Can they
agree on a small number of top policy priorities -- for the first year,
the first term, and the second term -- and wage effective campaigns to
achieve legislative victories?
On January 17, 2009, three days before his inauguration, Obama
announced the formation of a new group, Organizing for America, to
transform the political machinery of his campaign into a national
network of activists, housed within the Democratic Party. (Wallstein
2009). How that group develops, how Obama campaign supporters respond to
its partisan identity, how it aligns itself with the unions, community
groups and other existing progressive organizations, and whether it can
serve as an effective lobbying force to win progressive legislation will
partly determine the success of Obama’s presidency.
Both Obama and
progressive activists have to learn how to live together. As Katrina
Vanden Heuvel wrote in The Nation a few weeks after the election: “We
need to be able to play inside and outside politics at the same time.
This will be challenging for those of us schooled in the habits of pure
opposition and protest. We need to make an effort to engage the new
administration and Congress constructively, even as we push without
apology for solutions on a scale necessary to deliver.” (Vanden Heuvel
2008)
What lessons should progressives learn to help figure out how to walk
this political tightrope?
Even since the Boston Tea Party, grassroots organizing has been part of
the American tradition. After visiting the United States in the 1830s,
Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America how impressed he was
by the outpouring of local voluntary organizations that brought Americans
together to solve problems, provide a sense of community and public purpose,
and tame the hyper-individualism that Tocqueville considered a threat to
democracy.
Every crusade for reform since then has drawn on that tradition of
collective self-help that we call organizing – the abolitionists who helped
end slavery; the Populist farmers who sought to tame the growing influence
of the banks, railroads and other big corporations; the progressive housing
and health reformers who fought slums, sweatshops, and epidemic diseases in
the early 1900s; the suffragists who battled to give women the vote; the
labor unionists who fought for the eight-hour workday, better working
conditions, and living wages; the civil rights pioneers who helped dismantle
Jim Crow; and the activists who since the 1960s have won hard-fought
victories for environmental protection, women’s equality, decent conditions
for farmworkers, and gay rights.
Throughout American history, progressive change has come about when both
“inside” and “outside” strategies are at work. To gain any significant
reforms, activists and politicians need each other. Boycotts, strikes, civil
disobedience, and mass marches -- traditional outsider strategies -- help
put new issues on the agenda, dramatize long-ignored grievances, and
generate media attention. This type of agitation gets people thinking about
things they hadn't thought about before and can change public opinion.
Savvy liberal and progressive elected officials understand that they
really need "radical" protestors to change the political climate and make
reform possible. When "disruption" is taking place in the streets, and
grassroots groups are engaged in lobbying and rallying, policymakers can
appear statesmanlike and moderate when they forge compromises to win
legislative victories.
This dynamic has been replayed many times throughout American history.
Women gained the right to vote in 1920 only after suffragists combined
decades of dramatic protest (including hunger strikes and mass marches) with
inside lobbying and appeals to the consciences of male legislators -- some
of them the husbands and fathers of the protestors.
In the 1930s, workers engaged in massive and illegal sit-down strikes in
factories throughout the country. In Michigan -- where workers had taken
over a number of auto plants -- a sympathetic governor, Democrat Frank
Murphy, refused to allow the National Guard to eject the protestors even
after they had defied an injunction to evacuate the factories. His mediating
role helped end the strike on terms that provided a victory for the workers
and their union.
President Roosevelt recognized that his ability to push New Deal
legislation through Congress depended on the pressure generated by
protestors. He once told a group of activists who sought his support for
legislation, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it."
As the protests escalated throughout the country, Roosevelt became more
vocal, using his bully pulpit to lash out at big business and to promote
workers' rights. Labor organizers felt confident in proclaiming, "FDR wants
you to join the union." With Roosevelt setting the tone, and with allies
like Senator Robert Wagner maneuvering in Congress, labor protests helped
win legislation guaranteeing workers' right to organize, the minimum wage,
and the 40-hour week. Likewise, the civil rights movement and liberal
politicians formed an awkward but effective alliance. Today, Rev. Martin
Luther King is revered as close to a saint, with his birthday now a national
holiday. But even in the early1960s, many Americans, including President
Lyndon Johnson, viewed him as a dangerous radical. He was harassed by the
FBI and vilified in the media. However, the willingness of activists to put
their bodies on the line against fists and fire hoses tilted public opinion.
The movement's civil disobedience, rallies, and voter registration drives
pricked Americans' conscience. These efforts were indispensable for changing
how Americans viewed the plight of blacks and for putting the issue at the
top of the nation's agenda. LBJ recognized that the nation's mood was
changing. The civil rights activism transformed Johnson from a reluctant
advocate to a powerful ally. At the same time, King and other civil rights
leaders recognized that the movement needed elected officials to take up
their cause, attract more attention, and "close the deal" through
legislation.
Similarly, the victories of the environmental movement starting in the
1970s -- such as creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the dismantling of nuclear power plants --
required activists who knew that a combination of outside protest and inside
lobbying, orchestrated by friendly elected officials, was needed to secure
reform
Savvy “outsiders” have understood that legislation is typically a
compromise. They recognize that compromises can co-opt a movement's ideas
and energies with token changes, but they can also be stepping-stones
towards more dramatic reform. The impact of legislative reforms depends on
the leadership, depth, and persistence of the social movements.
Activists need advocates in the White House and Congress to voice their
concerns and pass legislation. But even with such allies, activists have to
keep the heat on, be visible, and make enough noise so that policy makers
and the media can't ignore them. To advance a progressive agenda, a
widespread grassroots movement -- which provides ordinary Americans with
opportunities to engage in a variety of activities, from emailing their
legislators, to participating in protest -- is essential.
The influence of Obama’s organizing experience was evident throughout his
presidential campaign. In his speeches, he frequently used the UFW slogan
“Yes, we can / Si se puede,” and emphasized “hope” and “change.” His stump
speeches typically included references to America’s organizing tradition.
“Nothing in this country worthwhile has ever happened except when somebody
somewhere was willing to hope,” Obama said. “That is how workers won the
right to organize against violence and intimidation. That’s how women won
the right to vote. That’s how young people traveled south to march and to
sit in and to be beaten, and some went to jail and some died for freedom’s
cause.” Change comes about, Obama said, by “imagining, and then fighting
for, and then working for, what did not seem possible before.” “Real
change,” he frequently noted, only comes about from the “bottom up.” As
president, he explained, he could give voice to those organizing in their
workplaces, communities, and congregations around a positive vision for
change. “That’s leadership,” he said.
The Obama campaign hired hundreds of organizers from labor unions,
community and environmental organizations, and religious groups. They, in
turn, recruited tens of thousands of volunteers and trained them in the
skills of community organizing, many of them at training sessions called
“Camp Obama.” They used door-knocking, small house meetings, cell phones,
and the Internet to motivate and energize supporters. They used the Internet
and social networks to raise funds, in small and large amounts, from the
largest-ever donor base, and to reach out to millions of supporters . They
opened more local offices than any other presidential campaign, including
outposts in small towns and suburbs in traditionally Republican areas.
Outside the official campaign, many organizations and constituencies had
a hand in Obama's win. By educating and mobilizing voters, groups as diverse
as MoveOn.Org, labor unions, community groups like ACORN, environmental and
consumer organizations like the Sierra Club and US Action, civil rights and
women's groups, student activists, and many others can claim a part not only
of Obama's triumph but also the dramatic increase in Democratic victories in
the House and Senate. These organizing efforts account for the unprecedented
increase in voter registration and voter turnout, especially among
first-time voters, young people, African Americans, Hispanics, and union
members. Voters under 30 gave Obama 66% of their vote, while 66% of
Hispanics and 95% of African-Americans supported Obama.
The exit polls
showed the tremendous power of grassroots organizing, especially among labor
unions. For example, nationwide, 67 percent of union members -- and 69
percent in swing states -- supported Obama. But what was particularly
impressive was the impact of union membership when voters’ loyalties were
divided between their economic and other interests. For example, 57 percent
of white men favored McCain, but 57 percent of white male union members
favored Obama. White gun owners cast 68 percent of their votes for McCain,
but 54 percent of white gun owners who are also union members preferred
Obama. Among white weekly churchgoers, McCain scored a landslide, receiving
70 percent of their votes. But Obama had a slight edge (49 percent to 48
percent) among white weekly churchgoers who were union members. Similarly,
58 percent of white non-college graduates voted for McCain, but 60 percent
of white union members who didn't graduate from college tilted to Obama.
Overall, 53 percent of white women cast ballots for McCain, but a whopping
72 percent of white women union members favored Obama.
Union members voted for Obama because of the unions' effectiveness at
educating and mobilizing members. The unions spent millions of dollars and
built an army of volunteers who went door to door, reaching out to other
members about key economic issues. Members in "safe" Democratic states
staffed phone banks and made tens of thousands of calls to unionists in key
swing states.
Unions made a special effort to talk with white members who may have been
reluctant to vote for a black man for president. AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer
Richard Trumka gave the same impassioned speech to union members in key
states, appealing to their class solidarity, decency, and sense of history.
"There are a thousand good reasons to for vote for Barack Obama. And
there's not a single good reason for any worker -- especially a union worker
-- to vote against Barack Obama. And there's only one bad reason not to vote
for Barack Obama – and that's because he's not white."
Labor activists carried Trumka's message to union voters. On Election
Day, union members, including white males, were more likely than nonunion
counterparts to vote for Obama and Democrats running for Congress and to
volunteer for their campaigns.
The role of organizing in American politics typically gets little
attention in the mainstream media and is thus not well understood by the
general public. Reporters know how to cover rallies, demonstrations, and
riots, where protesters disrupt business-as-usual and get into the
media's line of vision. But effective grassroots organizing is rarely so
dramatic. It typically involves lots of one-on-one meetings, strategy
discussions, phone calls, and training sessions. The news media rarely
pay attention to the small miracles that happen when ordinary people
join together to channel their frustrations and anger into solid
organizations that win improvements in workplaces, neighborhoods and
schools. The media are generally more interested in political theater
and confrontation --when workers strike, when community activists
protest, or when hopeless people resort to rioting. As a result, with a
few exceptions (Cleeland and Goldman 2003; Eckholm 2006; Greenhouse
2007, 2008a, b, and c), much of the best organizing work is unheralded
in the mainstream media.
In light of that reality, one of the things that made the 2008
presidential campaign so remarkable is that, for the first time in
memory, America had a national conversation about grassroots organizing.
That’s because, at its September national convention in St. Paul, the
Republican Party attacked Obama’s community organizing experience and,
by implication, community organizing in general. Former New York Gov.
George Pataki sneered, “[Obama] was a community organizer. What in God’s
name is a community organizer? I don’t even know if that’s a job.” Then
former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani snickered, “He worked as a
community organizer. What? Maybe this is the first problem on the
résumé.” A few minutes later, in her acceptance speech for the GOP
vice-presidential nomination, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared, “I guess
a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that
you have actual responsibilities.”1
The following Sunday, on "Meet the Press," Giuliani added to the
attack by claiming that "the group that recruited [Obama] was a Saul
Alinsky group that has all kinds of questions with regard to their
outlook on the economy, their outlook on capitalism." Giuliani then
tried to link Obama to what he called "a very core Saul Alinsky kind of
almost socialist notion that [government] should be used for
redistribution of wealth."
During the last month of the campaign, when he looked like Obama was
going to win, the conservative network – the Wall Street Journal, Bill
O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, conservative newspaper columnists, dozens of
websites, the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, and John McCain – expanded
their attack. Conservative political analyst Michael Barone wrote a
column for the September 8 issue of U.S. News & World Report, “Why
Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward Obama's Community
Organizing?" The National Review's Bryan York devoted his September 8
column to the question "What Did Obama Do as a Community Organizer? And
is it Really a Qualification to be President?" The Weekly Standard's
Dean Barnett wrote on September 5, that "the community organizer barb
isn't aimed at the vast population of hard-working and dedicated
community organizers who are bravely organizing communities even as we
speak. The barbs are aimed at Barack Obama himself." John Fund’s
article, “Obama's Liberal Shock Troops,” in the July 12 Wall Street
Journal attacked the candidate’s ties to ACORN and other community
organizing groups.
The entire conservative network ganged up on ACORN, the country’s
largest and most effective community organization group. (Atlas and
Dreier 2008; Kurtz 2008; Malkin 2008; Moran 2008) They accused ACORN –
which registered more than one million voters during the election cycle
– of committing “voter fraud” and trying to steal the election for
Obama. McCain said that ACORN was, “destroying the fabric of democracy."
The General Counsel for the Republican National Committee, Sean
Cairncross, repeatedly called ACORN a "quasi-criminal" outfit.
In addition to voter fraud, they also accused ACORN of almost
single-handedly causing the world's financial crisis. They accused ACORN
of strong-arming Congress and big Wall Street banks into making subprime
loans to poor families who couldn't afford them, thus causing the
economic disaster.
McCain's campaign ran a one-and-a-half-minute video that claimed that
Obama once worked for ACORN, repeated the accusation that ACORN is
responsible for widespread voter registration fraud and accused ACORN of
"bullying banks, intimidation tactics, and disruption of business." The
ad claimed that ACORN "forced banks to issue risky home loans--the same
types of loans that caused the financial crisis we're in today."
On September 27 the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying
that "ACORN has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which
laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans."
On October 14 the Journal's lead editorial, called “Obama and ACORN,”
described ACORN as a "shady outfit" and accused the group of being "a
major contributor to the subprime meltdown by pushing lenders to make
home loans on easy terms, conducting ‘strikes' against banks so they'd
lower credit standards."
These attacks were not new. Over the previous few years, right-wing
pundits and business front groups had been attacking ACORN’s organizing
efforts – especially its support for “living wage” campaigns – and
labeling ACORN a “socialist” organization. This line of attack began
with conservative publications like the National Review and think tanks
like the Manhattan Institute.
These ideas then spilled over into the McCain campaign. McCain’s
video commercial attacking Obama and ACORN was taken almost
word-for-word from an article by National Review columnist Stanley
Kurtz. The Republicans and their conservative echo chamber warned that
Obama intended to “spread the wealth” around, and wanted to
“Europeanize” the U.S. with “socialist” policies, including stronger
labor unions.
At an airport rally in New Mexico, Palin warned against Obama’s tax
proposals. “Friends,” she said, “now is no time to experiment with
socialism.”
Discussing Obama’s tax plans, McCain, too, agreed that they sounded a
lot like socialism.”
In its 35 years of community organizing, ACORN never got so much
media attention!
And neither did socialism! Henrick Hertzberg, a columnist for The New
Yorker, wrote that “There hasn’t been so much talk of socialism in an
American election since 1920,” when Eugene Victor Debs ran for president
on the Socialist Party ticket.
The Republicans had hoped that their orchestrated attack on Obama's
community organizing experience, as well their attacks on ACORN, would
discredit the Democratic candidate as being outside the cultural and
political mainstream. But their critical comments triggered a blizzard
of newspaper articles and editorials, radio talk show discussions,
e-mails, and blogosphere commentary. Stories about and columns by
community organizers multiplied—describing, explaining, defending, and
criticizing what organizers do and the role of community organizing in
American life. (See, for example, Barone 2008; Bhargava 2008; Boyte
2008; Dickens 2008; Dreier 2008b; Dreier and Atlas 2008; Finfer 2008;
Garnick 2008; Geoghegan 2008; Hubbke 2008; Kellman 2008; Kelly and Lee
2008; Kwon 2008; Lawrence 2008; McKitrick 2008; Sege 2008; and Simpson
2008.) Actress Laura Linney even injected the controversy into the Emmy
Awards ceremony on September 21. Accepting her Best Actress award for
her role in the HBO biopic "John Adams," Linney said that the miniseries
made her "so grateful and thankful for the community organizers that
helped form our country."
Unwittingly, the Republicans’ attacks helped introduce Americans to
the relatively invisible work of the organizers who get paid to help
people improve their families and communities through grassroots
activism. Community organizers around the country felt belittled by the
Republicans' attacks, but also, paradoxically, emboldened by increased
media visibility that their efforts have earned. The media, which
routinely ignores community organizing except when groups engage in
dramatic protest, suddenly recognized the organizers in their midst.
Activists with various community organizing networks -- including the
Center for Community Change, DART, PICO, ACORN, and U.S. Action --
issued statements explaining the importance of community organizing,
reminding Giuliani that he was often the target of organizing groups,
and chastising Palin, a former PTA volunteer, for denigrating the
millions of community volunteers in urban, rural and suburban areas of
the country.
Among the many reactions was an op-ed column by Deepak Bhargava, head
of the Center for Community Change, that appeared in the September 13
New York Times under the headline "Organizing Principles." Bhargava
focused on the work of Hugh Espey, an organizer with Iowa Citizens for
Community Improvement. Bhargava wrote: "On a typical day, he might help
low-income residents of Des Moines organize to keep a neighborhood
grocery store open or work with family farmers to persuade a state
agency to deny a permit for a proposed factory farm, or meet with
Mexican families in Marshalltown about ways to advance immigration
reform. He brings various constituencies together to find common ground,
build relationships and support each others causes."
In an op-ed column ("An Unashamed Community Organizer") in the
Wilmington (Delaware) News-Journal, Sally McBride wrote: "I am a wife,
mother, and a community organizer...Over the past 20 years, I have
co-chaired the Highlands Community Playground project, helped establish
the Cab Calloway School of the Arts, co-chaired the '88 Heart Ball,
served as PTA President at AI DuPont Middle School and McKean High
School, served on the boards of Delaware Guidance Services, the Junior
League of Wilmington, the central branch of the YMCA, and am currently
on the board of the Cab Calloway School of the Arts."
Other organizers and their supporters contributed op-ed columns in
papers across the country. These op-eds were titled "Community
Organizers are a Staple of Democracy." "No Call to Belittle Community
Work," "Community Organizing Defines U.S.," "Community Organizing's Long
History," "The Peculiar Attack on Community Organizing," "Hey Sarah -
Organize This," "A Palin Punch That Missed," "Community Organizing Preps
Leaders," “Community Organizing is No Threat to American Society,"
"Yikes! A Community Organizer," "GOP Mockery of Community Organizers is
Tone Deaf," "Don ' t Bash Community Organizers; They Epitomize our
Democracy."
Regular newspaper columnists from around the nation weighed in, too,
among them Jill Lawrence ( " Community Organizer Slams Attract Support
for Obama ") in USA Today, Courtland Milloy ("Fired Up About Community
Service") in the Washington Post, Dareen Garnick ("Organizers Just
Small-Time to GOP") in The Boston Herald, Rex Huppke ("Organizing a
response to the GOP") in the Chicago Tribune, Stan Simpson ("Community
Organizers More Valuable Than Palin Thinks") in the Hartford Courant,
Ann Fisher ("This Work is Nothing to Sneer At") in Ohio's Columbus
Dispatch, Cathy McKitrick ("Quips Sting Utah Activists") in the
Salt
Lake Tribune; Clive McFarlane ("Community Transformed by Organizers" )
in the Worcester Telegram; and Bill Vogrin ("Community Organizers
Deserve Praise, Not Mockery") in the Colorado Springs Gazette.
The Republican remarks so offended Time magazine columnist Joe Klein,
author of several books on American politics but no fan of grassroots
activism, that he penned "What a Community Organizer Does" on September
4, which generated hundreds of reader comments.
To help readers understand the controversy, many publications
interviewed organizers and their critics. Newsweek published an
interview with Jerry Kellman, who recruited Obama to his organizing job
in Chicago in the early 1980s. The piece, called " Service Changes
People's Character," ran on September 5. The Boston Globe reporter Irene Sege interviewed local organizers for her Sept. 6 article, "Community
Organizers Fault Comments at GOP Gathering"; New York Times reporter
David Gonazales interviewed organizers for an article ("Bronx Organizers
React to G.O.P. Punch Lines") on September 4. His Times colleague Tobin Harshaw wrote a piece ("Parsing 'Community Organizer'") the next day
examining the Republicans' political motives for their orchestrated
put-downs of grassroots activism. New York Daily News reporter Michael
Saul's Sept. 5 article, "Community Groups Hammer Rudy Giuliani & Slam
Sarah Palin," included quotes from several organizers as well as one
from Marvin Olasky, a former adviser to President Bush and provost at
Christian-oriented King's College, located in the Empire State Building,
who said that community organizing is "somewhat of a euphemism for
leftist change."
USA Today's Marilyn Elias interviewed organizers, funders, and
academics for her September 10 article, "Community Organizing Can Span
the Ideological Spectrum." An AP story on September 4 quoted John
Baumann, executive director of the PICO network of community groups,
suggesting that "If people in office were doing their jobs, perhaps we
wouldn't need community organizers." The AP also interviewed Joshua
Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and
Refugee Rights, who said, "I don't like seeing the really hard work that
goes on in really poor communities being demeaned by cheap politicians."
In "GOP Joke, But an All-American Job," published September 18,
Los
Angeles Times reporter Richard Faussett profiled 60-year old Bill
O'Brien, a veteran community organizer in Detroit.
Several newspapers published editorials chastising the Republicans
for their mocking attacks on community organizing. Among them were the
Boston Globe ("Urban Organizer, Ha Ha Ha!," September 7); the
Selma
Times-Herald ("Organizing is Honorable Work", September 5); and the
Las
Vegas Sun ("Heart of a Country," September 12), which reminded readers
that "community organizers give of themselves every day to improve
peoples lives."
The storm of articles, columns and protest forced John McCain to
backpedal -- but only after his GOP colleagues had already launched
their grenades. "Of course I respect community organizers," McCain, said
at a forum at Columbia University on September 11, in response to a
question about whether he agreed with the attacks on organizers at the
convention. "Of course I respect people who serve their communities.
Senator Obama's service in that area is outstanding."
Part of the Obama campaign’s success was the result of the growing
number of Americans engaged in community, union, and other organizing,
efforts a pool of people the candidate drew upon both inside and outside
his campaign. Since the 1970's, the nation has witnessed an upsurge of
community organizing, around the tradition bread-and-butter neighborhood
issues as well as issues like environmental justice, immigrant rights,
and living wages. The number of groups engaged in community organizing
has mushroomed. Almost every U.S. city (and a few suburbs) now has at
least one—and in many cases dozens of—community organizing groups.
Many (perhaps most) of the community organizing groups that have
emerged in the past four decades eventually fell apart or remained small
and marginal, unable to sustain themselves financially, economically,
and politically. A few grew and gained in strength, in part by becoming
part of broader networks at the city, regional, or national levels. Most
local community groups are not linked to any regional or national
organizing or training networks. Local groups that are tied to such
networks have been helped to improve their capacity to develop leaders,
mobilize campaigns, and win local victories as well as participate in
citywide, state, and national campaigns beyond their local bases.
No one really knows how many community organizations exist, the total
size of their budgets, the number of staff people who work for them, how
long they’ve been in business, how many are linked to larger networks,
or how effective they are. What seems clear, however, is that most
community organizations engage in relatively modest efforts. These
include, for example, pressuring the police to close down a local crack
house, getting city hall to fix potholes, or getting the parks
department to clean up a local playground. Some groups are more
ambitious. Their community organizing has included enacting living wage
laws, forming tenant unions, building community development
corporations, combating redlining, challenging police abuses, fighting
against environmental and health problems, mobilizing against plant
closings and layoffs, reforming public education, setting up housing
trust funds, encouraging inclusionary zoning laws, expanding funding for
health services and public schools, and even setting up charter schools.
In Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American
Civil Life, Skocpol (2003) laments that since the early 1900s mass
membership grassroots and mixed-income organizations have declined and
been replaced by advocacy/lobbying groups run by professional staff with
little capacity to mobilize large numbers of people.
Most community organizing groups are rooted in local neighborhoods,
often drawing on religious congregations and block clubs. But changes in
the nation’s economic, social and political conditions make
neighborhood-based organizing less effective than was the case in the
1940s, when Saul Alinsky first formulated his ideas about community
organizing, or even in the 1970s, when corporate consolidation
accelerated. Moreover, local governments have less money and influence
today than in the past, making it more difficult for city politicians to
respond to community demands.
A major dilemma for contemporary community organizing groups is the
reality that the sources of urban problems—poverty, unemployment,
homelessness, violent crime, racial segregation, high infant mortality
rates—have their roots in large-scale economic forces and federal
government policy outside the boundaries of local neighborhoods. What
influence, then, can neighborhood organizing groups be expected to have
on policies made in city halls, state capitals, Washington, and
corporate board rooms?
Some community organizing groups have responded to these trends.
There are now several national organizing networks with local
affiliates, enabling groups to address problems at the local, state, and
national levels, sometimes even simultaneously. These groups include
ACORN, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), People in Communities
Organized (PICO), the Center for Community Change, National People’s
Action, Direct Action Research and Training (DART), the Partnership for
Working Families, and the Gamaliel Foundation (the network affiliated
with the Developing Communities Project that hired Obama in Chicago in
1983). These networks, as well as a growing number of training centers
for community organizers—such as the Midwest Academy in Chicago, the
Highlander Center in Tennessee, and a few dozen universities that offer
courses in community and labor organizing—have helped recruit and train
thousands of people into the organizing world and strengthened the
community-organizing movement’s political power.
Within the community organizing world, ACORN is the largest and most
effective group, in part because it is a federated organization with
local bases but with a national infrastructure and the capacity to wage
campaigns simultaneously at the local, state, and national levels. Its
staff works to build strong local organizations and leaders that can
influence municipal and county governments as well as major corporations
(such as banks) to address the needs of the poor and their
neighborhoods. Local organizing defines ACORN’s core issues, but when
national leaders and staff recognize problems that are energizing
members in several cities, they can consider whether changes in state or
federal policy would more effectively address the issue. ACORN employs a
staff of researchers and lobbyists in its national offices in Brooklyn,
New York, and Washington, D.C., to serve the needs of local chapters.
Issues such as welfare reform, redlining, predatory lending, school
reform, and low wages provide ACORN with organizing “handles” at the
local, state, and national levels. Recent work in mobilizing the
residents of New Orleans forced to evacuate by Hurricane Katrina
benefitted from ACORN’s capacity to work simultaneously to put pressure
on politicians and policymakers in several cities, in at least two
states, and at the national level (Dreier and Atlas 2007).
ACORN’s federated structure is perhaps its most important difference
from other community organizing networks, whose local chapters are more
independent from the national offices. For example, the IAF now has
fifty-four affiliated chapters in twenty-one states, organized into
regional clusters, and it has evolved significantly since Alinsky died
in 1972. The national office, however, has a limited role. It is
primarily responsible for training staff members and leaders, but it
does not seek to coordinate organizing campaigns, raise money, or
conduct research for its affiliates, nor does it encourage chapter
leaders to strongly identify with the IAF as a national organization.
The IAF has built strong local multi-issue organizations among the
poor and the nearly poor in many cities, but it has not sought to build
the kind of federated organization that can wage policy campaigns at the
national level. The IAF is, instead, a network of local and regional
organizations that have little contact with each other, except at
occasional meetings among the lead organizers in each region. Each local
or regional group is essentially on its own in terms of designing
campaigns, hiring staff, and raising money. As a result, it lacks the
capacity to coordinate the organizing work of its chapters in different
cities to build a national campaign. That is why, ironically, the
IAF—whose Baltimore affiliate (BUILD) first mobilized the first
successful “living wage” campaign in 1994—was not able to translate that
pioneering local victory into a broader movement. ACORN, meanwhile, has
used its federated structure to help sustain a national “living wage”
movement, with victories in dozens of cities. ACORN operates more like a
national labor union, whose local affiliates work together with state
and national offices to coordinate grassroots organizing, political, and
lobby campaigns.
The fragmentation within the community organizing world undermines
its total impact. The whole of the community organizing movement is
smaller than the sum of its parts. Karen Paget (1990) described this
reality almost two decade ago, and it remains true today. With some
important exceptions, community groups that do win important local
victories are not always capable of building on their success and moving
on to other issues and larger problems. For the most part, community
organizing has been unable to affect the national agenda—or, in most
cases, even state agendas. As a result, they often only marginally
improve conditions in urban neighborhoods.
This fragmentation is due, in part, to “turf” competition between
groups for funding, membership, and media attention. With some notable
exceptions, the various community organizing networks and groups rarely
work together, they don’t forge a sense of common purpose, and they
don’t engage in collaborative campaigns. For example, ACORN and IAF have
chapters in some of the same cities and often work on similar issues
(schools, housing, and public services), but they never work together.
Foundations contribute to this turf competition in the way they evaluate
organizing groups, requiring each group to distinguish its
accomplishments from those of other groups within a broader movement. To
please funders, community organizing groups have to be able to claim
credit for specific accomplishments, effectively thwarting cooperation
among groups.
Observers and practitioners of community organizing sometimes examine
the differences between various “schools” of organizing. There are
certainly differences between various organizing networks and training
centers in terms of the class and racial/ethnic base of their
constituencies, how or whether they deal with religious congregations,
how they train leaders, how they raise money, and other matters. But
those engaged in the organizing itself typically exaggerate the
distinctions—what Freud called the “the narcissism of small
differences.”
Historians trace modern community organizing to Jane Addams, who
founded Hull House in Chicago in the late 1800s and inspired the
settlement house movement. These activists—upper-class philanthropists,
middle-class reformers, and working-class radicals—organized immigrants
to clean up sweatshops and tenement slums, improve sanitation and public
health, and battle against child labor and crime. In the 1930s, another
Chicagoan, Saul Alinsky, took community organizing to the next level. He
sought to create community-based “people’s organizations” to organize
residents the way unions organized workers. He drew on existing
groups—particularly churches, block clubs, sports leagues, and unions—to
form the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council in an effort to get the
city to improve services to a working-class neighborhood adjacent to
meatpacking factories.
Addams and Alinsky both forged close ties with labor unions. Unions
held meetings at Hull House and Addams voiced her support for labor
organizing efforts. Based on his ties to John L. Lewis, president of the
United Mine Workers union and founder of the Congress of Industrial
Organizations (CIO), Alinsky originally viewed community organizing as a
partnership with labor unions. In the 1930s, the people who worked in
Chicago’s slaughterhouses lived in the Back of the Yards neighborhood.
They went to the same churches, participated in the same sports leagues,
and were members of the same unions. The people who lived in that
neighborhood were “citizens” and “community residents” as well as
“workers.” The problems they faced—such as slum housing, poverty, low
wages, unemployment, dangerous jobs, and crime—were interconnected (Horwitt
1992; Slayton 1986; Fisher 1994). As a result, Alinsky viewed labor and
community organizing as dual and interconnected strategies for
addressing the problems facing working class people in urban industrial
areas. Unions helped community groups win victories concerning municipal
services and jobs; community groups helped unions win victories against
the meatpacking companies and other employers.
One of Alinsky’s key strategic impulses – the connection between
community and labor organizing – was noticeably absent from the upsurge
of community organizing in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. There were
exceptions – including the work of the United Farm Workers union, the
involvement of some unions in the civil rights movement, and several
unions’ sponsorship of community development corporations and affordable
housing – but for most of this period, community organizing groups had
little day-to-day contact with the labor movement. Although most
community organizations and unions considered themselves part of a broad
progressive moment, they typically operated as though they lived in
different worlds.
This disconnect between union and community organizing has been a
serious weakness in progressive politics . The labor movement is clearly
the backbone of any effective progressive movement. Despite steady
declines in the proportion of the labor force in unions (now 12.1%), the
labor force remains the nation's most potent force for progressive
change and the most effective vehicle for electing Democrats. Once in
office, pro-labor politicians are typically the strongest advocates of
tough environmental laws, funding for public schools and higher
education, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, universal health
insurance, affordable housing, and protection of Social Security.
The relative weakness of the American labor movement accounts for
many of the most troublesome aspects of our society. For example,
between 2000 and 2007 -- before the mortgage meltdown and recession --
the median income of working-age households fell by more than $2,000,
even though workers' productivity increased. Why didn't American workers
reap the benefits? Income inequality is greater today than at any other
time since the 1920s. Families' declining purchasing power -- for
example, their inability to keep up with mortgage, car, and other
payments -- accounts for a major share of the nation's economic woes.
In fact, the U.S. has the most inequality and poverty of any
industrialized country. Despite America’s vast wealth, no other major
industrial nation has allowed the level of sheer destitution that exists
in the United States. Americans accept as “normal” levels of poverty,
hunger, crime, and homelessness that would cause national alarm in
Canada, Western Europe, or Australia. And it's no coincidence that the
U.S. has, by far, the fewest workers covered by a union contract among
all major affluent nations.
Although the U.S. ranks third behind Norway and Japan in per capita
income, American workers do not derive the benefits of prosperity
compared with their counterparts elsewhere. Workers in other countries
have used their political clout to take their productivity gains in the
form of reduced hours -- shorter work weeks, longer vacations, and
earlier retirements. (Unlike every other affluent country, the U.S. has
no statutory minimum vacation policy.) But they also do better in terms
of their paychecks and benefits, including office and service workers as
well as blue-collar factory employees. In 2004, the year of the latest
data, Americans worked an average of 1,824 hours annually, compared with
1,751 hours in Canada, 1,443 in Germany, and 1,363 in Norway.
The U.S. is the only democratic society without universal health
insurance; almost 50 million Americans lack insurance. It spends less on
job training, child care, and affordable housing, and more on prisons,
than do other nations. Our environmental and workplace safety laws are
weak and poorly enforced. The pay gap between men and women is wider in
the U.S. than in other affluent countries.
Canada has many of the same big employers and a similar economy as
the U.S. But in many ways -- crime rates, poverty, homelessness, infant
mortality, and others -- Canada is much more livable. In Differences
That Matter, sociologist Dan Zuberi compared the lives of hotel workers
in Vancouver, Canada, and Seattle, Washington, 140 miles apart, who
worked for the same hotel chains. Canada’s much stronger labor, health,
social-welfare, and public-investment policies protected Canadian
workers from the hardships that burden America’s low-wage workers.
Workers in Vancouver had better access to health care, public transit,
housing, and educational opportunities for their children than did their
counterparts in Seattle.
Contrary to business propaganda, unions are good for the economy. A
recent study by the nonprofit Economic Roundtable found that union
workers in Los Angeles County earn 27 percent more than nonunion workers
in the same job. The increased wages for the 800,000 union workers -- 17
percent of the labor force -- adds $7.2 billion a year in pay. As these
workers spend their wages on food, clothing, child care, car and home
repairs, and other items, their additional buying power creates 64,800
jobs and $11 billion in economic output. (Flaming 2007)
If unions are good for workers and good for the economy, why are so
few employees union members? Business leaders argue that employees'
anti-union attitudes account for the decline in membership, which peaked
at 35 percent in the 1950s. In fact, a recent poll found that 58 percent
of non-managerial workers would join a union if they could. But they
won't vote for a union, much less participate openly in a
union-organizing drive, if they fear losing their jobs for doing so.
And there's the rub. Americans have far fewer rights at work than
employees in other democratic societies. Current federal laws are an
impediment to union organizing rather than a protector of workers'
rights. The rules are stacked against workers, making it extremely
difficult for even the most talented organizers to win union elections.
Under current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regulations, any
employer with a clever attorney can stall union elections, giving
management time to scare the living daylights out of potential recruits.
According to Kate Bronfenbrenner, one-quarter of all employers
illegally fire at least one employee during union-organizing campaigns.
In 2005, over 31,000 workers were illegally disciplined or fired for
union activity. The lucky workers get reinstated years later after
exhaustive court battles. Penalties for these violations are so minimal
that most employers treat them as a minor cost of doing business.
Employees who initially signed union cards are often long gone or too
afraid to vote by the time the NLRB conducts an election.
Big business spends hundreds of millions a year to hire anti-union
consultants to intimidate workers from participating in or showing
support for union campaigns. Employers can require workers to attend
meetings on work time during which company managers give anti-union
speeches, show anti-union films, and distribute anti-union literature.
Unions have no equivalent rights of access to employees. To reach them,
organizers must visit their homes or hold secret meetings. This is
hardly workplace democracy.
But despite enormous obstacles, some unions are organizing and
winning, typically by circumventing the NLRB process and mobilizing
workers and community allies to put consumer, religious, and political
pressure on employers. 2007 was the year in decades in which union
density actually increased -- by 0.1 percent, or 311,000 members.
But unions are fighting an uphill battle because of one-sided labor
laws. That's why the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is the most crucial
battle for workers' rights since the original National Labor Relations
Act was passed in 1935. It would allow workers to skip the lengthy,
corporate-dominated NLRB process. If a majority of employees in a
workplace sign a union card (a system called "card check"), the company
would be obligated to bargain with employees through the union. It would
also increase penalties for companies who violate worker rights and
provide for mediation and arbitration for first contract disputes -- a
key provision, because employers often drag out negotiations to wear
down a new union.
The EFCA would make union-organizing campaigns easier and reverse
labor's four-decade membership decline. The U.S. would match other
democracies in the protection of workers' rights. Canada has "card
check" systems in half the provinces, and union membership is more than
double that in the U.S.
Any serious effort to strengthen progressive politics depends on the
revitalization of organized labor. In recent years, the labor movement
has been most successful where it has focused organizing efforts among
workers in low-wage industries, primarily among women, immigrants, and
people of color. Unions that have made the most headway in recent years
have forged alliances with community and church groups and emphasized
mobilization and leadership among rank-and-file workers. In recent
years, community organizing groups have forged links with labor unions,
environmental organizations, immigrant rights groups, women’s groups,
and others to build a stronger multi-issue progressive movement. In the
past decade, community organizing groups, often working with churches
and labor unions, have pressured more than 150 cities and counties, and
one state (Maryland) to adopt laws requiring companies that have
government contracts and subsidies to pay employees a "living wage" --
typically a few dollars above the federal minimum wage.
The Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) has created a
powerful coalition of unions, environmental groups, community groups,
churches, and immigrant rights groups to change business practices in
the nation's second-largest city. As a result, developers now sign
"community development agreements" that include affordable housing, job
training, and other benefits to local residents, as a condition of
getting city subsidies and approvals. LAANE has spearheaded a successful
coalition of unions (including the Teamsters) and community groups to
clean up the pollution at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, the
nation's largest and dirtiest, by forcing the trucking companies to
switch to clean trucks. At the national level, the Apollo Alliance -- a
coalition of unions, community groups, and environmental groups like the
Sierra Club -- is pushing for a major federal investment in "green" jobs
and energy-efficient technologies. Moreover, the Sierra Club has taken
bold steps to transform itself from a staff-dominated lobbying group to
an organizing group with local chapters and leaders that mobilize
members.
All movements for social justice face enormous challenges to success.
Disparities in financial resources give big business and its allies
disproportionate influence in getting their voices heard and gaining
access to political decision makers. This influence does not guarantee
that they will get everything they seek, but it does mean that they have
an advantage. To be effective, progressive forces must be well
organized, strategic, clever, and willing to do battle for the long
haul.
Too often, however, the Left has suffered from self-inflicted wounds
of fragmentation. Since the 1960s, the Left has been a mosaic of
organizations that focus on separate issues and separate constituencies,
which has undermined its effectiveness. The thousands of local community
organizing groups, and the major community organizing networks, comprise
a small part of the progressive Left. The largest component of the Left
is the labor movement (the AFL-CIO, the new Change to Win union
coalition, and the national unions) in terms of the number of members
and staff and the size of the budget. It also includes environmental
groups like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and
Greenpeace; national women’s groups like NOW and NARAL; civil rights and
immigrants rights organizations; gay rights groups; the network of
“public interest” groups like Common Cause, Public Campaign, the Center
for Responsive Politics, OMB Watch, and Congress Watch; and civil
liberties groups like People for the American Way and the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU).
The progressive movement also includes national policy groups and
think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute, the Center for American
Progress, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Citizens for Tax
Justice, the Campaign for America’s Future, the Institute for Women’s
Policy Research, Policy Link, Demos, Good Jobs First, Families USA, the
Fiscal Policy Institute, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), and
many others, as well as some local counterparts like the Center on
Wisconsin Strategy and the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy.
Throw into the mix the various progressive media outlets—Mother
Jones, The Nation, The Progressive, American Prospect,
Sojourners, Ms.,
Dollars and Sense, the handful of liberal radio talk shows, websites
like AlterNet, TomPaine.Com, and Common Dreams, and many others. Include
the various progressive nonprofit public interest legal groups like the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense
Fund, Natural Resources Defense Fund, Lambda Legal Defense Fund,
Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Women’s Law Center, and
others. Add the various national and regional organizer-training
programs. Consider also the various political action committees (PACs)
(the union PACs, Emily’s List, and others), the liberal churches and
Jewish groups, the AARP, MoveOn.org, and the many peace, human rights,
and international “solidarity” groups.
All of these organizations do good work, but there is little
coordination or strategizing among them and no ongoing mechanism for a
discussion of how to best utilize their substantial resources in the
most effective way. If they were to pool their resources and sit around
a large table, they might discuss the following issues: How many
organizers, researchers, lawyers, public relations and communications
staffers should there be? What kind of organizations—single issue and
multi-issue, online groups, and training centers for organizers,
volunteers, and candidates? How much should be allocated to unions,
community organizing, environmental groups, women’s rights groups, civil
rights organizations, and gay rights groups? In what parts of the
country—which cities, states, congressional districts—should they focus
organizing work? How many staff would be based in Washington, D.C.? How
many in “the field”? What issues should they focus on? What policy
agenda?
But, of course, the Left has no coordinating committee to assemble
all these resources and make a rational allocation of money based on
agreed-upon criteria. It is not really a coherent “movement” but rather
a mosaic of organizations and interests that share a broad notion of
social justice and a general belief in the positive potential of
activist government, and that occasionally collaborate on election and
issue campaigns.
Although these groups share a broad consensus about policy issues
(for example, progressive taxation, supporting reproductive rights,
stronger environmental laws, and expanded anti-poverty programs), they
rarely join forces to mount sustained organizing campaigns to get
policies adopted at the local, state, or federal levels. The one time
these groups break out of their separate “issue silos” and work together
is at election time, typically by supporting liberal Democrats through
endorsements, voter drives, campaign contributions, policy work,
publicity, and other means. (Occasionally, they get their own leaders to
run for office, but more typically they work for candidates who have no
preexisting organic connection to their organizations.) These fragile
electoral coalitions are typically forged by the candidates, or the
Democratic Party, or some loose and temporary alliance, and are soon
dismantled after each election is over, such as the Americans Coming
Together collaboration in 2004 (Bai 2004 and 2007).
The purpose of progressive politics and movements is to reduce the
level of class, racial, and gender inequality in the nation, shrink the
number of people living in poverty, promote sustainable growth, and
promote peace and human rights at home and overseas.
Over the past century, the key turning points for improving American
society involved large-scale mobilizations around a broad egalitarian
and morally uplifting vision of America, a progressive patriotism
animated by “liberty and justice for all.” These movements drew on
traditions of justice and morality. They redefined the rights and
responsibilities of citizens, government, and business. In the Gilded
Age, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was agrarian Populism and
urban Progressivism. Populist farmers sought to tame the power of the
“robber barons” – the railroads, banks and other big corporations that
dominated the economy and squeezed their livelihoods. Progressive
reformers—immigrants and union activists, middle-class reformers (for
example, journalists, clergy, and social workers), and upper-class
philanthropists—ushered in the first wave of consumer, worker, and
environmental protections.
During the Depression, it was the upsurge of industrial unionism
linked to Roosevelt’s New Deal. From the 1930s through the early 1970s,
the American social contract was based on the premises of the New Deal—a
coalition led by the labor movement. The labor movement’s strength was
focused in cities, and its core constituents were immigrants and their
children, African Americans, and, to a lesser extent, white southern
small farmers, with allies among middle-class reformers (for example,
planners, intellectuals, journalists, and social workers) and some
liberals within the business community. During this postwar era, the
United States experienced a dramatic increase in per capita income and a
decline in the gap between the rich and the poor. The incomes of the
bottom half of the class structure rose faster than those at the top.
In the 1960s, progressives hoped to build on this foundation.
Representing the left wing of the Democratic Party, United Automobile
Workers (UAW) president Walter Reuther had been making proposals since
World War II to renew and expand the New Deal and to engage in national
economic planning. He advised Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to champion
a bold federal program for full employment that would include
government-funded public works and the conversion of the nation’s
defense industry to production for civilian needs. This program, he
argued, would dramatically address the nation’s poverty population,
create job opportunities for African Americans, and rebuild the nation’s
troubled cities without being as politically divisive as a federal
program identified primarily as serving poor blacks.
Both presidents rejected Reuther’s advice. (They were worried about
alienating Southern Democrats and/or sectors of business that opposed
Keynesian-style economic planning.) Johnson’s announcement of an
“unconditional war on poverty” in his 1964 State of the Union address
pleased Reuther, but the details of the plan revealed its limitations.
The War on Poverty was a patchwork of small initiatives that did not
address the nation’s basic inequalities. Testifying before Congress in
1964, Reuther said that “while [the proposals] are good, [they] are not
adequate, nor will they be successful in achieving their purposes,
except as we begin to look at the broader problems [of the American
economy].” He added that “poverty is a reflection of our failure to
achieve a more rational, more responsible, more equitable distribution
of the abundance that is within our grasp.” (Boyle 1998) Although
Reuther threw the UAW’s political weight behind Johnson’s programs, his
critique was correct. Since the 1960s, federal efforts to address
poverty have consistently suffered from a failure to address the
fundamental underlying issues. Most progressives have understood that
the civil rights victories, such as the Civil Rights Act (1964), Voting
Rights Act (1965), and Fair Housing Act (1968), were necessary but not
sufficient alone to reduce poverty and inequality.
In the 1970s, the New Deal and Great Society gains were supplemented
by other victories that emerged out of civil rights, women’s rights,
environmental and consumer activism; these victories were fueled by the
growth of the Naderite network, feminism, environmental and consumer
groups, and community organizing. Some 1970s victories include
affirmative action, the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws,
strong regulations on business regarding consumer products and workplace
safety (such as Occupational Safety and Health Act , and significant
improvements in the legal and social rights of women, including
reproductive freedoms. The major victories that emerged from community
organizing (linked to civil rights) were the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act (1975) and the Community Reinvestment Act (1977), which resulted
from the ability of groups to link local and national campaigns against
bank redlining.
From the late 1940s through the mid-1970s, the U.S. experienced a
narrowing gap between rich and poor. The civil rights, women’s rights,
and environmental movements promoted a vision of how the nation’s
prosperity should be shared by all but not squandered for future
generations. Since the 1970s, however, the notion that the nation’s
post–World War II prosperity—fueled by the rise of the United States as
a global superpower and steady economic growth – should be widely shared
has been under assault. Progressives have mostly been on the defensive,
seeking to challenge the ideological and policy influences of the
increasingly influential conservative political movement. Major U.S.
corporations began an assault on the labor movement and the living
standards of the poor and working classes. Business Week best expressed
this view in its October 12, 1974, issue: “It will be a hard pill for
many Americans to swallow—the idea of doing with less so that big
business can have more. . . . Nothing that this nation, or any other
nation, has done in modern economic history compares with the selling
job that must be done to make people accept this reality.”
After 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson beat Goldwater in a huge
landslide and the Democrats won huge majorities in Congress, almost
every pundit in the country wrote the conservative movement’s obituary.
Goldwater’s right-wing supporters were viewed as fanatics, out of touch
with mainstream America. With the help of conservative millionaires,
corporations, and foundations, they created new organizations, think
tanks, and endowed professorships at universities to help shape the
intellectual climate and policy agenda (Perlstein 2001). They created a
network of right-wing publications and talk radio stations. They
recruited new generations of college students, funded their campus
organizations, and got them internships and jobs within conservative
organizations and with conservative government officials and agencies.
They identified, cultivated, and trained potential political candidates.
They brought together the two major wings of the conservative
movement—the business conservatives and the social/religious
conservatives—in an uneasy but relatively stable coalition to elect
conservative Republicans. Then they took over the GOP’s atrophied
apparatus. They helped change the political agenda. In 1980, they
elected Ronald Reagan. In 2000, they helped Bush steal the election. In
2004, they helped Bush win a second term, almost fair and square. They
helped conservative Republicans gain control of Congress and changed the
ideological completion of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
The movement built itself up from scratch, utilizing the network of
conservative pastors and churches, and providing sermons, voter guides,
get-out-the-vote training, and other resources to create a powerful
organizational infrastructure. Separate, but overlapping with the
religious Right, the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby also
used its huge war chest and organizational resources to mobilize its
members and their families. Moreover, the religious Right and the gun
lobby are not just part of an election-day operation. They are part of
an ongoing movement that provides people with social, psychological, and
political sustenance on a regular basis. The rise of suburban
megachurches is one example of this phenomenon.
The late 1970s saw the beginning of several trends: the rise of
neo-conservatism as a political and intellectual force, the dismantling
of the social safety net, a dramatic decline in union membership, the
chronic fiscal crisis of major cities, and the increase in the political
power of big business and its political and intellectual allies.
Liberals, progressives, and Democrats found themselves on the defensive,
seeking to protect the key components of the New Deal, the Great
Society, and subsequent victories from being dismantled by the
increasingly powerful right wing—led by the uneasy alliance between big
business, the religious Right, and the mainstream of the Republican
Party.
During the past decade, progressives slowly began to regroup and
fight back. A number of separate, and sometimes overlapping, issues have
catalyzed local and national organizing groups. These include campaigns
for environmental justice, living wages and community benefit
agreements, immigrant rights, fair trade and opposition to sweatshops,
and opposition to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. All of these
campaigns have sought to redistribute wealth and power -- to restrain
the influence of big business and force corporations to be more socially
responsible. They challenge the conservative ideas about the role of
government.
Other campaigns—such as those for gay rights, reproductive freedom,
gun control, and civil liberties (for example, opposition to the
Patriotic Act)—have an uneasy alliance with movements that focus more
directly on economic justice. Conservatives were able to use these
“wedge” issues to win electoral victories, but the political trajectory
has not entirely been toward the Right, as the results of the November
2006 and the November 2008 elections suggest. Growing economic
insecurity—what Jacob Hacker calls a major “risk shift”— created the
potential for building political bridges between the poor and the middle
class, between residents of cities and suburbs, and between people who
may otherwise disagree about “wedge” issues.
As the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections suggest, the alleged
shift to the Right does not adequately reflect public opinion. The
proportion of Americans who define themselves as liberals has been
declining for several decades. But this does not mean that Americans do
not share most liberal values. For example, fewer women call themselves
feminists now than did twenty years ago, but more women agree with
once-controversial feminist ideas like equal pay for equal work or
women’s right to choose abortion. Likewise, more Americans today than
twenty years ago believe that government should protect the environment,
consumers, and workers from unhealthy workplaces and other dangers. Most
Americans believe the federal government should help guarantee health
insurance for everyone. A majority of workers support unions, and most
Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental and gun control
laws, and believe that the minimum wage should be raised and that the
nation should do more to combat poverty.
What’s needed is a contemporary version of the Progressive and New
Deal tradition. This involves regulating capitalism to prevent excessive
greed by pushing for housing and banking reforms, workplace safety laws,
raising the minimum wage, strengthening the safety net, expanding
protections for consumers and the environment, protecting Social
Security, expanding the right of workers to organize and bargain
collectively for better wages and working conditions.
There were clear indicators in 2006, confirmed by the 2008 election,
that the nation’s political mood was shifting. Voters showed that they
were frustrated by the war in Iraq, by widening inequality and declining
economy security, and by the Bush administration’s crony capitalism. But
it was still unclear whether progressives could find a coherent
twenty-first century agenda to replace the New Deal and the Great
Society, to counter the right-wing’s “anti-government” message, and to
find a way to protect and expand social democracy at home in the midst
of globalization (Bai 2007).
Political victories are about more than election-day turnout.
Successes on Election Day are a byproduct of, not a substitute for,
effective grassroots organizing in between elections. People make
progress when they join together to struggle for change, make
stepping-stone reforms, and persist so that each victory builds on the
next. This kind of work is slow and gradual because it involves
organizing people to learn the patient skills of leadership and
organization building. It requires forging coalitions that can win
elections and then promote politics that keep the coalition alive.
Can the progressive Left figure out how to frame issues and mobilize
constituencies in the early twenty-first century that can achieve sustained
political and economic power? Each time there has been a political
realignment, it has occurred in ways that even its strongest proponents
could not have anticipated. America today is holding its breath, trying to
decide what kind of society it wants to be. Liberal and progressive forces
are gaining momentum, but they still lack the organizational infrastructure
needed to effectively challenge the conservative message and movement. They
have begun to invest in building that infrastructure—think tanks, grassroots
coalitions, technology, recruitment of staff, and identification and
training of candidates (Bai 2007). Some of that investment bore fruit in
November 2004 (including the impressive work of the Americans Coming
Together project) and in November 2006, when unions, community organizing
groups, and other progressives helped elect a Democratic majority in
Congress. The Obama victory, and the increasing Democratic majority in
Congress, could help consolidate a new direction for society.
Americans are ready for change, but the direction and magnitude of that
change depends on political mobilization. Obama takes office at a time of
enormous economic and social turmoil. In such circumstances, politicians can
be either cautious or bold. Both involve taking risks.
Soon after the election, some conservative and mainstream pundits claimed
that despite Obama's victory, America is basically a "center right" nation.
In fact, public opinion polls reveal that a significant majority of
Americans want a more activist government around economic, environmental and
consumer issues.
But public opinion doesn’t inevitably translate into public policy. Even
a Democratic majority in Congress, it will not be easy to enact a economic
stimulus package than includes infrastructure projects and green jobs,
reform health care, pull U.S. troops from Iraq, strengthen labor laws,
tackle global warming, help homeowners avoid foreclosure and strengthen bank
regulations, and adopt a progressive tax plan. The energy industry, the
pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies, the big defense contractors, and
others will work overtime to thwart a progressive policy agenda.
Obama has clearly touched a nerve in America's body politic. Americans
are hungry for hope and ready for reform. But it will require Obama to use
all his rhetorical, organizing and political skills to shape public opinion,
encourage Americans to mobilize, sustain and re-invent the spirit and
momentum of his campaign into a grassroots movement to move the country in a
new direction.
Atlas, J. 2005. “The Battle in Brooklyn.” Shelterforce.
November–December.
Atlas, J., and P. Dreier. 2006. “Waging Victory.” American Prospect.
November 11.
___________________. 2008. “The GOP’s Blame-ACORN Game.” The Nation.
November 10.
Bai, M. 2004. “Who Lost Ohio?” New York Times Magazine. November 21.
———. 2007. The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to
Remake Democratic Politics. New York: Penguin.
Barone, M. 2008. “Why Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward
Obama’s Community Organizing?” U.S. News and World Report. September 8.
Berube, A, and E. Kneebone. 2006. Two Steps Back: City and Suburban
Poverty Trends 1999–2005. Brookings Institution. December.
Bhargava, D. 2008. “Organizing Principles.” New York Times. September
13.
Boyle, K. 1998. ‘‘Little More than Ashes: The UAW and American Reform
in the 1960s,’’ in Organized Labor and American Politics, 1894–1994, ed.
Kevin Boyle Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Boyte, H. 2008. “The Peculiar Attack on Community Organizing.”
Minneapolis Star-Tribune. September 8.
Breidenbach, J. 2002. “LA Story: The Coalition That Made a $100
Million Trust Fund Happen.” Shelterforce. March–April.
Candaele, K., and P. Dreier. 2002. “Housing: An LA Story.” The Nation.
April 15.
Clarkson, F. 2003. “Putting the ‘Mass’ in Massachusetts.” In These
Times. December 15.
Goldman, A. and N. Cleeland. 2003. “Grocery Unions Battle to Stop
Invasion of the Giant Stores.” November 25.
DeNavas-Walt, C., B. D. Proctor, and C. H. Lee. 2006. Income,
Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.
Dreier, P. 2002. “Social Justice Philanthropy: Can We Get More Bang
for the Buck?” Social Policy 33, no. 1 (Fall)
———. 2005a. “Builders Clucking Like Chicken Little.” Los Angeles
Times. July 3.
———. 2005b. “Can Cities Be Progressive?” Nation. June 15.
———. 2006a. “Growing the Minimum Wage.” TomPaine.com. November 27.
———. 2006b. “Rosa Parks: Angry, Not Tired.” Dissent. Winter.
———.2008a.“From Organizer to Elected Official.” Nation. September 8.
www.thenation.com/directory/bios/peter_dreier.
———. 2008b.“Will Obama Inspire A New Generation of Organizers?”
Dissent. Spring.
http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1215.
Dreier, P., and J. Atlas. 2007. “The Missing Katrina Story.” Tikkun.
January.
———. 2008. “GOP Mocks Public Service.” Nation. September 5.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080922/dreier_atlas.
Dreier, P., R. Freer, R. Gottlieb, and M. Vallianatos. 2006.
“Movement Mayor: Can Antonio Villaraigosa Change Los Angeles?” Dissent.
Summer.
Dreier, P., J. Mollenkopf, and T. Swanstrom. 2005. Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century. 2d ed. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Eckholm, E. 2006. “City by City, an Antipoverty Group Plants Seeds of
Change.” New York Times. June 26. (About ACORN.)
Egan, T. 2006. “06 Race Focuses on the Suburbs, Inner and Outer.” New
York Times. June 16.
Faber, D., and D. McCarthy. 2005. Foundations for Social Change:
Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Fine, J. 1996. “Back to Basics.” Boston Review. February/March.
Finfer, L. 2008. “Community Organizers Are a Staple of Democracy.”
Newsday. September 10.
Fisher, R. 1994. Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in
America. Updated ed. New York: Twayne Publishers.
Flaming, D. 2007. Economic Footprint of Unions in Los Angeles. Los
Angeles: Economic Roundtable. December. Available at
www.economicrt.org/summaries/Econ_Footprint_LA_Unions_synopsis.html.
Garnick, D. 2008. “Organizers Just Small-Time to GOP.” Boston Herald.
September 8.
Geoghegan, T. 2008. “Hey Sarah—Organize This,” Slate.Com. September
5. Available at www.slate.com/id/2199473/
Gottlieb, R., R. Freer, M. Vallianatos, and P. Dreier. 2006. The Next
Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City. 2d ed. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Greenhouse, S. 2007. “Report Assails Wal-Mart Over Unions.” New York
Times, June 1.
Greenhouse, S. 2008a. The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American
Worker. New York: Knopf.
Greenhouse, S. 2008b. “A Union President Presses for Growth Amid a
New Round of Criticisms.” New York Times. June 21.
Greenhouse, S. 2008c. “Proposal on Safety at Work Riles Unions.” New
York Times. August 29.
Hacker, J. S., and P. Pierson. 2005. Off Center: The Republican
Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Hamburger, T. and P. Wallstein. 2008. “Obama’s Grass-roots Army May
Get Drafted,” Los Angeles Times, November 14.
Hart, S. H. 2001. Cultural Dilemmas of Progressive Politics: Styles
of Engagement Among Grassroots Activists. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Horwitt, S. 1992. Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, His Life and
Legacy. New York: Random House.
Huppke, R. 2008. “Organizing a Response to the GOP.” Chicago Tribune.
September 7.
Jenkins, J. C., and C. Perrow. 1977. “Insurgency of the Powerless.”
American Sociological Review 42, 2: 249-268, April
Jenkins, J. C., and A. Halcli. 1999. “Grassrooting the System: Recent
Trends in Social Movement Philanthropy, 1953-1990. The Development and
Impact of Social Movement Philanthropy.” In E. C. Lagemann,
Philanthropic Foundations: New Scholarship, New Possibilities.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999
Jenkins, J. C., and B. Klandermans, eds. 1995. The Politics of Social
Protest. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Judis, J., and R. Teixeira. 2004. The Emerging Democratic Majority.
New York: Scribner.
Kellman, J. 2008. “Service Changes People’s Character.” Newsweek.
September 5.
Kelly, J., and T. Lee. 2008. “No Call to Belittle Community Work.”
Seattle Post-Intelligencer. September 8.
Kurtz, S. 2008. “Inside Obama’s ACORN.” National Review. May 29.
Available at
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=.
Kwon, A. {AU: Is this one name or two? one} Dae Keun. 2008.
“Community Organizing Defines U.S.” Syracuse Post-Standard. September
15.
Lawrence, J. 2008. “Community Organizer Slams Attract Support for
Obama.” USA Today. September 4.
Lipsky, M. 1970. Protest in City Politics. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Malkin, M. 2008. “The ACORN Obama Knows.” June 25. Available at
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/25/the-acorn-obama-knows.
Martin, I. 2006. “Do Living Wage Policies Diffuse?” Urban Affairs
Review 41, no. 5: 710-719.
McCarthy, J., and M. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social
Movements.” American Journal of Sociology 82, 6, 1212-1241.
McKitrick, C. 2008. “Quips Sting Utah Activists.” Salt Lake Tribune.
September 6.
Micklethwait, J., and A. Wooldridge. 2004. The Right Nation:
Conservative Power in America. New York: Penguin.
Milkman, R. 2000. Organizing Immigrants. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
———. 2006. L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of the Labor
Movement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Moran, R. 2008. “Obama’s Ties to ACORN.” American Thinker. May 29.
Available at
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/obamas_ties_to_acorn_more_subs.html.
Morris, A. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement. New York:
Free Press.
Morris, A., and C. Mueller, eds. 1992. Frontiers of Social Movement
Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Oliver, P. 1984. “If You Don’t Do It, Nobody Will.” American
Sociological Review 49: 601-610.
Paget, K. 1990. “Citizen Organizing: Many Movements, No Majority.”
American Prospect 1, no. 2: Summer: 115-128. AU: page range}.
Parachini, L., and S. Covington. 2001. The Community Organizing
Toolbox: A Funder’s Guide to Community Organizing. Washington, D.C.:
Neighborhood Funders Group.
Perlstein, R. 2001. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the
Unmaking of the American Consensus. New York: Hill and Way.
Reynolds, D. 2002. Taking the High Road: Community Organize for
Economic Change. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.
———, ed. 2004. Partnering for Change: Unions and Community Groups
Build Coalitions for Economic Justice. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.
Sege, I. 2008. “Community Organizers Fault Comments at GOP
Gathering.” Boston Globe. September 6.
Sidney, M. 2003. Unfair Housing. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas.
Simmons, L. 1994. Organizing in Hard Times: Labor and Neighborhoods
in Hartford. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
———. 2000. “Labor and LEAP: Political Coalition Experiences in
Connecticut.” Working USA 4, no. 1 (Summer): 19–34.
Simpson, S. 2008. “Community Organizers More Valuable Than Palin
Thinks.” Hartford Courant. September 5.
Skocpol, T. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management
in American Civic Life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Slayton, R. 1986. Back of the Yards: The Making of Local Democracy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smock, K. 2004. Democracy in Action: Community Organizing and Urban
Change. New York: Columbia University Press.
Social Justice Philanthropy: The Latest Trend or a Lasting Lens for
Grantmaking? 2005. Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy. April.
Squires, G., ed. 2003. Organizing Access to Capital. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Swanstrom, T., C. Casey, R. Flack, and P. Dreier. 2004. Pulling
Apart: Economic Segregation among Suburbs and Central Cities in Major
Metropolitan Areas. Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution.
Swarts, H.. 2002. “What Makes Community Organizing Succeed?”
Snapshots. January–February.
Wallsten, P. 2009. “Obama Sets Agenda for His Grass-roots Network,”
Los Angeles Times, January 18.
Weir, M., and M. Ganz. 1997. “Reconnecting People and Politics.” In
The New Majority: Toward a Popular Progressive Politics, ed. by Stanley
Greenberg and Theda Skocpol. New Haven: Yale University Press
1. Within hours, Obama
released a statement challenging the Republicans who "mocked,
dismissed, and actually laughed out loud at Americans who engage in
community service and organizing." His campaign manager
David Plouffe sent an e-mail saying, "Let’s clarify
something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary
people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed
policies."
Peter Dreier is E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics And Chair
of the Urban & Environmental Policy Program at Occidental College in Los
Angeles. Send comments on this article to him at:
dreier@oxy.edu |