Global Transformation: Strategy for Action
Dedication Epigraph Preface Acknowledgments One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Epilogue Comments
| Chapter Five: Strengths and Weaknesses |
This is the first of two chapters that evaluate the progressive movement in the United States. I organize this evaluation according to a modified version of Peter Drucker’s “SWOT” framework – Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats – that I learned at a two-week cooperative management course at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Since then, I’ve used it as part of the planning process with a number of organizations. This chapter addresses internal strengths and weakness.
| Internal Strengths |
As reflected in the Progressive Resource Catalog, the array of progressive organizations that do effective work in every sphere of life is incredible. Tens of millions of Americans belong to these organizations. They address every conceivable issue, including politics, labor, corporate reform, alternative media, healthy families, community development, arts and culture, personal growth, spirituality, education, computer literacy, recreation and sports, and science and technology. When I mention the “progressive movement,” I refer to all of these efforts to make our society more compassionate and democratic. These progressive activists have accumulated a wealth of experience and expertise.
This movement has already accomplished a great deal. Racism has diminished and civil rights are more effectively enforced. Environmental activists have won major victories and are now strongly supported by most Americans. Women have made considerable advances. Gays and lesbians are more widely accepted. Health care activists have built majority support for national health insurance. The disability community passed the Americans with Disabilities Act that mandates increased accessibility for people with disabilities. Local communities throughout the country have asserted their right to control development. Vegetarians and the Slow Food movement have brought increased awareness to food issues and advocates have asserted animal rights. Voters in Arizona and Maine enacted public financing of campaigns, with positive results afterwards. The movement against the invasion of Iraq almost stopped the war before it began and has managed to help persuade a majority of the American people to oppose the war more quickly than happened with the Vietnam War. Seniors have established that they are an organized force to be reckoned with. The rapid development of a campaign against the Bush Administration’s attempt to speed the concentration of media resulted in reversals of key administrative decisions. The broad opposition to the Administration’s attempt to micromanage U.S. Attorneys for partisan political gain reflects the power held by advocates for the rule of law. And progressive Christians have helped many evangelical Christians see the Biblical implications of issues such as AIDS, global poverty, and the climate crisis (which has contributed to fissures in the once monolithic Christian Right, the base of the Bush coalition).
Progressive organizations continue to make progress in these areas and have helped shape American public opinion to the point that majorities now support rational, humanitarian positions on most issues. And progressives are in harmony with most Americans on the most important moral issue facing this country – namely, that the American people need to use the government to promote the general welfare (as affirmed in the Preamble to our Constitution), rather than allow a few corrupt, greedy, power-hungry individuals capture the government for their own self-interest.
Of particular importance is that progressives have learned how to use the Internet with great effectiveness. This development is of special significance because the mainstream media is biased toward the interests of its corporate ownership. The Internet enables ordinary Americans to communicate with one another as equals more fully, easily, and cheaply than was the case previously. Like the telephone, the Internet is a horizontal, two-way communication vehicle. Unlike the telephone, however, the Internet does not require people to be online at the same time. Moreover, it enables more people to participate in conversations.
Whether with email, publishing Web pages, or posting videos, thanks to the Internet, people are communicating with one another like never before. Progressives are using these tools to organize and mobilize activists with remarkable potency. Particularly encouraging is that new projects, such as MoveOn, True Majority, and ActforChange, have built large progressive networks with a multi-issue focus. The success of these efforts demonstrates possibilities for even more effective action in the future.
Progressives with a minority position on issues are learning how to more effectively build support for their position without alienating potential supporters. The campaign against the Iraq War, for example, largely avoided the kind of strident attacks on America that antagonized many people during previous campaigns. And in recent years, secular progressives have demonstrated more willingness to work respectfully with progressive-minded people who hold deep spiritual convictions.
Consultants like George Lakoff, author of Moral Politics, have contributed to this improved ability to reach beyond the choir by talking about shared values. Authors like Cornel West, Michael Lerner, and Jim Wallis have helped to change the perception that the progressive movement is hostile to religion. New smaller projects like Global MindShift, that features the thinking of the cosmologist Brian Swimme, and the Integral Institute, founded by Ken Wilber, are contributing to a holistic change in consciousness.
In June 2007, the Praxis Peace Institute conducted in Croatia an international conference on “Transforming Culture: From Empire to Global Community.” Featured speakers included Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice and the Blade, Hazel Henderson, author of Beyond Globalization, David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World, Lakoff, Frances Moore Lappe, author of Diet for a Small Planet, and Tom Hayden, veteran activist. Participants in this conference took “another look at the role of culture in our lives by examining the belief systems and patterns that often predetermine outcome. How do we create a cultural intervention that breaks the trance and prevents the automatic response from reverting to default mode? What does systemic change require?” I find developments like this event to be very encouraging.
Awareness of how the radical right built an infrastructure of think tanks and advocacy organizations to influence the media and the general public has led progressives to strengthen their own infrastructure. The Center for American Progress, in particular, has developed an impressive ability to harness important ideas on a wide range of issues. Their willingness to help forge consensus among diverse perspectives and engage in coalition with others in political actions like rallies against the Iraq War is promising. And the Institute for Policy Studies, as it has for decades, continues to contribute valuable analysis and dialogue, especially with its Foreign Policy in Focus project. The Campaign for America’s Future, the Economic Policy Institute, and others add important ingredients to the intellectual mix.
In this vein, it is encouraging to see more people talking about the need for a comprehensive vision that could help build unity among progressives over the long haul. The Fairness Agenda for America was a positive step in that direction. The Principles Project was another, more recent effort. The Network of Spiritual Progressives has offered a good vision statement. And perhaps most encouraging, the Movement Vision Project sponsored by the Center for Community Change has been interviewing a large number of activists throughout the country and will soon be presenting a consensus statement based on its interviews. This attention to the need for clarifying long-term goals is a hopeful sign.
The Democratic Strategist, an Internet-based journal of public opinion and political strategy edited by public opinion research analyst Stan Greenberg, political demographer Ruy Teixeira, and political scientist William Galston, is a “new forum and meeting ground for Democrats from every sector of the Democratic community where empirical evidence from public opinion and social science is applied to Democratic political strategy.” I’m encouraged by their ability to bridge differences and help articulate fruitful directions for electoral efforts (though Galston’s Third Way project has been less impressive). Contributions from strategists such as these, and others like David Sirota and Thomas Frank, have encouraged Democratic candidates to emphasize economic populism and opposition to the Iraq War. These strategists are helping to forge a new unity between radicals, progressives, and liberals.
In “What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?”, Sirota, who worked for Bernie Sanders when he founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, articulated a persuasive unifying perspective:
Barack Obama also bridges the gap between various points of view with a clear, balanced, progressive perspective. In early 2006, he called Sirota and invited him to an extensive discussion. Sirota reported on the interaction in The Nation:
The heated discussions about the March 2007 Congressional votes on funding for the Iraq war provide a good example of the maturation of the progressive movement. On March 21, Sirota posted on the influential Daily Kos blog “A Memo to the Progressive Caucus On the Eve of the Iraq Vote.” This memo demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of a balance between strong principle and necessary compromise. When he wrote his memo, the House was about to vote on legislation to set a September 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq while at the same time continuing to fund the war until then. A number of key progressive Congresspersons and their staff were discussing the issue with Sirota.
The House leadership had adopted this strategy because they had been unable to persuade a majority to support a more rapid withdrawal. Nevertheless, antiwar organizations like United for Peace and Justice and Progressive Democrats for America were opposing any more money for the war and were calling for progressives in the House to vote against the compromise. The Out of Iraq Caucus in the House led by Congresswomen Maxine Waters was promising to vote No.
Sirota began his memo by quoting Saul Alinsky, who wrote:
Pointing out that if the compromise were to fail, the likely result would be a funding bill with no requirement for withdrawal, Sirota argued:
With these points in mind, Sirota concluded:
The fact that outside progressive organizations, with some strength behind them, were urging a No vote was an advantage. Different actors play different roles. Outside pressure for simple, clear solutions, such as “no more money for the Iraq War,” plays an important role. Lonely, prophetic voices of conscience, inside and outside the legislature, also contribute. As Howard Zinn said in his commentary on the controversy:
Large coalitions have trouble debating and deciding on the details of last-minute legislative compromises. The well-established Win Without War coalition, for example, was unable to arrive at a decision on the compromise during the critical days before the vote. So coalitions understandably tend to stick with the same clean position – in this case, more money only for bringing troops home. When the time comes to vote, however, legislators can’t be pure and need to accept the best they can get if it’s a real step forward.
The day after Sirota posted his memo, the Out of Iraq Caucus leaders announced that they would release their members to support the compromise, which delivered ten last-minute votes that provided the decisive difference. The next day, the Washington Post, who described Sirota as “a former House Appropriations Committee aide who is now an uncompromising blogger,” referred to his memo, which suggested to me that it was a factor in the decision by the caucus leaders.
After the House passed the compromise, newspapers ran headlines like “House Passes Iraq Withdrawal Deadline,” cutting through the complexity by highlighting its key provision. Although Bush vetoed the legislation after it passed the Senate, it ratcheted up pressure on the Republicans by placing responsibility for the war on their shoulders.
In May, the House progressive caucus got the up-or-down vote on stopping the war that Sirota had suggested and almost got a majority to support it, further increasing pressure on the Republicans, many of whom met with Bush and his top staff to make it clear that they couldn’t continue to support the war much longer without risking an electoral disaster in 2008. As I write, it seems that either enough Republicans will cave in by this Fall and help stop the war, or they will pay a major price in the next election.
Having strong, insightful strategists like Sirota on the scene is a key strength of the progressive movement. Considering that candidates who adopted Clinton’s middle-of-the-road, triangulation strategy did more poorly in 2006 than did those who adopted strong populist positions, prospects are good that Democrats will continue to affirm a stronger progressive message than was the case under Clinton’s leadership.
The progressive movement is also benefiting from strong media voices. The growth in subscribers for The Nation magazine under the leadership of Katrina vanden Heuvel and her frequent appearances on television have helped boost the power of this venerable, progressive voice. The American Prospect, a newer journal on the scene, also continues to provide valuable insights. Amy Goodman and “Democracy Now” have learned how to tap into the many avenues of modern communications. Pacifica Radio appears to have weathered the storm brewed by internal dissension and will hopefully increase its effectiveness in the future. New Web-based outlets like Talking Points Memo, Alternet, TomDispatch.com, and CommonDreams are reaching new audiences.
The strong response that Barack Obama has received during the primary season offers great hope. Far from having been manufactured by the media, the response to Obama began with spontaneous enthusiasm for his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (even though it wasn’t carried live by the major networks) and has been largely self-generating ever since. If he continues to handle himself as well as he has so far, he could spark an unprecedented grassroots movement of people who want to advance progressive positions already affirmed by a majority of Americans. As Salim Muwakkil, In These Times Senior Editor, pointed out, being a candidate with a viable chance of winning requires a different “political calculus” than does running as a protest candidate, as Jesse Jackson and others have done.
Obama’s campaign offers the possibility for establishing a new tone to American politics – one that emphasizes common ground without discounting differences and relies primarily on hope and love rather than anger and fear. Outrage has its place. When necessary, we must respond fiercely to danger. Our starting point and our focus, however, can be calm, patient, loving affirmation of positive reform. When confronted with opposition, we can persist with determination, without demonizing our opponents. And even in the face of contention, we can remain open-minded, willing to learn from others. Obama illustrates this approach. The fact that it resonates so strongly with so many people reflects real strength in the progressive movement.
This new attitude is reflected in a story that Obama has told. One day he received an email from a doctor that said, “Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you." The doctor then said that his Christian faith led him to oppose abortion and gay marriage (as well as idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism). He said he was considering not voting for Obama because an entry on his website criticized "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:
Obama then said:
Fortunately, progressives like Obama are learning how to be principled without being doctrinaire, though many progressives and the radical right continue to fight the “culture wars” of the 60s. As Gail Sheehy, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, described in her Vanity Fair profile, George W. Bush, for example, has been highly motivated by resentments that he still carries from the 60s.
Disagreeing with our opponents without dehumanizing them is key to real progress. It seems that more people are gaining greater understanding that decency is both ethical and effective. Obama, who has said repeatedly that he wants to go beyond the old divisions from the 60s, reflects this new attitude.
In addition, Obama seems to be seriously dedicated to using his campaign to build an ongoing, grassroots community force. When he first ran for office in 1995, he echoed his mentor, Alinsky, by asserting that politicians should not see voters
While working with San Francisco Progressive Challenge, I recall telling Congresswoman Pelosi’s chief of staff, Fred Ross, Jr. (a notable organizer and the son of the legendary Farmworkers’ organizer, his namesake) that we were interested in exploring with Pelosi how she might establish a model for how a Congressperson could use her position as an organizing tool. Ross responded with a blank stare and never replied in writing to our letter that addressed the subject. I took his response to mean that Pelosi was not interested in such a project. The fact that Obama and other progressive politicians are now working to bridge the gap between electoral politics and community organizing is heartening.
The shift toward greater respect in politics is reinforced by similar trends in the rest of society. Progressive-minded people are pushing for humanistic reforms throughout society.
Health care is becoming more holistic and client-centered, as complementary and alternative approaches are being officially accepted.
In the mental health field, the self-help movement remains strong, Positive Psychology is making real inroads, and cognitive behavior therapy (with a considerable emphasis on mutual support) is taking hold as a popular alternative to more biologically oriented approaches.
Most spiritually inclined people are exploring with one another the universal values that underlie all religions, while remaining committed to their own tradition.
Knowledge of what is required to raise children in a healthy family environment is increasing, as the systems analysis of the family-therapy approach has become well established and advocates push to establish programs that support parents.
In communities throughout the nation, racism, sexism, and other forms of arbitrary discrimination are steadily being overcome as understanding of nonviolent communication and conflict resolution expands.
The expansion of recycling programs and the growth of eco-tourism are indications that people are taking more seriously their personal responsibility to help care for the environment, as determination to deal with the climate crisis builds.
In the economy, campaigns against sweatshops have made headway, as have efforts pushing for greater corporate responsibility.
Teachers and parents are resisting the negative impact of the obsession with standardized testing.
Progressive media outlets are attracting larger audiences.
Progressive voices are being heard loud and clear in the arts, especially in music and movies.
The positive coaching philosophy is making inroads in sports.
And scientists are speaking out on their issues of expertise and opposing the politicization of science by the Bush Administration.
These progressive alternatives generally remain in a minority position, in opposition to dominant patterns, but they are gaining strength.
Most of the participants in these diverse efforts may not see themselves as part of one movement, but I do. It is the same progressive movement for mutual respect, liberty, and community that has been a driving force for ages. Despite the obstacles we face, it remains strong and vibrant. When the disparate elements of this emerging progressive movement unify, they will have the capacity to help each other gain the critical mass that is needed to truly transform our world, including ourselves.
| Internal Weaknesses |
This section on weaknesses in the progressive movement is relatively long because I believe that it’s particularly important to face deficits fully. Since I fall victim to the tendencies that I describe here, these criticisms apply to me as well as to others.
All of these criticisms don’t apply to all progressive organizations and some apply only from time to time. So I’ve sprinkled words such as “often” throughout the text, though for stylistic reasons I haven’t included such qualifiers every time that I could have.
I don’t consider these characteristics to be unique to progressives. Rather, they reflect American culture in general and are deeply embedded within most Americans.
| *** |
The greatest strength of the progressive movement, its diversity, is closely related to its greatest weakness, its lack of unity. Although most Americans support progressive positions on most issues, the movement is so fragmented it’s unable to persuade Congress and the President to respect the will of the people. Consequently, elected officials largely ignore what Americans want.
The progressive movement includes not one national organization with all of the following characteristics:
- A comprehensive vision statement that describes long-term goals, speaks to all segments of the progressive community, and provides the foundation for an ongoing, broad coalition
- A clear strategy for how to move forward one step at a time by winning victories that improve people's lives
- A fully inclusive membership and leadership that reflects and represents the American people
- A membership that is large enough to make a difference
- Methods for insuring that the membership democratically controls the direction of the organization
- Methods for maximizing workplace democracy among the staff
- Fun-filled activities that foster community, enrich members’ lives, touch members’ hearts and spirits, inform and expand their minds, and inspire them to become better human beings
Ongoing, timely, effective, and united action is lacking. Progressive-minded people, in all of their diversity, seldom combine forces to make this country more democratic, caring, just, peaceful, and sustainable. We have no multi-issue, multi-racial, cross-class coalition that stays together, acts quickly, and builds enthusiasm by magnifying our voice and winning victories in the halls of power. Though this need is urgent, no coalition exists today that is able to play this role.
| Lack of Vision |
The lack of strong, clear agreement on positive, long-term goals makes it more difficult to bring together lasting, effective coalitions. Managing crises in reactive mode is not sufficient. To be lasting, a movement needs an enduring, positive, proactive vision.
Temporary coalitions occasionally come together to elect a candidate or stop one disaster or another. Once the election is over or the crisis passes, however, these coalitions fade, often allowing victories to be watered down later. These ad hoc coalitions fail to agree at the outset on a long-term agenda that will enable it to move on to another issue quickly. When the next crisis arrives, the time-consuming process of forming another coalition is necessary.
One example is the sudden death of Harold Washington, the African-American mayor of Chicago who rallied enormous enthusiasm and a strong progressive coalition. After he died in his second term, his achievement collapsed because no political organization based on clearly defined principles was in place.
When coalitions do form, they often struggle over how to express their message due to disagreements on underlying goals. Socialists and other anti-capitalists, for example, will join a progressive coalition and constantly try to persuade the coalition to adopt their anti-capitalist policies. Such debates often cripple coalitions.
C. Wright Mills, who was a major influence on the New Left of the 1960s, argued, “Our major orientations – liberalism and socialism – have virtually collapsed as adequate explanations of the world and ourselves.” Nevertheless, the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in its Port Huron Statement declared, “A new left must include liberals and socialists, the former for their relevance, the latter for their sense of thoroughgoing reforms in the system...[so everyone can] begin to discuss their differences and look for political synthesis.”
SDS decided not to clarify at the outset whether or not it was not “anti-capitalist.” Instead, they left that question open, hoping to resolve it later with a new “synthesis.” The result was a bitter internal struggle that tore the organization apart. They should have resolved the issue first.
A similar pattern has repeated itself many times with other organizations when factions who’ve considered themselves more radical have tried to take over and redirect organizations that begin with a different orientation. In addition to the question of capitalism, splintering has also resulted from not adopting clear progressive positions on other issues, such as globalization and hierarchy (which some people oppose totally, at least rhetorically). Such ambiguity undermines effectiveness because the organization fails to present a consistent message. Moreover, it leads to wasting time with ideological arguments and fosters mistrust about hidden agendas.
A related problem is that many progressives resist talking about how the world is dominated by a single, coherent social system. For example, in the series of online interviews that I conducted with a number of progressive leaders during which I asked a number of question about "the system,” Mark Ritchie, now Secretary of State in Minnesota, answered, "I believe there are many social systems in this huge country – not just one or even a dominant one. And all of them need change – some dramatic."
When I responded by asking. "Do those systems interact in a unified, harmonious manner? Do they reinforce one another? Is there an underlying unity and common purpose?", he replied:
Another progressive activist recently told me that he doesn’t talk about big picture issues like “the system” because it’s too much for people to grasp. Instead, he focuses on urging people to take on one issue and become very knowledgeable about it. I disagree. I believe that most people know that “the system” exists. We simply need to clarify our understanding of it so we can discuss it coherently.
This lack of agreement on how issues fit together contributes to the fragmentation that plagues the progressive movement. As a result, people insist that their issue is the issue and are reluctant to offer support to other efforts. This fragmentation makes it difficult to form broad coalitions that address all aspects of society simultaneously, while focusing on particular issues in a timely, unified manner.
A good example is An Inconvenient Truth, an excellent film that makes a constructive contribution. Gore’s approach, however, exemplifies many of the problems associated with the progressive movement. He presents the climate crisis as a single issue, without discussing underlying root causes. At the end of the film, he laments the lack of political will and calls for an awakening, but he doesn’t examine why people are asleep. Instead, he tries to scare people into action, which reinforces the “culture of fear.”
Even if this approach works well enough to prevent the worst-case scenario associated with this particular crisis, it would likely leave in place the culture, the attitudes, and the structures that will produce another similar crisis, such as a plague induced by genetic engineering or nuclear war.
| Ego |
One reason for this lack of unity is that progressive organizations operate within a culture that promotes hyper-individualism and “dog-eat-dog" competition.It’s not surprising that progressives often fail to rise above these aspects of the dominant culture, but rather operate in ways that foster division. To one degree or another, most if not all Americans buy into racist, sexist, elitist, and other retrogressive stereotypes that are rooted in egoistic assumptions of superiority. To be effective, progressives need to rise above these tendencies, or at least control them. Yet, among progressives, there is insufficient honest self-criticism and serious effort to deal with egoism.
Both individual progressives and progressive organizations tend to be too concerned with their own self-interest. Making an impression and being acknowledged become all-important. In failing to overcome egocentrism, the progressive movement violates its own principles, confuses its message, and weakens its ability to gather support.
In “Mirror, Mirror On the Web” in The Nation, Lakshmi Chaudhry quoted Chad Hurley, who explained YouTube’s dizzying success by saying, "Everyone, in the back of his mind, wants to be a star." She then commented:
Egoism can easily be transferred onto organizations. Rather than doing what is best for humanity, “building the organization” becomes central. So many organizations are reluctant to join in broad coalitions. Instead, they compete viciously for recognition and funding. Demonstrating the value of one’s own organization becomes primary. Given these patterns, it’s not surprising that the progressive community is fragmented and is unable to mobilize consistently the pressure that is needed to win major victories.
Far too often, progressive activists are power junkies, looking out first of all for number one. Many activists seem to care mostly about defeating an enemy and establishing their own dominance. Abbie Hoffman, for example, said that taking on a bureaucrat and winning was more satisfying than good sex. The adrenalin rush of combat becomes addictive. Soon even winning takes a back seat.
Ambition rules. The need for attention produces divisive internal power struggles. People act for the sake of their own self-interest and manipulate each other by stroking egos and exchanging favors. Actions are based on loyalty to “allies” rather than how best to achieve goals that improve people’s lives. Leaders become too concerned about their own careers and concentrate on getting others to follow them rather than listening closely and helping to build consensus.
Part and parcel of this self-centered dynamic is arrogance. Progressives too often judge harshly those who disagree with them. They engage in defensive, antagonistic arguments rather than look for common ground by calmly considering what methods are most effective. They often assume that they are the ones best suited to exercise leadership, condemn the American people for being “stupid,” and are constantly criticizing other progressive organizations. It seems that far too often the real underlying goal is to get others to defer to one’s own wisdom. This elitism diminishes the ability of progressives to gain support among mainstream Americans.
The assumption of moral superiority on the part of many progressives has led to an inability to listen to others who disagree and to understand the reasons for their convictions. On the issue of welfare, for example, from the 1960s on, many progressives tended to de-emphasize the need for increasing public-service employment opportunities and advocated instead for income assistance for everyone, including able-bodied people who are unwilling to work. Most Americans understandably saw this position as indulgent coddling of freeloaders. Likewise, on crime, many progressives excused criminals by blaming society, which left the impression of not supporting swift and fair punishment.
On these and other issues, progressives have tended to discount the sincerity of the moral convictions held by most Americans – who in fact care deeply about doing the right thing and want American society to cultivate people who do the right thing. These judgments about both America and the American people have often constituted contempt. In addition to being unjustified, these attitudes are counterproductive politically.
In 1979, Christopher Lasch lamented these facts in his powerful book, The Culture of Narcissism. As Robert Boyers recently commented in Raritan Review:
Though they flowered in the late 60s and early 70s, these arrogant, egocentric attitudes continue to be common among progressives.
One manifestation of this egoism is that people don't really listen to each other. Most conversations are a series of monologues, with people telling stories about themselves, gossiping about others, or offering lectures on intellectual topics.
This self-centered arrogance reinforces the tendency toward a lack of democracy in progressive organizations. Certain people, especially college-educated white men, often dominate organizations due to certain specific skills, not because they have the best ideas. They have more self-confidence, so they speak more quickly and more often. They use their knowledge of obscure parliamentary procedure to manipulate meetings. Their experience enables them to write more effectively. Partly because they suffer less economic insecurity, they work longer hours and get their way because they work more. They welcome into the organization people who support their desires and give the cold shoulder to those who demonstrate independence. Even when members are asked to vote on a policy issue, the question is often posed in a biased way that reflects the opinions of the leadership (as is the case with most MoveOn polls of its members).
One result of this lack of genuine democracy is that progressive organizations are often vulnerable because they are top heavy. Dependent on a strong, egoistic, charismatic leader, the organization is severely weakened when that leader is bought off, burns out, moves on, or dies.
Undemocratic power games and assumptions of superiority discourage participation. Most people want to give their heart and soul to a democratic, supportive community that offers everyone the opportunity to exercise leadership. Those who stick with undemocratic organizations, far too often, are people who consider themselves inferior and defer to the authority of others. People who want to have a real voice and be treated with respect stay home.
Related to this ego-driven ambition and lack democracy is a general lack of transparency. Organizations are often not clear about where they are headed. Within organizations, vague and/or hidden agendas are common. Leaders often are dishonest or unclear about where they want their organization to go. New members are not upfront about how they hope to change the organization. Few progressive organizations post their Annual Report or minutes of their board meetings on their website. One progressive spokesperson once told me, when I commented on his organization’s lack of transparency, that people can “tell where we’re coming from by reading what we say,” when in fact that was not the case. This lack of clarity and openness breeds suspicion and further limits enthusiasm.
| Dehumanization |
By compartmentalizing politics into a separate realm, apart from personal, social, and cultural activities, progressives reinforce the specialization that is drying up the human spirit. As Todd Gitlin has written, “Hyperspecialization has triumphed virtually unnoticed, unscathed, unmocked. Its disservices to comprehensive, comprehensible knowledge have become so routine as to be invisible.”
Specialization is a bundle of contradictions. It both enlivens and deadens. It strengthens the mind and weakens the soul. It treats people more fairly by treating them uniformly. It promotes both conformity and individuality. It fosters both more intimacy and more shallowness. It encourages more productivity while undermining the quality of life. It enhances negative freedom from oppression and limits the positive freedom to accept meaningful obligations. It intensifies both competition and cooperation. It makes individuals both more non-disposable and more disposable.
As George Simmel wrote:
Because of his social condition he quickly loses any concrete and human relationship to the world. The machines he operates are not his and neither are the things he produces. Actually he is not a worker at all, because he does not create individual works or is so occupied with one aspect of production that he is not conscious of those he does create. He is a laborer, which is an abstract noun designating a mere function rather than a specific job. Therefore his efforts, unlike those of a doctor, an engineer or a carpenter, cannot be distinguished from those of other men…. It is the cause of his transparency, which is no different from that of any other instrument.
By neglecting these realities, progressives neither counter the negative consequences of modernization nor buttress the positive ones.
The chronic obsession with future-oriented activities aimed at immediate, short-term goals is perhaps our most serious problem, for we fail to take advantage of the liberation from work that modernization offers. We forget to enjoy life and each other.
Progressive organizations, reflecting the larger society, tend to treat their members as objects to be used so as long as they’re willing to be used, rather than as human beings with basic needs. The radical right has adopted a different, more effective approach. They use a community-support structure, the fundamentalist Christian church, as a base. These communities attract and keep members because they meet personal needs. In particular, they provide fellowship, cultural celebrations, the opportunity to form new friendships, and mutual support aimed at nurturing self-improvement.
Progressive organizations, on the other hand, tend to be impersonal and bureaucratic, just like corporate America. They aren’t designed to help their members become better human beings by organizing activities that promote personal or spiritual growth. They fail to meet people’s needs for joyous, playful, creative, moral, supportive, activist communities. Desperate to “win” quickly, they act as if the ends justify the means, rather than adopting means that reflect their ultimate goals.
The assumption of superiority by college-educated white men also results in organizations that are primarily white and dominated by college-educated white men. Eager to have an impact quickly, these self-assured white men first decide what path to take and then try to get people of color to join them, rather than forming multi-racial teams at the outset to decide jointly how to proceed. Needless to say, this approach seldom really works.
In his campaign for President, John Edwards talks about “transforming the world.” This approach is encouraging. Transformation is a valuable concept. The more familiar it becomes, the better, for it suggests comprehensive, fundamental reform that leads to qualitative change.
Unfortunately, however, Edwards limits his specific proposals to changes in public policy.
The “world” is more than politics. The world is “all that relates to the life of a person,” as in, “She saw her world collapse.” To transform the world, we must address every aspect of life, including how the modern world dehumanizes people.
On occasion, Obama talks about personal and social responsibility as well as politics. During his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention, for example, he urged:
So far, however, Obama has kept the personal and the political separate in his campaign organization. He does not address how political activists can build holistic communities of people who explicitly agree to regularly support one another in their efforts to become better human beings.
Both Edwards and Obama are asking their campaign workers to organize house parties. MoveOn and other organizations also convene house parties from time to time. Other groups convene affinity groups that foster informal socializing. These efforts are commendable. They provide people with the opportunity to enjoy fellowship with one another and form new, supportive friendships.
But these projects fail to ask participants to commit themselves to constant self-improvement and set aside special time for supporting one another in that effort. Spontaneous, unstructured activities are not sufficient.
Many political organizations convene study groups, speakers’ trainings, anti-racism and nonviolent-communication workshops, and other projects that promote personal growth in one way or another. In these ways, they help activists improve their political skills.
But these methods are specialized. Because they focus on specific tasks, they reinforce the future-oriented, instrumental way of life that is a root cause of so many of our personal and social problems.
| Negativity |
Another major weakness of the progressive movement is the tendency towards negativity. One form is reacting negatively against injustice rather than acting proactively for justice. Rather than propose lasting solutions, progressive activists often merely focus on stopping what is wrong. And actions are rooted in anger and fear rather than love and creativity. “We need to propose more and oppose less (Van Jones).”
Relying on anger reinforces meanness and hostility. Labels and generalizations are thrown about loosely. Entire groups, such as “rich people” or “conservatives,” are condemned and everyone who appears to fall into that category is treated with disrespect. Protest campaigns demonize “evil” opponents, rather than concentrate on the underlying social system. With great venom, activists often project onto others their own weaknesses.
In these ways, progressives often help to perpetuate the very problems that they challenge. A society that is filled with hate is ill prepared for positive social change.
Tapping into anger can serve in the short run to help mobilize people. Demonizing a scapegoat can be satisfying emotionally. But relying on anger rather than tapping deeper feelings of compassion results in campaigns that fizzle before they make lasting change. Successful protests reduce the anger that motivated the protest, which undermines the movement for social change because it relied on anger to motivate people. And leaders burn out from dwelling in a vortex of rage and bitterness.
Spreading anger also discourages participation in politics in general. Radical-right leaders have actually admitted that they have used mud slinging to reduce the number of people who vote, for lower turnout is usually to their advantage. Progressives often get sucked into responding tit-for-tat, which strengthens the overall climate of negativity.
Utilizing anger leads at times to demonstrations that violate just laws in order to disrupt business as usual. The purpose is to pressure the general public to support the demonstrators’ demands, if only to avoid the disruption of their lives. But the result is usually the opposite – namely, the demonstrators alienate people who otherwise might be supportive. The activists vent their anger, feel better, and get attention, but accomplish little else.
In addition, activist rhetoric is often “anti-American” or appears to be so when battles are motivated by resentment or revenge. Negativity and anger prevail.
Negativity often expresses itself in terms of dividing the world into “us” and “them.” Lakoff, for example, insists on dividing political tendencies into two primary camps, “conservative” and “progressive,” and argues that progressives must concentrate on “defeating” the conservatives. According to Lakoff, every one of us has within us both two incompatible moral worldviews, the Strict Father and the Nurturant Parent. When one is activated, it suppresses the other. And our political philosophy is supposedly shaped by which of these moral worldviews is dominant in our personal lives.
Another progressive linguist, Geoffrey Nunberg, wisely disagrees with Lakoff. "As Lakoff tells it," Nunberg wrote, "the same principles that lead you to favor the flat tax would lead you to oppose abortion and favor abstinence-only programs." But Nunberg argues that there are no necessary connections between such social and economic views, which consist of a "hodgepodge of conflicting metaphors, symbols and rules of thumb…[and] self-interest and moral principles in different proportions," though politicians and activists tie them together with rhetoric "that creates an illusion of coherence." Reinforcing that illusion is counter-productive.
As reflected in the fact that the Bush Coalition is splintering, there are many different kinds of conservatives, including libertarians who oppose coercive government, isolationists who oppose military adventures, neo-conservatives who advocate imperialist domination, social conservatives who want to preserve traditional values, economic conservatives who oppose big government, federalists who push for states’ rights, phony conservatives who want an Imperial Presidency, moderate conservatives who accept a major role for the government, and free-market fundamentalists who propose de-regulation and privatization whenever they can.
To lump all of these and other often-conflicting tendencies into one camp so we can more easily attack “conservatives” makes no sense. The word “conservative” has no clear, single, coherent meaning. Using it loosely distorts reality. It is one that others have used for their own advantage. Why should progressives take the bait and use it themselves? Attacking “conservatives” contributes to the divide-and-conquer dynamic of the dominant social system because it builds barriers between progressives and people who identify with or sympathize with what they consider “conservative” beliefs.
Lakoff identifies "self-discipline, tradition, independence" as "core conservative values" without expressing any appreciation for those values, which are obviously legitimate. So the apparent conflict between "conservative" and "progressive" values is a false conflict. Attacking “conservatives” is "either/or" and "win/lose," whereas "both/and" can lead to "win/win." By demonizing "conservative" values, Lakoff discounts what is positive at the core of those values and fails to synthesize a set of universal human values.
Unfortunately, far too many progressives adopt a similar perspective. By thinking and talking in terms of us vs. them and good vs. evil, we undermine communal solidarity.
Progressives unnecessarily spread fear as well as anger. Considerable attention has been devoted to how the mainstream media uses sensationalism to attract customers and sell advertising. And progressives acknowledge how politicians provoke fear to generate support for authoritarian proposals. But progressives themselves often exaggerate dangers to motivate people to get involved. In doing so, they fan the flames of insecurity that divide people. In the long run, reinforcing the culture of fear discourages political involvement, for fear paralyzes.
Many progressives foster fear and anger because they assume that conditions must get much worse before they will get better. They believe that the system must collapse totally before any significant change will be possible. So they spread notions of doom and gloom to prepare people for the coming catastrophe, ignoring the possibility of achieving major progress through a steady series of positive reforms. They reject “incremental reforms” and promote faith in some future total revolution. As Obama has commented, they prefer “the dream to the reality, impotence to compromise.”
It is morally irresponsible to want conditions to worsen. Desiring an increase in human suffering is reprehensible. The future is unpredictable. Our current crises may become much worse, or they may not. Unfortunately, however, many progressives fervently hope that the world will fall into a much more serious catastrophe. Their hysterical, negative predictions frighten away people who would get involved with projects that were more positive and hopeful.
Another example of negativity is the assumption that people are helpless victims of powerful forces beyond their control. This approach ties in with reliance on anger and fear. Blame is placed primarily on those in authority. The responsibility of victims is neglected and the power of ordinary people is understated. The fact that we are all victims of a self-perpetuating social system is ignored. This dramatic, black-and-white framing of issues may help activate people in the short run. But this approach is ineffective in the long run, for it fosters the notion that ordinary people are powerless – and the more people feel powerless, the less likely they are to take action.
| The Circular Firing Squad |
Egocentric negativity is also reflected in the assumption that one’s own strategy is the only correct strategy. Activists fail to adopt the many-sided awareness that recognizes that multiple strategies can each be valuable.
This tendency was reflected in some responses to a questionnaire I circulated that asked progressive-mined people, “Should the progressive movement support the development of holistic communities?” Some people offered responses such as, “No. I feel no need for that.” These responses discounted the fact that others do feel the need. Progressive activists become hypercritical of one another.
Disagreements often turn into “ad hominem” arguments, or name-calling. These personal attacks often involve "mind reading," or assuming to know the hidden motives of others. Criticisms aren’t presented in a constructive manner with awareness that different people play different roles.
Many of the antiwar activists who opposed any more funding for the Iraq War, for example, did not appreciate that both those who adopted a hard line and those who supported a compromise played valuable roles. Predictably, some hardliners accused the compromisers of “selling out.” After the vote, Sirota wrote:
Given this pattern of back-stabbing, I was curious to see how the major progressive antiwar organizations would respond when the headlines afterwards emphasized that the House had voted to set a deadline for withdrawing troops. On March 26, Tim Carpenter, PDA National Coordinator, expressed ambivalence in his email report to members. He said, “It is a good thing that, for the first time, something approaching a deadline has been imposed on Iraq by a House of Congress.” But he unfortunately went on to blame those who sought the compromise for the bad blood among progressives when he claimed, “More bad news is the disunity stirred up among antiwar progressives in Congress by the House leadership’s arm-twisting and the intervention of MoveOn.org in support of the leadership’s arm-twisting.” The problem was not the leadership’s methods. The source of the conflict was their objective. To blame them and MoveOn for the disunity was unfair.
On March 27, the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) Alert stated, “Some have argued that a bill with any kind of withdrawal date is the best we can hope for, and that we must accept ‘reality.’ Within the special kind of ‘reality’ that exists in the halls of Congress, that might seem true.” I take that formulation to be an inaccurate and unfair criticism of the compromisers. Placing the word “reality” in quotation marks and saying it “might seem true” discounted the actual reality: the House leaders could not pass a bill ending funding for the war.
On March 30, Dr Bill Honigman, PDA California State Coordinator sent out a report on the work of the PDA delegation that lobbied on the issue in the halls of Congress. In that report, he curiously said the compromise bill was “asked for by the Bush/Cheney war consortium.”
Negativity like this is no way to build a progressive movement that is better able to connect with the majority of people by projecting hope, joy, respect, and compassion. Pushing strong, clear positions does not require disrespecting those who broker realistic compromises.
Fortunately, in its March 30 Alert, UFPJ adopted a more balanced tone: “Within United for Peace and Justice, different groups and activists are interpreting the developments in Congress in a variety of ways. But we all agree that our work is not finished and that we must use this opportunity to build support for the return of all our troops this year.” But it remains to be seen how many progressives learn from this experience. I suspect that most of those who charged “sell out” will continue to launch similar grenades in the future.
Randy Shaw argues in his The Activist's Handbook, in the section on "The Grand Illusion,” that activists justifiably attack others for supporting “hollow laws” that create "the potentially dangerous illusion that Congress has addressed a critical problem." Shaw says that such measures “can prevent the enactment of real solutions; Congress will not quickly revisit an issue it has ostensibly resolved." To avoid this scenario, Shaw recommends that grassroots activists "undercut" such efforts by revealing "the hoax behind the hype" and attacking the "credibility of the mainstream...organizations that joined the politician's charade."
Shaw offers no examples of how this approach has ever achieved "real solutions." The only example he cites is an instance of a protest called by a relatively small, grassroots environmental group when New York Governor Mario Cuomo called a press conference with major environmental groups to announce a multi-million dollar environmental bond. Shaw denigrated the press conference as a "love fest" and reported that the protest objected to the amount of money allocated for recycling in the bond measure. Following the protest, funding for recycling was increased four-fold, which Shaw presented as a major victory.
But this boost in funding for recycling was no "real solution" for any of New York’s environmental problems. And this example fails to suggest that the bond measure as constituted prior to the protest was a dangerous fraud or that the more mainstream organizations had failed to create an effective coalition with the Governor. In fact, his willingness to quickly include more funding for recycling suggests the contrary. Shaw’s criticism of the mainstream coalition seems unduly, prototypically harsh.
Shaw fails to present a better example for his approach because hardliners seldom achieve their objectives. Their "holier-than-thou" tendency to claim superiority for their own tactics, while denigrating others as "sell outs" or "dupes," undermines solidarity among progressives and makes real progress more difficult.
This focus on the supposed superiority of one tactic or another ignores a deep problem that is revealed when one adopts many-sided awareness. All reforms are reformist. Any reform that helps to improve the functioning of a particular institution necessarily helps, in part, to perpetuate the dominant social system. The key question is not tactical, but strategic – whether the campaign is widely understood as part of a larger, ongoing movement. If people understand that a particular reform is merely one step in the right direction, the threat of cooptation can be avoided when compromises are made.
The response to the Obama campaign on the part of many progressives is another example of harsh, doctrinaire divisiveness. After Obama gave a speech to AIPAC, the most powerful Israeli lobby, a correspondent sent me an article on Obama’s speech from an Israeli newspaper and told me, “Apparently Barack Obama is a piece of shit. I could never support him.” Regardless of the deficiencies in Obama’s Middle East policy, this kind of language, even among friends, demonstrates my point.
After reading Obama’s speech in its entirety, my concern about my associate’s quick judgment was reinforced. I don’t agree with everything that Obama says. Given that reliable sources report that the Bush Administration is including a nuclear attack on Iran in its contingency planning for how to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, I disagree with Obama’s assertion that we should “take no option, including military action, off the table.” I disagree with Obama’s “total commitment” to “fully funding military assistance” to Israel. I would take out the word “total.” And I object to his reducing the recent conflict in Lebanon to “Hezbollah attacked Israel,” when Israel had also perpretrated aggressions against Hezbollah. I would prefer a more even-handed approach.
At the same time, however, I recognize that for Obama to make a complete break with the history of a close alliance between Israel and the United States would not be the best way to advance peace between Israel and Palestine. A better approach is to accept that historical context and nudge both sides towards compromise, especially in closed-door diplomacy. And that method is precisely what Obama seemed to do in his speech, as well as in other statements on the issue that have gotten him into hot water with Israeli partisans.
In his speech, for example, Obama referred to “the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security” and said, “Some of those stones will be heavy and tough…for Israel to carry.” I take that comment to mean that Israel will have to compromise by trading land for peace.
Obama also said, “We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: Two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal.” This statement reflects more balance than is common. Hillary Clinton, for example, never mentioned the Palestinians in her speech before the same audience.
The day before the AIPAC speech, while in Iowa, Obama said, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." This statement did not assert that Palestinians had suffered more than others, and on other occasions he has said that both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered. Nevertheless many pro-Israeli advocates denounced him for his expression of sympathy for the Palestinians, which prompted pro-Palestinian advocates to come to his defense.
So I take the charge that Obama is a “piece of shit” to be another example of what is known widely as the “circular firing squad.”
An old friend, when I argued that Franklin Roosevelt campaigned initially from a center-left position and moved to the left after he was elected and that Obama could do the same, responded by quoting some writer who dismissed Roosevelt as the “world’s greatest opportunist.” I consider that comment to be another example.
One point that I find interesting in leftist critiques of Obama are comments from people who don’t understand his rhetorical skill. Another friend forwarded a “must read” commentary by Steve Fraser, which included some pointed comments on Obama: “Obamaism is a real mystery…. The charisma that surrounds the prince of banality from Illinois is even harder to decipher, attached as it is to nothing tangible.” This mystification reflects how little many progressives understand communication that connects with people heart-to-heart. Fraser proceeded to call for “a new era of polarization rather than centrism, partisanship rather than bi-partisanship, a head-on confrontation with the Democratic Leadership Council, like the guerilla wars once waged…by the Goldwater legions against the silk-stocking Rockefeller Republicans.”
Taking offense at slurs like “prince of banality,” I told my friend that I disagreed with Fraser’s perspective. He responded, “I really hope you are right about him. His voting record as a senator sucks.” So I asked why he reached that conclusion and proceeded to do more of my own research on the issue.
I first found a Washington Post article that compared Clinton’s and Obama’s records and pointed out, “In several instances, Clinton and Obama voted against measures that they supported in principle, because the bills were not strong enough.” The article also quoted a political consultant who pointed out that as a Senator, "You're voting for so many things that can be misconstrued.” The basic point is that relying on voting records is a very touchy way to evaluate a candidate.
Still, the record is interesting. The Wall Street Journal concluded:
Project Vote Smart, a non-partisan, reliable project that compiles legislators voting records as well as rankings by interest groups, reported that Obama supported the interests of the following groups 100% or almost 100% of the time: Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, American Civil Liberties Union, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Education Association, League of Conservation Voters, Children's Defense Fund, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Peace Action, National Organization for Women, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic Action, and the Alliance for Retired Americans. And according to the National Journal’s “Composite Liberal Score's” calculations, in 2005, Senator Obama voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.
With these results in hand, I was quite interested in seeing the email from my friend (who is very astute) documenting why he concluded that Obama’s voting record “sucks.” It consisted of a pro-Kucinich posting to the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party with the headline, “Obama's Voting Record: Pro-War, Pro-Tyranny.” What I found was a long list based on extreme ideological purity. Many votes accepting nominees to various Administration positions were included, even though there was little or no organized opposition to those nominees. Also included were votes in support of omnibus appropriations bills that were passed by voice vote in the Senate and with only 30 or 40 votes in opposition in the House. And even though it was supported by most immigrant rights organizations, the author objected to Obama’s vote for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, because “though the Democrats may have thought they were avoiding a worse bill in voting for a moderately bad bill, they had the power to stop all bills that made the treatment of immigrants worse than the status quo.” So my friend’s email failed to persuade me that Obama’s voting record “sucks.”
I go into all this detail to document how progressives are prone to make snap judgments with harsh language that undermines mutual respect and civil discourse. Obama has been a solid liberal his entire life. Yet my friend, who’s very well informed, concluded that his record as a Senator is “disgustingly disagreeable,” which is how the dictionary defines “sucks.” This shrill, strident tone, which is all too common when the circular firing squad forms, weakens our ability to expand our base.
| Lifestyle “Politics” |
Many compassionate people contribute to non-political progressive change in their work on personal, spiritual, social, and cultural growth. Some of these people argue that their work is political. In response to my questionnaire on holistic communities, for example, one person said, “Many of us consider [our] lifestyle a very political action.”
Another respondent disagreed with the proposition that the progressive movement needs to grow holistic communities whose members "engage at least once monthly in political action together" and affirmed instead getting together "face-to-face periodically to focus on doing projects together that will bring the world into alignment with holistic principles and values."
I agree that these personal and social efforts have political ramifications. I also agree that all relationships deal with power. But to insist that these efforts are political confuses reality because it aims to redefine language that is commonly understood otherwise.
The political is a discrete realm. It refers to the methods used to manage a government (and governments are unique in that they monopolize police power). In a democracy, politics involves establishing and modifying public policy, whether legislative or administrative.
Recognizing this distinction between the personal and the political makes it easier to protect the personal sphere from totalitarian intrusion by the political sphere. The personal and the political are not separate, but they are distinct.
In response to my questionnaire, another respondent reported, “I really think political action creates polarity and is counter productive to a truly holistic community.” This claim that political action always undermines “truly holistic” community is an absolutist, dogmatic claim. Unfortunately, black-and-white dogmatism of this sort is common in the progressive community.
Being apolitical is impossible. "Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you (Pericles).” If one does nothing to help change public policy, one helps preserve existing policies, so even inaction has political impact. Claiming that one’s lifestyle is sufficient to fulfill one’s political responsibility rationalizes inaction.
As we have already considered, when we engage in political action, we can avoid demonizing our opponents. We can treat them with respect, affirm common values, negotiate compromises, and urge them to follow their deepest convictions to their logical conclusion, which includes recognizing their enlightened self-interest.
“Polarity” refers to an intrinsic polar separation, a polar extreme, and a relation between two opposites. So political action clearly need not always create polarity, as claimed by my correspondent. We can differ on one issue while affirming what we have in common on other issues, without assuming that the other is rotten to the core.
Many progressive-minded people who make valuable contributions in non-political realms resist contributing even two or three hours a month to political action. They offer countless rationales for their refusal. None of their arguments are convincing to me. A righteous life-style, while important, is not political. Until these apolitical members of the progressive community decide to carry their share of the load, the progressive movement will remain fractured and will fail to focus enough power to realize its goals.