Proposals
Comments on "The Future of the Obama Movement"
NOTE: Individuals who sent me private emails and have not yet authorized me to identify them aren't identified.
Anonymous
A thoughtful piece. Your proposal encompasses what appears to me to contain the core of the original idea for political activism.
Susan Strong:
Good work, Wade!
Anonymous
Thanks, Wade - I thought this was a brilliant email, and really useful, tangible and intelligent suggestions - great work, here!
Anonymous
Thank you Wade Hudson. This was a very enlightened mail.
William Du Bois
Barack Obama is one corrupt goon. Goldman Sachs was Obama's largest corporate campaign contributor, with $874,207. Also in his top 20 were three other recipients of bailout capital: JP Morgan/Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
Marla Turner
I am always glad to hear people talk about the need to continue our commitment to change. Nations For Change is taking the lessons learned from the Obama campaign and putting grassroots organizing toward that very thing. Our mission is to empower "ordinary" individuals to effect positive change. We do that in two ways: first by mentoring and training our members on what community organizing is all about and secondly, by conducting organizational activities of our own that everyone can participate in.
I am proud to announce that our new website is up and running, complete with our 2009 action plan, contact info, etc. Feel free to sign up for the quarterly newsletter which will contain updates about our ever expanding team, progress on our goals, and action items.
We are looking for individuals to fill mentor and leadership roles. Mentors help guide and teach our newer members what organizing is all about and leaders take on organizing responsibilities for specific areas. We also have positions on our administrative team. If you are interested in any of these roles, please send a message indicating your area of interest to info@nationsforchange.org and we'll follow up with you one on one.
Our new website is located at www.nationsforchange.org.
Thank you for your continuing interest and dedication toward making the world a better place to be. Thank you for being a partner in bringing Barack Obama to the White House. I hope you will join me in the walk down this historic road to Change as well.
All my best
Marla, thanks for all that, with which I was already familiar, but it doesn't really respond to my proposal for what the national office should do to help overcome fragmentation and build a unified national movement.
Wade
I disagree. The Obama transition team has already formed their 501(c)4 and are evaluating how they can be most effective with the masses but have not made any formal declaration of continuing the
MyBO organizational structure. We already know that as of this moment,
MyBO is not going to be taken down, but we don't know what it will ultimately be used for.
What we DO know is that President-Elect Obama has challenged each and every one of us to continue the path we are on. Because of that, lots of groups are already forming in an effort to heed the call. We are not waiting for them to show us the way. We are ready to assist them when they need us but we no longer wait for their direction. Their new website will continue to motivate and inspire millions of people with President Obama's agenda and offer ways for people to get involved. But should they decide against pursuing an independent "unified national movement", I believe they have already taught millions how to do so on their own.
If you haven't already taken the survey put out by them, I urge you to share your ideas with them. I for one believe that President Obama will make community organizing and grassroots involvement a central theme of his administration but I also think it will take an entirely different shape than what we've seen in the past. Multiple efforts may lead to fragmentation but they need not lead to ineffectiveness. We must be ready to move forward regardless of what their final decisions are. And Nations For Change will be ready.
Marla
I applaud the initiative that you are taking, and did not mean to disrespect it or to suggest that you should wait for direction from the national office. Go for it! And I'm glad to hear that you will be "ready to assist them when they need [you]."
I was merely trying to clarify that my proposal concerns what Barack and his national staff should do, not what Nations for Change, PDA,
MoveOn, DFA, or anyone else should do. And your reply did not comment on whether you believe that my recommendations to them are sensible.
Also, my feeling is that building a unified national movement that is massive and effective will not be easy, and I do not believe that millions have learned how to do so from the Obama campaign. It will require thoughtful planning and careful execution. The differences of opinion in the national office, as reported by the LA Times, illustrate how it is no simple matter.
I have already shared my ideas through their questionnaire. Thanks for making sure that I know about it. And thanks again for your efforts.
Wade
Anonymous
Wade, Some excellent ideas for my.barackobama.com. It is time for this huge network to be empowered as true tool to both work for and work against policies that are not for progressive and liberal goals.
Deirdre Des Jardins:
Howard Dean developed party builder, but he needs activists who will really use it to get it to take off. The current Democratic party folks are mostly not activists, though there are a few people who are.
The Dean campaign also formed a group which became Democracy for America. DFA is still active and has some great local groups in the Bay Area. See the California for Democracy website: http://californiafordemocracy.net
I would try talking to some organizers of the larger DFA groups –San Francisco for Democracy or East Bay for Democracy and finding out what they did post-election. They do have regular monthly meetings focused around progressive action, fundraisers, and other events with great speakers.
.
DFA supported some of the California Congressional campaigns this cycle, including Charlie Brown, who is just a hair away from winning in Congressional District 4.
The other big national progressive organization is MoveOn. They have a more campaign-like structure, focused around nationwide actions. They have also done your #1-6 for the last several years.
I’d look at what these groups have been doing, borrow some of it, and add your own flavor.
I'm familiar with DFA and
MoveOn. I think it would be great if they proceeded to help persuade the DNC to recommend to all Party members and all Americans that they communicate the same message to their Congresspersons, Senators, and the President on a timely, top priority issue monthly. I also think it would be great if Progressive Democrats of America,
MoveOn, and everyone else did the same. If they did, we might transform the Democratic Party into a national coalition that could overcome the fragmentation that prevails today. One way to move in that direction would be to get local County Committees and then State Committees to promote the Resolution for An Activist, Grassroots Democratic Party which can be found at
http://progressiveresourcecatalog.org/index.php/Nov8/PossibleActions
However, it seems to me that DFA, like the Democratic Party, has been mostly focused on elections. Their mission statement [
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/about], does not talk about ongoing activism directed at national policy. It reads "We provide campaign training, organizing resources, and media exposure so our members have the power to support progressive issues and candidates up and down the ballot."
MoveOn has not done #1-6. They do not hold monthly house meetings. They do not have a method of layered representation so that local folks can have thoughtful input into national decisions.
In any case, my proposal relates to what Barack and his people can do with
MyBO and/or the national Democratic Party. Folks supporting and participating in a variety of good efforts like DFA and
MoveOn doesn't get at that point, and how we can build nationwide unity.
Thanks for the reply, Wade
For your resolution, I would recommend talking to someone on the San Francisco Central Committee and getting it on the agenda for adoption.
You also have representation to the state party, and can get it on the agenda for the next state Convention. It’s better if it gets endorsements from multiple groups around the state. On January 10, any Democrat can run for a spot as delegate to the state Central Committee, and it would be good to have some folks from the Obama movement represented.
Re: pushing on national issues.
Yes, the Democratic Party doesn’t do this enough. The local Central Committees are mostly focused on endorsing and supporting local and statewide candidates.. There is little outreach on issues – that’s partly why there are a plethora of progressive organizations.
There is one exception -- within the California Democratic Party, there is a Progressive Caucus within the California Democratic Party which works on highlighting progressive issues at state party Conventions. Worth being in touch with.
Yes, DFA doesn’t do a lot on issue outreach. But it’s worth looking at the way they organized after the 2004 primaries as a model. They had both local, regional, and statewide meetings.
I would recommend that San Francisco for Obama have a post-election meeting, break out into small groups and figure out priorities of what to work on. Take the top three priorities and then organize working groups on those priorities. You can also create a working group on the structure of the group.
When I was organizing a grassroots group in Santa Cruz post-election, that’s what we did, and it worked pretty well. What we didn’t have, and the DFA folks did, was then have a meeting with representatives from around the Bay Area and perhaps Northern California, and form a statewide organization.
DFA did, and they still have a pretty good network.
After the election, our group worked on some locally originated events, and also worked with all these groups – DFA,
MoveOn, the local Democratic Party (mostly around elections), and the state Democratic Party. It was difficult to keep cohesion in the group over the long term.
Some of that comes from having a strong agenda – I think that will have to come from Obama. I think the decision to activate the entire network will be driven by Obama’s needs on legislation, and the network will be activated at those times.
Personally, I’ve ended up working more with
MoveOn, because I feel it is absolutely essentially to work on outreach about progressive issues, and, to date, they have been the most effective organization that does that.
MoveOn was originially all online, now they try to do #1-6, and have local groups that meet regularly to discuss issues, and plan local events. It’s a good model, but it could have more local input and allow locally originated actions.
It would be terrific if the Obama campaign organized that, and worked with other local groups.
Deirdre Des Jardins
Thanks much for the lengthy, informative comment.
In line with your suggestion, I'm discussing the Resolution for a Grassroots, Activist Democratic Party with Supervisor Eric Mar and Tom Brown, Vice-President of San Francisco for Democracy (DFA). I'm hoping that they will take it to the SF Central Committee. If they do, might you get the Santa Cruz CC to consider it? We might have time to get it on the agenda of the April CA Convention.
I agree that the lack of leadership by the Democratic Party contributes to the fragmentation in the progressive movement. Good point.
I joined the Progressive Caucus but haven't heard from them since the Convention. They said Norman Solomon was running as a delegate from the CDP to the convention on behalf of the Progressive Caucus. Do you know if he won? That would be a test of the strength of the caucus. Have you been getting emails from them?
Your appreciation for the importance of, and problems associated with, structure is astute. Do you know if the DFA's statewide meetings are open to the full participation of everyone, or only elected representatives? You're probably right that we could learn from their experience.
I agree that it would be good for San Francisco for Obama to organize a meeting as you suggest. Roma Guy and I convened one here, but there was no participation from the leadership. I can't work on it now. I'm in Mexico for the winter.
Might the Santa Cruz Obama leadership be into convening a regional or state-wide gathering of the sort to which you refer? Perhaps they could connect (horizontally) with the leadership in other areas.
What happened with the post-election group you organized?
Was the post-election work which you describe, for which it was difficult to keep cohesion after a while, the same project, or related to an earlier election?
I agree with what you say about
MoveOn. I didn't know that they hold regular house meetings. That's encouraging. I haven't seen reports on that.
Thanks again for your comments.
Wade
Matt Haney:\\"Your own story and the American story are not separate — they are shared. And they will both be enriched if we stand up together, and answer a new call to service to meet the challenges of our new century. I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency.”—President Elect Obama
Let's keep moving!
Thanks for the feedback. Can I quote you in a report on responses? I like the quote. However, it does not seem to explicitly comment on my suggestions concerning HOW we should keep moving. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that matter.
Pamela Mays McDonald:
Matt was very clear; I believe that our President-Elect will communicate with us as he has in the past: honestly and in a timely manner.
I don't feel the need to organize with you on this issue yet. Change.gov is already in place and we have been asked to assist with Southern California wildfire assistance.
We have an excellent leader in place, one we have all worked very hard to install. For the time being, I am content to let him have the chance to lead us toward the change we need. And I am looking forward to assisting him in whatever way I can.
He is gathering himself and his team for the battle to come. Your call to action is premature, in my opinion.
I too trust that Barack will offer solid, concrete direction asap -- in all "deliberate haste." I'm merely offering some suggestions. Barack and his people have always been open to input. David Plouffe requested such recommendations in the excellent questionnaire that he sent out yesterday.
Michele Bateman:
Keep up the great work, Wade. You have the right ideas and I am glad that you are being proactive. I think acting locally and mobilizing now, in preparation for direction and leadership from the Obama camp is exactly what we should be doing. There is a lot of Obama inspired energy and wisdom out there, but we need to harness it and put it to some good use. Obama cannot make change happen on his own and he needs everyone's support, irrespective of party affiliation, irrespective of how they voted or how they tend to associate, and that is Wade's intention. To keep people connected and ready for action.
I don't know about "great," but otherwise well put, Michele. Thanks for the support.
David Marshak:
Are our delegates to the Convention part of this? In some districts there are a lot of people with varied degrees of interest in being active.
I like what you have done. Grass roots thinking things out and bubbling them up will be the key to success. It can't all be worked out in DC.
As I see it, if we transformed the Democratic Party in the manner I suggest, selecting delegates to the Convention would become increasingly important, for the platform would be more important.
Many of the delegates are elected an open, CD-based caucuses at which any Democratic can show up and vote. I would like to see candidate nights prior to those caucuses where voters could get to know the candidates more fully.
I hope this responds to your question.
I am thinking of the ones we already have. Some of them are very bright and highly motivated. Feel free to quote and identify me.
David
Good point. It might be interesting to have a public meeting with as many of those delegates as you could round up and ask them what they think about the Resolution for a Grassroots, Activist Democratic Party.
Wade
Tom Brown
Wade's encouragement that something be done to keep the Obama grassroots movement together is right on, but the question is how best to do that. As a founding member of SF for Democracy, I appreciate Eric's comment about what we have done locally by forming an independent grassroots organization. SF for Democracy is a 501.c.4 non-profit which sponsors both a State and Federal PAC. It would be possible for local Obama supporters to do the same thing, but it's a big commitment of time and one has to ask whether a new separate organization is really needed.
Of the two examples Wade gives, I much prefer No. 1 (development of my.barackobama.com as an ongoing activist tool) to No. 2 (transform the Democratic Party into an activist organization) because it is more realistic. For the past four years I've served as a delegate to the CDP and gotten to know how it operates. Back in January, 2005 I was one of hundreds of Howard Dean supporters in California who sought to become voting members of the CDP though their Assembly District reorganizing committee process. In January, 2009 there will be AD delegate elections at which Obama supporters could seek election (or in some cases appointment) to the CDP central committee. But assuming an official party role is not for everyone, so I think some version of grassroots activism at the local level is also needed.
I understand your concerns with regard to San Francisco. And thanks for the info on the AD meetings. Someone else just posted that info to the
SF4O listMy concern, however, primarily relates to what can be done on the national level.
The proposed Growing a Grassroots, Activist Democratic Party resolution reads:
WHEREAS, the Democratic Party has primarily been a mechanism for working on elections;
WHEREAS, the Party could work year-round to advance its platform;
WHEREAS, the Democratic National Committee could provide leadership for this effort;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that once a month the Democratic National Committee (DNC) should recommend to all Americans that they communicate a specific message to their Congresspersons, Senators, and President on a top-priority, timely issue consistent with the Party platform;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that each local body of the Party should foster a sense of community among its members and ask them to consider acting on the DNC’s monthly recommendation.
If Eric, Aaron, and the other progressive leaders presented that resolution to the SF Central Committee and that committee presented it to the State Committee,and progressives in a few other counties did the same, do you think that the State Committee might adopt itl? If not, why not?
Also, in general, what do you see as the roadblocks to turning the State party into an activist organization?
It seems to me that a very large percentage of the Obama activists in San Francisco identify much more strongly with the Obama movement than they do with the Democratic Party, and would be more inclined to plug into an independent operation. Do you agree?
cc: Eric Mar (to avoid replying to all)
1. The SF DCCC might vote to endorse your resolution to the CDP central
committee, or at the very least it should prompt some lively
discussion. As to whether the State committee would adopt it, I'm not
sure. The CDP alternates between platform changes one year and passing
resolutions the next. When it's a resolutions year, there will be
well over one hundred resolutions which go through the Resolutions
committee and finally, when the full Central Committee votes, often
dozens of resolutions will be approved. To be honest, even if a
resolution of this sort passed, I'm not sure what impact it would have.
2. I think there are many roadblocks to turning the CDP into more of an
activist organization than it already considers itself to be. I say
"considers" because from my experience it really isn't set up to
nurture much grassroots activism as you and I understand it. Decades
ago the CDP created the CDC---California Democratic Council---to help
organize activists coming from all the Democratic clubs state wide.
That organization still exists, but it is not very visible nor do most
of the grassroots activists at least in the cities use it as a vehicle
for organizing. Meanwhile, many local Democratic parties including SF
have made a push to organize certain types of grassroots activism such
as voter registration. However, when it comes to advocacy for certain
policy positions, most of the action resides either with the local
Democratic clubs or outside groups such as SF for Democracy locally,
and on a national level, DFA, PDA, etc. Also, if you think the
local Obama folk should focus on party structures for grassroots
activism, then it does become important for some of these new activists
to "infiltrate" the CDP through the AD delegate election process.
3. As an aside, I can offer one tool for state-wide activism for any
Obama activists who manage to be elected or appointed as delegates.
It's called the Grassroots Delegates and Officers list serve and I serve
as the moderator for that group. Presently we are discussing how we
feel about the declared candidates to replace Art Torres as Chair of the
CDP. This communications tool has also proved helpful over the years to
promote and refine proposed resolutions.
4. When you say that probably a large percentage of Obama activists in
San Francisco would identify more strongly with an independent group
than the Democratic party, I agree. For the record, San Francisco
for Democracy has no affiliation with the Democratic party, nor does
Democracy for America. I mention this because even though it seems you
would like to form an independent Obama grassroots group, if that
doesn't materialize for whatever reason I think Obama folk should
consider SF for Democracy as a friendly base of operations for future
activism, which includes lobbying the Obaba administration on an
issue-by-issue basis.
Tom
Wade:
->Your response is helpful. A good reality check. Perhaps one benefit of getting CA bodies to endorse the Resolution would be that it could demonstrate interest in the idea to Barack and his people. National leadership would certainly help get the ball over the hump. And it seems top-level leadership in the CDP is important too.
Why do you say the CDP is not "set up" to nurture activism? Are the old CDC groups a roadblock? Could the County Committees coordinate local activism?
The Grassroots Delegates and Officers listserv sounds great. How many members do you have? Congratulations. Perhaps you folks could grill the candidates for Chair about their commitment to grassroots activism, if you aren't already.
Tom:
->The county committees are primarily focused on endorsements, fund raisers and maybe voter registration. The CDP is primarily focused on the same kinds of things, plus formulating policy through resolutions and platforms. The real grassroots activism is supposed to occur at the club level, and the clubs are supposed to coordinate state-wide through the CDC. So it's not that the CDC is a roadblock, but rather sort of irrelevant to many clubs. Here in SF few clubs send representatives to the CDC meetings. The grassroots list serve has about 170 delegates subscribed at this point. I would like to see the number go up as a result of the January AD elections.
Wade:
->Interesting. If Obama for America merges with the DNC and turns it into an activist organization, maybe local folks will be more interested in transforming the CDP. It seems that if and when such interest emerges, we might need to consider whether to revive the CDC or supplant it. How does one get onto the grassroots listserv?
